Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Injunction

How should be handle this injunction against the movie? Ed Brayton mentions it here [1], Wes Elsberry here[2]. The original source document is a pay-only court ruling, although someone reproduced it in the comments at Brayton's site. Between Ed and Wes we can say pretty reliably that an injunction was handed down against Premise Media preventing the further distribution of the film (pending a May 19 hearing). It's also obvious that I don't know what "further distribution" means. Although they are self-published sources, they're both reliable sources for the opinion of their authors.

I'm leaning towards a bald statement of fact:

In response to the lawsuit by Ono and the Lennons, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19.

Alternately,

Ed Brayton and Wesley Elsberry reported that, in response to the lawsuit by Ono and the Lennons, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19.

(with full refs, of course). Thoughts? Preferences? Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Th

I like, "In response to the lawsuit by Ono and the Lennons, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19." RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the lawsuit is already mentioned, how about "In response to the lawsuit, a federal judge...". (A) "Ono and the Lennons" sounds like the name of a band, and (B) it's then and the recording company who sued Premise Media. Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is mentioned now by Uncommon Descent [3] we have people on both sides of the ID debate reporting the injunction. So I think if both agree on something that handles most of the RS issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is mention of the Berlin Wall imagery under the heading of Nazism?

Are the authors of this article that out-of-touch with history? The Berlin Wall was built some 16 years after the eradication of the Nazi party, and it was built to separate the two forces that defeated the Nazis and divided Berlin. I'm removing the reference from that paragraph. Dolewhite (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Attacking the content of the article in this way really is not helpful. At most the organization and headings should be tweaked, rather than just attacking things that people think make the filmmakers look like jerks. Whitewashing this is not going to fly.--Filll (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? He corrected something in the article that was terribly misleading.Joe3472 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point made, although in a rather condescending way. I'll see if that's been fixed yet. Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article about a movie?

This reads like a paranoid refutation of the movie's thesis. This type of reactionary response bolsters Stein's that some people are afraid to discuss certain ideas. ID is just an idea. There is no dogmatic attack that will make any idea go away. The more one tries to contain ideas, the more people will want the "forbidden knowledge".

It is true that one cannot prove the universe or life was intelligently designed. It is also true that one cannot empirically prove entropy created life. The movie does not attempt to answer this question either side of this question. Among other things, the film puts focus on the fact that some (like our "editors" here) feel very threatened and angry that rational thinkers might consider the possibility of intelligent design.

To those who will not consider the possibility of ID, I ask have you considered the possibility that Stonehenge was formed by glaciers and erosion? Have you considered the fact that Stonehenge is a heck of a lot less complicated than any component of life?

Either way, it matters not. The length of this article, the level of interest by those who wish to suppress the movie, and the passion of those who are clueless point to the need for less verbiage, more openness and greater objectivity. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:TALK – this page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, not for venting your own feelings. As its producers state, this is a controversial film, and we cover the controversy which is rather more notable than what 91% of film critics rate as a rotten movie. .. dave souza, talk 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The level of energy you have devoted to this controversy (as opposed to many other controversies and controversial movies) speaks volumes about the POV of embedded admins at Wikipedia. What's so bad about letting people make up their own minds? 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Things can get pretty rough and biased around here occasionally, thanks for your support but, it's a lot more helpful to us if you suggest a way we can fix it, not just tell us to. Saksjn (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

5 points for discussion in the Lead section

I said.....I don't know how long ago, but a while...that I was going to go through and sum up all the problems with the article that night, but I got busy with real life and I'm only getting around to it now, also it's become clear just from me closely examining the intro that if I went through the whole article my post here would be longer than the article is now, and it's too long. So I'll work my way down until I reach the end of the article or the arguments die away. so starting with the introduction

Numbered and topiced for ease of arguing discussion

1Grammar/style:"controversial 2008 independent documentary film" is a bit of a mouthful, ideally I'd say just have 'independant documentary film' but I'm sure that idea will be torn to shreds, so how about "controversial independent documentary film, released on 18th April 2008"....or perhaps just 'released in 2008'.

2Grammar/style/length:Instead of "suppresses criticism of both the evidence for evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the theory explaining this evidence." what about just "suppresses criticism of the evidence for evolution and of the modern evolutionary synthesis"

3POV: Linking to teleological argument seems to be a minor POV issue (and the many minor POV issues are what add up to one big argument), not all IDers are insisting there is a god, others have aliens or whatever....

4Giving the impression of POV:The propaganda section, I think should say something along the lines of 'reviews from the scientific community have described the film as propaganda' instead of what's there now, because at the moment it's put as if the two cites are from mainstream movie critics, rather than scientists who are obviously biased against the film. Of course this point would be completely nullified if any mainstream movie critics called it propaganda: just give them as examples rather than newscientist... There are it seems many non scientific sources describing it as propaganda, so my point here is now to recommend we use those as examples of what's calling it propaganda instead.

5Grammar/style: currently "Postive reviews have come primarily from some religious right, conservative and creationist media outlets." instead I suggest "Some religious right, conservative and creationist media outlets have given the film postive reviews." Purely personal preference of how it reads.

Thoughts?Restepc (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also what the hell is going on with that thing below above? why was it hatted? it seems to be trying to work out how to 'fix' the article Restepc (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The hat had been put on another section, but it seemed to be subsuming all new sections into it as well. I assumed there was a problem with the markup, but couldn't find it, so I just deleted the darn thing. A brief response to your points:

1. I think the phrasing you suggest is fine.
2. Good suggestion.
3. I disagree here. I don't see a POV problem, and I've never heard of an ID proponent who wasn't a christian.
4. I'm not 100% sure which section you're refering to, but if you mean "General Media", it needs to be gutted, not just reworded  : )
5. Personally I'm ok with either way of phrasing it, both seem fine. Doc Tropics 05:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Of those three terms - controversial, independent, documentary - controversial is the most important one, because that's the reason it's notable. Independent is probably the least important descriptor, and the one that has been used least in media coverage.
2. I'd go for "modern evolutionary theory" - I think that's superior to "modern synthesis" ("modern evolutionary synthesis is a Wikipedia construct, as far as I know).
3. ID is teleological. This has been discussed at length at the ID article. The library of congress lists ID as teleology, and the term "teleological" has been used extensively by ID proponents. No one has seriously suggested aliens, that's just a throw-away statement by Behe.
4. "reviews from the scientific community..." is inaccurate - the term has been used more widely (e.g., by Derbyshire). The two examples are not from "obviously biased" sources - they are from top-quality sources that are probably some of the most unbiased sources you will find.
5. The existing phrasing is much better. Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

3. I thought there were, but on reading up apparently there aren't...must have got that from somewhere though, but yes, scrap that point.

4. To clarify I'm referring to the introduction, specifically "The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable, receiving a 9% ("Rotten") meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews, including those of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and New Scientist have described the film as propaganda.[8][9] The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)",[10] while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."[11]". It's not a major issue but should be mentioned that the propaganda label has come from science focused sources, not regular film critics. Restepc (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See #Propagand cat above – "For information, going through some film reviews, the following all use the term, in some cases to describe the film techniques and in others as a film type or category. NYT, USA Today, Chicago Reader, TV and FILM - NJ.com, Mountain Xpress, FlickFilosopher.com, Slant Magazine, village voice, OrlandoSentinel. .. dave souza, talk 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)" These are film reviews, not "science focussed sources" . . . dave souza, talk 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's use those ones to cite propaganda then, rather than science focused sources which are, despite their usual high reliability, going to be thought of as biased against a film which attacks the scientific establishment. Does anyone have any objection to changing the examples of propaganda calling in the lead from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and New Scientist to....something else? USA today sounds like a good one, but maybe an american would know better which would be the biggest/most well respected non-science based source (or two) out of those dave lists. Restepc (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Restepc the lead previous made one of those generic "science community...." and after some discussions I specified the two science related groups you now see in the lead. As is the lead indicates how the mainstream media, a few science related examples and the sympathetic groups have received the movie. I think this is a good thing. Can you be more specific about your objection(s) to the two science sources? Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

put yourself in a fundamentalist IDers shoes and read it, I think they'd be thinking something along the lines of 'ha! of course 'big science' says it propaganda, why is wikipedia quoting them when they're obviously biased?'. And from an anti-ID perspective, surely regular movie reviews calling it propaganda is....stronger...than science people, who are obviously not neutral parties to this film, saying it. Or, you could leave them as representative of the science communities reaction to it, which makes sense...but say that they're the science community, so as to avoid giving the impression that they're trying to be passed off as 'normal'/unbiased movie reviews. Like I said, it's not the end of the world how it is, but lots of little things like that often build up an impression over the course of an article. Restepc (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, yeah...but they're also likely to buy into the myth that the mainstream media is biased, and that Christians are persecuted in the US, that the gays are trying to convert their children and that the government is coming to take away their guns. We can't restructure our articles to accommodate paranoia. These are high-quality, reliable sources. We should stick with them. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay so in reply to my points, I'm thinking the general response is 1 and 2 yes, 3 and 5 no, and 4...well how about I leave the new scientist but replace the other science example with USA Today? That should be everyone happy I think. Restepc (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Accept the idea of using USA Today, the New Scientist is subscription only so Scientific American has advantages. The AAAS statement is more significant for calling the film dishonest and divisive, and linking it to the legislative campaigns. That's also covered in the WSJ, so I've made the suggested changes and moved the AAAS statement to a new paragraph noting the legislative campaigns, as required by WP:LEAD to summarise points in the article. .. dave souza, talk 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article need to include criticism at all? Can't it merely describe the movie in neutral terms? Isn't that the end goal here? --Novan Leon (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ carefully. .. dave souza, talk 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with both of these articles. The problem here isn't just the massive bias overkill in the article, but it's virtual uselessness as a resource on the movie itself. You literally have to wade through paragraphs of criticism in order to pick out information about the movie. This article should be a good resource for neutral information concerning the movie. Excessive amounts of criticism like this should be split off into a "Criticism of" sister article. --Novan Leon (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are familiar with them, you would not be suggesting something that is discouraged under Wikipedia policies, would you?--Filll (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain your point any further than merely referencing two entire policy pages? Care to explain why a point-by-point refutation of every topic submitted in the movie, is necessarily relevant to an article about the movie itself? Consider the Wikipedia article about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which is well formed and focuses primarily on information relevant to the article itself. Compare the two articles and you can easily spot the differences in form and content. --Novan Leon (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Critical sites

After discussion with JoshuaZ and dave souza, I have two proposals regarding the section Critical sites:

1. Change the heading to Criticism sites. Every time I see 'critical', I think 'crucial sites'.

2. Add a 3rd external reference which includes links and analysis I haven't seen elsewhere.

Opinions, please? Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism sites" is ungrammatical. Guettarda (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hes right, keep it the way it is. Besides, there has been enough minor tweaking and changing headings and points by just one word or two. Joe3472 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Critical sites does sound a tiny bit misleading... but its nothing major. Lets stick with critical. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but unfortunately words have more than one meaning. "Critical" is the adjectival form of "criticism". The alternative (pro- and anti-) adds an adversarial slant that I think isn't warranted (or rather, isn't something we can prove). Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sites in Opposition? Oppositional sites?

In the meantime, other sites were brought to my attention, a religious site started up in response to Expelled, the Christian Alliance for Progress, and the American Textbook League.

Does anyone object to these sites?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They're nice sites, and indeed the Clergy Letter Project has its own article, but they make no specific reference to the film. Odd coincidence – while looking at the textbook league page, I found a reference to Glencoe Science: Life Science just as there was a news item on the telly about the road up to Glen Coe ;) . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering Dave, are you from Scotland or England? Just wondering. Saksjn (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Never ask a Scot if he's English. It can be hazardous to your health. :) Guettarda (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to be cautious about turning the article into a link farm.--Filll (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

this edit

Okay, overall the edit needed to be reverted, but this sentence should be kept. So far it's the most accurate description of the tone of the film. Especially it's advertising. "The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions." That is basically the biggest point the film makers were trying to make with the film. 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be tanking

Down to 656 theatres, and probably going to lose more tomorrow (as Friday is the day theatres change films). [4] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! BTW, the above comment is on topic and NPOV. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It ran for 3 weeks (I think) though... not that bad for an independent film. I wouldn't call it tanking... it's just slowing down like any other movie. Saksjn (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah all movies have a finite shelf life. This one was made for a choir and it would seem the choir have all seen it now. Midnight Gardener (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, true, but at this point, whether it'll make back enough to cover its production expenses - particularly given the legal battles and all the school ticket reimbursement schemes - is questionable. Not good. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure for some of the producers, making money was not the purpose. But in other news... --Ali'i 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They are in a financial hole for sure, Stein is on record saying he does not care if it makes a dime all he wants is to see (legislative) change. Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, this is the definition of tanking.  :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruloff has announced that the entire point of making the film and showing it was to be a rallying point for the passage of the Academic Freedom bills. They now intend to go around to dozens of state legislatures to try to get them to pass this ridiculous attempt to smuggle religion into US public school science classrooms.

And this time, their attempt did not work very well because the filmmakers were somewhat amateurish, and the thesis of the film was very poorly chosen. I read someplace that the average take per theatre per day at the start of this week was below 100 dollars. So this movie's day in the sun has pretty much passed for now, unless the "Imagined" lawsuit gains more prominence for it, or this Academic Freedom bill movement starts to take hold. Otherwise, it will just turn into one of the thousands of forgotten DVDs cranked out by creationist cranks.--Filll (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It really makes one wonder if Wikipedia really is a written from a neutral point of view. Apparently some of the people who write the articles think that creationists are cranks. Maybe these people should refrain from editing articles about creation given that there are a significant number of people who believe in creation.  :) JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal point of view is irrelevant. Read WP:Writing for the Enemy. If you look back at the version of this article at the end of December 2007, that was mainly the product of my personal writing as you can obviously discern. The present version retains only a small amount of my own contributions. I measured the article at 90 percent pro-ID and pro-creationism and pro-film at the end of December 2007 after I was done working on it. If you look back in the talk page archives at that time, the long and positive sections on the interviews with the producers were written by me, and others fought to remove them (I think they finally were lost because it is too long now). And I fought to keep those interviews in there, which were mainly positive to creationism and intelligent design. If you look at Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, most of the positive pro-creationism material that has been recently removed was written by me. If you look at Beyond Intelligent Design, most of that article was written by me and it is mainly pro-creationism. If you look at the now deleted article All About God, it was almost all pro-creationism, and written almost entirely by me. So where is your problem with my writing?

And you think creationists only should write articles on evolution and creationism? You think that would make things better? Yeah right...--Filll (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize Filll, I shouldn't have said that you and others should refrain from writing these articles. I appreciate all your work on the articles. I'm sorry for saying that, and I hope you will forgive me. The first part of my comment was directed my possibly wrong impression of a comment by someone else earlier in this thread and at your comment about "creationist cranks." I do hope that comment was not meant to mean that all creationists are cranks. Was it? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are obviously cranks on all sides of this dispute of course. And there is probably a lot of disagreement about what consitutes a "creationist" as well as what constitutes a "Christian" or what "evolution" is. To define exactly what I mean by a "creationist crank" would entail a fairly long discussion. But in general, I would classify anyone who wants to deny plain well established scientific evidence to advance some agenda probably might be viewed as a bit of a crank. For example, claims that laboratory evidence (speciation of fruit flies and bacterial antibiotic resistance) and field observations (such as divergent speciation on either side of the Great Wall of China, and existence of nylon-consuming species) and genetic evidence for evolution (such as endogenous retrovirus fingerprints, and a teleomere in the middle of human chromosome number 2) do not exist just staggers the imagination. Yet, such people exist, and they are extremely loud. People who claim that the earth and the universe is only 6000 years old and that everyone else must be obliged to accept this by force, while denying evidence from well over 100 radioactive decay systems, dendochronology, benthic oceanic sediments, limnology, ice and snow layers, layers of coral growth, magnetic stripes on the sea floor and tectonics, redshifts, racemization processes and thousands of other pieces of evidence might be classified as approaching crankhood. And so on. --Filll (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this thread relevant to the article? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ken Miller Weighs in

Read it here Midnight Gardener (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Here's a formatted ref, there are several useful points discussed.< ref name=miller>Kenneth R. Miller (May 8, 2008). "Trouble ahead for science". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-05-08.< /ref> .. . dave souza, talk 13:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Stien's "science leads you to killing people" comment wasn't very smart. But, we can't expect him to be more than an actor. His opinion on that isn't the majority opinion in ID. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't expect him to be anything, but someone obviously thought he'd make some kind of scriptwriter :) . . dave souza, talk 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave there are several points Miller makes that the article does too. Maybe we should look for replacing some of the point made in the article with comments by Miller. If I am making any sense that is Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and is that formatted ref for me? I actually figured out refs and started carrying my own weight recently :-) Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not – just thought the article was good and with this tool it's easier to get the title formatted than to do it manually. My aim was to reference some points in the article, and add it without the refs. tags here, but was beaten to it! And had to go out for a bit, glad to see progress :) . . dave souza, talk 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see someone else picked up on this "science leads you to murder" theme. These religious extremists and polemicists need to be hoisted by their own petards and have their faces shoved into the filth they are creating. They are disgusting and deserve to be exposed for what they are: narrow-minded bigots. We should use Miller's op ed for sure. --Filll (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than rally people en masse like Passion of the Christ, or change the culture like An Inconvenient Truth, this film embarasses these jerks. And Stein might have dealt his career a bad blow when this all calms down. Mathis as well. If they had succeeded, the march on the state legislatures with the Academic Freedom Bills would have been much harder to stop.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, what stopped the "march" in Florida was them tripping over their own shoelaces by being unable to agree on compatible bills in the state House & Senate. It could be argued that Expelled did its work too well -- fired up the Religious Right in the legislature so much that they were unable to compromise even among themselves. And past experience has taught me that it is impossible to make true believers feel embarrassment about things related to their beliefs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Academic Freedom bill movement is still quite potent and dangerous, and is cleverly crafted. It might still catch on and make headway. Just a temporary setback in Florida because the bills could not be reconciled means very little. People should not pat themselves on the back too much.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- relying on your opponent's continued incompetence is a very risky strategy. A better strategy, that some are already using, is to drive a wedge between social conservatives and the pro-business (and thus pro-high tech and thus science) lobby on this issue. The Wall Street Journal has offered a very jaundiced interpretation of these bills' intent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A brief Ken Miller interview found here. Check it out, Miller, not only is this trouble maker a devout Christian but he does not tow the party line meaning he does not agree with Dawkins on every single thing yet Miller has not been fired, denied tenure, terrorized, water boarded or forced to watch endless reruns of the The Roseanne Barr Show. Not only does Miller dangerously mention the word "God" he wrote a book on the subject a few years back and yet he still walks the earth a free man, unmolested by science. What's up with that? Midnight Gardener (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill, is "narrow minded bigots necessary." By the way, what is your definition of "religious extremists." Saksjn (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not necessary, but I think it is apt. Suppose I said that all people with brown eyes are born killers, and that something should be done. Do you not think that is slightly bigoted?

Defining religious extremists is a bit difficult, and I could write a lot about it. There are clearly extremists of every religious persuasion, such as Sunnis and Shiites and Sufis and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Shintoists and Zoroastrians and so on. I think one part of religious extremism is the unwillingness to allow others to follow their own religious path; basically, intolerance. But it is more than just intolerance- it is a certain aggressive attitude and disdain for others, it is a willingness to subscribe to beliefs that are the opposite of the purported foundation of their faith for extremist purposes. For example, I have had many arguments with fundamentalist Christians who maintain that no place in the bible does it describe the Golden Rule, and Jesus never is reported in the bible to have said "love thy neighbor as thyself". And several have told me that Jesus' main message to his followers was to go out and slaughter those who did not profess belief in every word of the Old Testament; in fact, it was not so much a message, as a command to go out and kill others. Now someone who has subscribed to beliefs like that I might classify as a bit of a religious extremist. How would you categorize them?--Filll (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We should only use Miller's piece if it fulfills a function that is not already being met in the article. We are not going to use it because we want to have creationists/religious extremists "hoisted by their own petards and have their faces shoved into the filth they are creating".

And guys? I would point out that everything past Filll's last post has nothing to do with how to improve the article. Can we please keep this on topic? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. We will use Miller's piece as a source only if it provides valuable information. Not because it advances some particular agenda or other.--Filll (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing apples, oranges and tomatoes

People keep trying to compare Expelled with Bowling for Columbine, An Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11. Expelled does not compare will with the others. While each of these is considered a documentary that's about all they have in common with Expelled. Let's look at what they don't have in common:

An Inconvenient Truth won an Acdemy Award for Best Documentary (and Best documentary by at least 17 other film critic associations) and Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 93% rating with 141 positive reviews and 11 rotten ones.

Bowling for Columbine won Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, the Independent Spirit Award for Best Documentary Feature, Winner, International Documentary Association (IDA), - Best Documentary of All Time, Most Popular International Film" at the 2002 Vancouver International Film Festival and the César Award for Best Foreign Film. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 96% rating with 152 positive reviews and 6 negative ones.

Fahrenheit 9/11 won the highest award (Palme d'Or) at the Cannes Film Festival and the People's Choice Award for Favorite Motion Pictureand Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 84% rating with 183 positive reviews and 36 negative ones. It has also generated 220 million worldwide.

Expelled has won the Philip E Johnson award (which would be like me awarding myself the Wikipedia Best Editor Award) and it has a 9% rating at Rotten Tomatoes with 30 negative reviews and 3 positive ones.

I keep saying a better movie to compare it to is Battlefield Earth which has a 3% rating at Rotten Tomatoes with 111 negative reviews and 3 positive ones. Pretty much everyone hated this flick, much like Expelled.

So yeah if the article looks biased it's because it is biased. Virtually everyone who does not have religious motives has trashed this film. The films own market research shows hardly anyone who is not a conservative evangelical is even seeing the movie.

What I am saying does not suggest the article could not use some improvements but being controversial does not make Expelled legitimate nor does being a "documentary" put it in the same category as the Gore and Moore films. The negative reaction reaction to Expelled is unprecendented for a documentary and we have never in the history of film making seen the science community come out swinging at a mockumentary like we see with Expelled.

Some people also keep complaining the article does not have a blow by blow plot summary. Well feel free to write one. It's an encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you look like an anyone start writing a plot summary. Midnight Gardener (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, but even more than simply getting bad reviews, this movie has been criticized for a much wider variety of reasons than any of those other films. For example:

• It supports pseudoscience and attacks legitimate science.
• It directly copied another film and was issued a cease-and-desist for it.
• It deliberately mislead people about the nature of the film to trick them into taking part in those films.
• The company producing it got sued for using unlicensed music and got the rights to other music under false pretenses.
• It claims to tell the truth about people, but makes gross errors of fact about those people to prove a point.
• People interviewed in the film had their words edited to take them out of context.
• It lays the blame of the Holocaust on a group of people unrelated to the event due to clearly stated religious motivations.
• They kicked out someone from a pre-screening of the film who was actually in the film.
• It blames a non-existent shadowy cabal for censorship and blackballing people simply due to their beliefs.

And I'm leaving out a number of other criticism. The film isn't just "bad", it also has a wide variety of other valid criticisms. The Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article is in a league of its own for the number of criticism of any film in Wikipedia simply because the film itself is in a league of its own for the number of problems related to it. Expecting it to match articles for other films which have only a fraction of those criticisms is, as you pointed out, like comparing apples and oranges. -- HiEv 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. 99.162.231.213 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I forgot to log in. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RC-0722: HiEv was merely demonstrating why the treatment of this movie should diverge from the treatment of previous controversial documentaries. As such it is pertinent to the article, not merely the general topic. If editors don't want their comments addressed and rebutted, then they need to not make them in the first place Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how saying, "Expelled is not fit to clean the toilet seats in the theaters those films played in." is helpful to improving the article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a little too obvious, isn't it? Film is horrible for cleaning toilets. It isn't absorptive, you can't make a very good toilet brush out of it...maybe you could loop it together into something like a pot-scrub? (Of course, this isn't specific to Expelled. We need an article on the Use of film for cleaning toilets). Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not required to divorce ourselves from creative analogies to illustrate a point. Furthermore, did you conveniently overlook the other dozens of sentences I wrote that you attempted to hide? Midnight Gardener (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This section IS about improving the article, it specifically discusses the limitations of comparing Expelled to other documentaries. That has been brought up numerous times. Sheesh...Midnight Gardener (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There really is no film that expelled can be compared too. It's a unique film that goes in it's own category. I think this is soapboxing because the opening post is a ll aobut how crappy the film is and how great the other ones were. We all know your opinion buddy. Saksjn (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, actually you do not know my opinion because I have only seen Bowling and I still can;t figure out what the point is in that movie. I'll delete the "toilet" comment only because it appears to be an all too easy distraction for RC-0722. Midnight Gardener (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A. OK, I didn't even archive this discussion. B. I already know what these other movies have won and that expelled has not won anything close to those awards. However, Expelled can be compared to those in the respect that they are all controversial, attempt to push a POV, and are documentaries. It's like comparing Indiana Jones and National Treasure. C. I am not easily distracted. I am ADD and can multitask like that. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the primary points I was making is that these films all have an enormous amout of positive response from the media and film associations. Expelled and Battleground Earth have received an avalanche of criticism. So it makes sense that this article does not look like the ones for Bowling, 911, C Truth. It looks more like the article for Battlefield, as it should. And my other point was yes this article lacks a "plot summary" where we go into detail about the movie. I brought that point up to encourage people to write one (instead of endlessly complaining about the lack of one).  :-) Midnight Gardener (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have a synopsis which carefully minimises getting into presenting claims that have to be set into majority view context, that's dealt with in the detailed sections. Verification is a difficulty due to the limited extent of reliable secondary sources, I've not seen one that gives a detailed 'plot summary'. Notes taken by people who've seen the film are problematic in terms of no original research, as selecting or interpreting really needs a secondary source. If the film makers have issued a 'plot summary' it could help, but that would be a primary source which needs verification. There may be blogs that give an outline, but they're not reliable sources. So, sources are a problem. . . dave souza, talk 20:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The film itself is a valid primary source. But until it's available on DVD, or a pirate version is posted on YouTube, it's difficult to verify what is said. --RenniePet (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave I hear what you're saying and I am not suggesting the plot thingy be a rehash of the talking points of the film, but it appears that every article in the Wiki world about a film includes a plot/movie summary except this one. The article as is addresses every talking point made in the movie but lacks a summary of the movie itself. It that makes any sense... Midnight Gardener (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The introductory part of the Overview section aims at providing just such a summary. It is limited by the lack of clear detail of the exact sequence in the film, as stated above. If we can find sources for a summary like "brief sections of interviews with scientists about the relationship of science and religious faith are intercut with illustrative film clips, then Stein interviews intelligent design proponents about their allegations of persecution" or that sort of sequence it would be useful, but we don't want to get a huge section with excessive detail in what's already a very large article, and as stated earlier it has to be written in a way that avoids making claims or arguments. It might be worth working on something in a sandbox or sub-page . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Science leads you to killing people."

Ali'i just attempted to move this quote to the Nazis/Eugenics section. I have moved it back as:

• That section is already overflowing with quotes (and where Ali'i moved it had it back-to-back with another pull quote -- which looked ugly and muddled).
• The context for the quote is:

Why is all this nonsense a threat to science? The reason is Stein's libelous conclusion that science is simply evil. In an April 21 interview on the Trinity Broadcast Network, Stein called the Nazi murder of children "horrifying beyond words." Indeed. But what led to such horrors? Stein explained: "that's where science in my opinion, this is just an opinion, that's where science leads you. Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."

It is therefore clear that Stein was talking about both the Nazi Holocaust connection and the purportedly atheistic nature of science (hence the contrast to "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place.") The quote is therefore applicable to both sections, and can therefore reasonably be placed in the Atheism one.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is much more applicable to the "Claim that Nazis were Darwinists" (or whatever that section is actually titled :-) )than the "Portrayal of science as atheistic" section. Stein claimed that the Holocaust was because of Darwin and evolution. Stein was therefore (I guess) calling Nazis atheists with that quote. I think to include it in the Science=Atheism section, perhaps the quote should be expanded (to include the "Love of God" sentence), but I still think he was referring to the Nazi atrocities with the "Science leads to killing" statement. I know the other section was hideous and crowded, but in my opinion, working the current pull quote into the body of the section, and putting this as the pull quote would be better. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it could arguably go in either section. Hrafn correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like your primary concern was that Ali'i's edit resulted in that section looking cluttered, a stylistic objection that I think could be overcome. True or false? Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern is with layout balance. The Nazi section already has 4 templated quotes -- which means that the section is already cluttered. I had to spend quite a bit of time mucking around to make even this level of quoting look halfway-decent. Of these, the opening and closing pull quotes are sufficiently important to framing the issue, that it would take something fairly earth-shattering to replace them. If the Stein quote were to go into this section at all it would probably have to replace the Gefter quote, whose applicability to the Nazis is far more obvious than the Stein one. On the other hand, the Stein quote is currently the only one in the 'Atheism' section, and is applicable there too. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref 35

There a cite error with reference 35, I have no idea how to fix it. --Woland (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems ok to me – do you mean "Mathis also questioned Miller's intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic because he accepts evolution.[35]", and if so, what's the problem? .. dave souza, talk 00:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

press release ADL

Questions could someone add that there was a press relase from ADL concerning in that organizations view the misuse of the trajedy of the holocaust for this film. Since that is a core part of the flim criticism from a group like the adl should be included http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm this is the link

For example if the movie made the same claim with slavery and the NAACP had a press release it would be included Please someone edit this thanks 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC) I added this section. Christopher ohio (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Please see the "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution" subsection. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment summary page?

Someone has created a page /Comments, which in my opinion should only be used for Wikiproject reviews. It was created by an IP. (I thought IPs can't create pages, but they can create talk pages it seems because sometimes an article might not have a talk page started.) This is in my opinion abusing the system, could some admin please just delete it, otherwise I will MfD it or something, alternatively someone from any of the Wikiprojects could just write a fair assessment. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add why I think it is abusive, the WikiBannerShell template automatically links to that page, if such a page exists; hence this gives prominence to some random opinion on the top of this talk page. Merzul (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points, have done. The content was:

"I was dissapointed in the blatant anti ID bias of this article. I just want to know what the movie is about; I really don't care if the author feels that evolution is fact because there is a "consensus" among scientists. If evolutionists are so secure in their understanding of the origins of life they should welcome debate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.93.56 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2008

Thanks for noting that. dave souza, talk 19:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Portrayal of Science as Atheistic" is misleading

The sub-heading, Portrayal of Science as Atheistic is as misleading as much of the article. An unfounded fervent, one might say, religious belief in Darwinism is portrayed as atheistic. Since most of those interviewed can objectively be viewed as scientists, whether one agrees with their position or not, and since not all of them are atheists, it is untrue that scientists (and by proxy, science) are portrayed as atheistic. The logic followed by the film makers is clear. Darwinists must deny the existence of God because, not only did Darwin not believe in God, his theory is replete with the foreclosure of the possibility of the existence of God. Conversely, believers may adopt aspects of biological science derived from Darwinism without conflict between their belief in God and science, after all, believers would say that God, is a God of science too. Free onyx (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain to me how climatology and astrophysics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism and abiogenesis and in fact all science since the scientific revolution a few centuries ago are Darwinism. Thanks so much.--Filll (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that to seek supernatural causes isn't the purpose of science. However how does this mean Darwinism has anything to do with electromagnetism or thermodynamics or other sciences that predate him? On the Origin of Species is fifteen decades old not "a few centuries." I think you are falling into what the makers of this movie did. You're taking something from biology and assuming it is the base/whole of all science. "Darwinism" is irrelevant to Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is relevant to Darwinism, in some ways, but that's because physics is the more basic building block of the Universe than biology. In the early Universe nothing was Darwinian, unless you believe Lee Smolin's unproven theory of Fecund Universes, but astrophysical forces existed. Even with Lee Smolin's theory the selection process of Universes doesn't make an exact fit [[with natural selection.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Climatology and astrophysics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism are all scientific endeavors, as they adhere to such foundations of science as the generation of testable hypotheses and being grounded in observation. Abiogenesis is not a part of science to date, because no scientific theories have held up to tests. It is a conjecture of the materialist paradigm that underlies science; that is very differen"t from it being a scientific field of inquiry in its own right. I challenge you to name a single scientific study relating to the observational support of abiogenesis. Dolewhite (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also the question of which of the many meanings of "Darwinism" are intended, and the factual error about Darwin's beliefs – "Darwin wants to convince you in this book that God has established laws of nature on Earth, as in the heavens, and these laws produce the forms of life that we observe".[5] Free onyx, did you get your misunderstanding from Expelled or is your comment off topic? Remember that a reliable source is needed for any interpretation or claim. ... dave souza, talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. I still think that Portrayal of 'Big Science' as atheistic would be good. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But how do we deal with the fact that "Big Science" is a term that has an existing meaning, and the fact that they don't define the term? Also, how do we source that? Our source for the assertion that [something] is atheistic talks about "the scientific endeavour", not "Big Science". Guettarda (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We deal with it this way: We state the facts; readers come up with their own interpretation. Also, as I have said, what are your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>You were given 2 published reliable sources for this. In classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT fashion, you have continued to throw puerile tantrums about this. I can probably get you another 50 sources on this. You know it, and I know it. You just want to seem to cause as much disruption as possible, however. Tsk tsk. Not very reasonable, is it?--Filll (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you, I am not trying to cause disruption. Also, you have yet to answer my question: What are your sources(not how many)? What is wrong with renaming the section "Portrayal of 'Big Science' as atheistic"? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I understand your point. You have referenced sources saying it means science. But My sources for calling it "Big Science" are from the movie. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Where online or in the media has a transcript of the movie been published? (2)Primary sources are deprecated and only to be used sparingly and secondary and tertiary sources are used to interpret them. These are rules that Wikipedia operates under. Learn them.--Filll (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Filll, the use of primary sources is not deprecated. Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for the use of primary sources. In this case, the movie is the primary source. It can be used to describe what the movie claims. However, since I have not seen the movie, I can be of no help in this particular instance. The question remains "what does the movie itself claim?" I'll let you all fight it out, but this seems to be the crux of the dispute. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you are selectively quoting policy in an essentially dishonest fashion, are you not? Nothing like violating WP:POINT, is there? Let's take a closer look since you seem to want to fight like crazed madmen about this:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. from [6] So care to tell me where a transcript of the movie has been published in a reliable source? After all, remember this has to satisfy WP:V. You cannot expect someone in a place that the movie has not been released in to be able to verify this. In 20 years, if there is no DVD (which there might never be), you cannot expect someone to be able to use the movie to verify this. There are also plenty of disagreements about the transcripts of movies because the sound is not always clear. And what part of only with care, because it is easy to misuse them did you not understand?

Similarly, Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. from [7] reinforces the idea that this needs to be a source that can be checked by anyone. If I am in the UK, where the movie has not been released yet, am I required to fly to the US and try to find a theatre where the movie is still playing? Completely unreasonble.

Also, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. from [8]. Seems pretty clear, doesnt it? What part do you not understand? Or choose to misunderstand perhaps?

My impression is that the phrase "Big Science" does not actually appear in the movie itself, but only appears in the promotional materials associated with the movie. So previously people here argued frantically that the promotional materials (which also include the phrase "science" without the "big") were not suitable and could not be used. And now we want to bend over and let you have your way since you feel somehow this presents the filmmakers in a more favorable light? Well that is just ridiculous. They have made repeated statements that they are anti-science. So, that is what we present. No whitewashing here. So what?--Filll (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone who drones on about assuming good faith, you seem to have misplaced yours here. I wasn't trying to deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent policy. All I stated was that primary sources can be used. I couldn't care less about this particular disagreement. If the movie says that science is atheistic, then state that. If they say that "Big Science" is atheiestic, then state that. If they claim Jesus was riding dinosaurs to crush the evil Romans, then state that. I don't care. Just please don't insult me by claiming I am trying to be deceptive in any way. The only thing I'll note is that your claim that since you are in the UK, it is unreasonable to use the film as a source is quite specious. I can, for instance, go to my local library and find a book that discusses the history of Kona, and cite the book as a source. Just because you personally might not be able to find the book locally does not mean that I cannot use it. Maybe that's what I'll do for a while, since my attempt to try and work here has been met with hostility. Mahalo nui loa, Filll. --Ali'i 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill got it right. The term "Big Science" does not appear in the film. Saksjn (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then I don't think we should be claiming the film states that. Mahalo for your insight, Saksjn. --Ali'i 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem may be the general attempts to oversimplify. If we wanted to be accurate, we would use less specific headers, and discuss what the movie says rather than reducing it all to two or three points. Part of this also seems to derive from the heavy use of a critical educational website for material. If I were breaking it down, it would probably be 1. Promotion of ID and 2. Claims that ID supporters are persecuted, if we wanted to separate it in this way, but I'd also separate these from the overview and put them into a section more directly described as critical review. Mackan79 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the term "Big Science" does appear in the film. Also, yes excess simplicity can be a bad thing, and I think this article has been over simplified just a little. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow such confusion. And nonsense. --Filll (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wow such confusion. And nonsense." Care to explain? I would figure it out myself but I'm too confused. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Count me among those who honestly can't tell when Filll is being serious. Mackan79 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not interested in fighting with you or taking the WP:BAIT. But you are not just wrong, but well beyond that.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets continue the discussion and drop the insults now. Before the thread got derailed, RC-0722 said "Actually the term "Big Science" does appear in the film.". If the term big science appears in the film, that is what needs to be headlined. Joe3472 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been explained here over and over and over and over and over, no. You are incorrect for many reasons. Are you actually practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Well you are doing a good job. But it is not particularly compelling. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I think everyone heard you, the question is whether we should use what the film itself says or what your source that you seem reluctant to actually bring up says in one place but not another. Right here some 7 people seem to support a change, while 3 or 4 seem to think what the article has is accurate. Your contribution appears to be to try to derail the discussion. That aside, I agree with Joe it would be interesting to know what the movie says, if anyone has a quote. I'd still prefer to reorganize the article a little to rely less on our summations of their agenda, but knowing what the movie said on this would certainly help. Mackan79 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, already we've different accounts from viewers of the message the film conveys, and so we need to use reliable secondary sources rather than using the impressions of editors who've seen the film. .. dave souza, talk 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is world net daily a reliable secondary source? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, no. Well, they're a reliable source for the opinions of their commentators, yes. But they aren't a reliable source when it comes to facts. Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. They are reliable for some things, but not for this for sure. Certainly not to the point of ignoring NCSE and Scientific American and literally hundreds of other sources.--Filll (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But an educational website entitled "Expelled Exposed" is what we should use to summarize the movie's thesis? This seems rather inconsistent. Mackan79 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR requires us to use a reliable secondary source for analysis and interpretation. Don't forget that a film conveys more than the words used in it. ... dave souza, talk 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840] A direct quote from Ben Stein. Note the words "Big Science" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" gives the impression that "Big Science" is suppressing "smart new ideas" in America's classrooms"[9] Once again, note the words "Big Science" in quotation marks. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"literally hundreds of other sources" OK, what are the sources? Give me more than two. Also, can you give me the exact points where they say it is? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ben Stein—law professor, actor, game show host, and now a documentary filmmaker—thinks he has uncovered a plot by the scientific establishment to drum good scientists out of academia merely for expressing their personal beliefs. Has big science decided that science and religion are mutually exclusive? An examination of the battle lines and players in such a drama would make a fascinating movie. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is not that movie." [10] Now, Chemical & Engineering News (a secular, peer-reviewed publication that had a negative response to the movie) says not only "Big Science" but it also equates "Big Science" as the scientific establishment. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know how this game is played. We give you 2, you ask for 4. We give you 4, you ask for 8. We give you 8, you ask for 16. There are many many comments from all sides of this issue that identify the target of their opprobrium as science not just "Big Science". Of course we can find similar comments about biology or organized science or mainstream science etc. Maybe we will dig more up for you. In the meantime, you are not making a very compelling case to get us to ignore two reliable sources and even a contradictory primary source (which we cannot use, but it is telling). --Filll (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I didn't ask for a specific number of sources. You said you had hundreds of sources backing your claim. All I asked for was the specific statements in the ones you keep mentioning that say it means "science" and not the scientific establishment. Also, I don't play "games" at this level, although I will gladly play you at Star Wars: Battlefront 2 or Halo sometime. Just look up "A Little Girl." BTW, you are retracting your previous statement that you had hundreds of sources backing your claim. Again, all I am asking for is the specific statements (links are prefered) from the two sources you keep referencing that it means science and not scientific establishment. I will give you some links later that say scientific establishment. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No I am not disagreeing that hundreds of sources exist. I just am weighing how many hours I want to devote to what is basically a pointless pursuit, since I know what sort of games are played, thanks.--Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be most interested what the movie says. If it's a question of what the sources say, I've seen many many more sources discussing the target of the criticism as a "scientific establishment," than simply "science." The entire marketing scheme of the movie tries to suggest people have been expelled by this "establishment," and is based on the alleged irony that people would exclude ideas in the name of "science." I've seen Filll point to an educational website to support his claim, but there are many others including the same site which suggest this wasn't accurate. Filll, would you clarify if your hundreds of sources specifically say the movie calls science atheistic, or is it some other point you have in mind? If you're talking about hundreds of sources, I get the feeling we're not talking about the same thing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie is not a reliable source for anything since it is a primary source. How many times do you have to be told this? We even have two different viewers of the movie here who disagree with the movie said. So that is just basically worthless. --Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No its not. Odd nature (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What's not? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] These are just some of the articles I have found, claiming that "Big Science" is simply the scientific establishment. Now, I have contacted Mr. Stein asking for his input on this discussion, and have asked him for the meaning of "Big Science" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stein is not a reliable source on anything. And an email to you or a phone call to you even less so. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. The article on Ben Stein states that it is the scientific community, not science itself. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We can find sources that say:

• Big Science
• biology
• evolution
• Darwinism
• Science
• Science establishment
• Mainstream Science
• Scientists

and so on. All kinds of sources. And we have all kinds of other information that lead us directly to "science". Like what is astrophysics? What is light? What is gravitational theory? What is thermodynamics? And please tell me how you can attack "methodological naturalism" and not attack science itself? At least any science since the Scientific Revolution. So this conversation is just basically nonsense.--Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question. I want the URL or page number of the articles that say that "Big Science" is science. Also, we are not arguing over "what is astrophysics? What is light? What is gravitational theory? What is thermodynamics? And please tell me how you can attack "methodological naturalism" and not attack science itself?" That's not the point, we are trying to decide whether we should rename the section. Also, in Wikipedia's article on Ben Stein, we state that it is not science but the scientific community. In addition, you have yet to give me an exact example of what you are stating, from the sources that you keep touting. All I am getting is quantities; I am not getting an example of what you are stating, whilst I have given you several of what I have stated. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous request. You are setting up a strawman. And if you have been following on the page you know what the relevance of astrophysics,s light, gravity thermodynamics and methodological naturalism are to this question, dont you? You are just engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And who cares about Ben Stein's article? Whatever it says is irrelevant, from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You have had 2 references which you just ignored. I am sure if I gave you 50 more you would just ignore them also. I think the only solution is for you to be blocked for a few days to think it over so you do not continue to violate WP:POINT and WP:DE and WP:TE. What do you say? Sound good to you?--Filll (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(crickets) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two fairly basic fallacies, Filll. First, you appear to be assuming that to reject evolutionary theory is to reject all evidence of it. Second, you're assuming because these things are science, that science is just these things. Of course assumptions aren't all bad, but when you're applying these to what they're said to portray, then it's a problem. My real question is why we don't just say what it is. The Wedge strategy is to portray evolution as atheistic, not science as atheistic unless I'm mistaken. If we want to say it's part of their Wedge strategy, then we should at least get it right. Or even if that had nothing to do with it. It seems like a pretty simple point. Mackan79 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not assuming such nonsense. You are just spewing a stream of non sequiturs and meaningless foolishness. Why do you want to clog the page with junk? I think you need to be userfied.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Filll) I've checked the archives, and the only ref I missed agrees with me. [17] "Expelled’s main theme is that intelligent design is under systematic attack by “Big Science” – the scientific establishment – which refuses to recognize its scientific validity because of a previous commitment to atheism and materialism." Now, as I have already said, where are the sources backing your claim? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah nice case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe time for some administrative sanctions, right?--Filll (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's OK with everybody, I am going to change the section name to "Portrayal of the scientific establishment as atheistic" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not ok. We've discussed this already. It contradicts our sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is not OK with everybody. You are arguing tendentiously and now wanting to go and unilaterally edit against consensus. You will be reverted and a huge edit war will start. Is that what you want?--Filll (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There is absolutely no need to change it at this point. --Ali'i 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing here is freaking OK with everybody, nothing ever will be. We just need to find a compromise somewhere. Saksjn (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. There is no compromise between X, which has lots of reliable sources and Y, which is original research. We take RS every time. Expelled attacks science, because it is fundamentally anti-science. That's a statement backed up by reliable sources. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Would putting the word "accusation" in the title ("Accusation that the film is anti-science") be a reasonable compromise? I agree that there are lots of reliable sources for the accusation, but it is an accusation, and not providing that context in the title is what worries me. Any thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "allegation", or "inference", or "delusion"? No, damnit, the film portays science as atheistic. Period. I tire of these lame attempts to make shit smell more like roses. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you people even read my comments? I have given you numerous sources while you have failed to give me even one (but you still insisted that you have hundreds)! No, I do not want to start an edit war, but we have yet to reach a consensus. Now, are you ready to give me your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I never insisted that I had any resources. Are you mixing me up with someone else?

Nonetheless, the point remains -- the film portrays science as atheistic: Which, given that science does not include "god/gods" in its theora is sort of true, but in a way not meant by Stein. Realistically, given the negative meaning of "atheistic", nontheistic is better. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So why do you conveniently forget the two you were given already, from NCSE and Scientific American? You know when you act in bad faith like this, there really is only one solution: blocking.--Filll (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I still have seen no argument that contradicts my claim that "science" is not portrayed as atheistic. I'll keep it simple. At least one of the scientists interviewed is a Christian. How then did the filmmakers portray science as atheistic? Some of the scientists supporting intelligent design may not have been believers in God but supported the notion of intelligent design. The filmmakers clearly delineated Darwinists from the other scientists. I am satisfied if the section is headed "Darwinism is (or Darwinists are) Portrayed as Atheistic." Here, there is no need to debate Darwinism or define it, because the filmmakers themselves set out in their thesis, what Darwinism is. If there needs to be another sub-heading to argue that the filmmakers got their definition wrong, then I think that's an appropriate discussion, having nothing to do with this particular sub heading. Because the sub heading in question is simply wrong! Free onyx (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been explained and explained and explained. And two sources for it have been provided. So why didnt you see any of this? Guess you should look in the archives. I am not wasting time with this again.--Filll (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee whiz, Freebie, Conservapoopia agrees with us [18]. Weird, huh? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I posted the following comment somewhere, it just didn't show up here! RC-0722, "Scientific establishment" is acceptable to me also. Free onyx (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jim62sch, I was refering to Filll. Filll, I've checked the archives and only came up with one source, and it agreed with me. "the two you were given already, from NCSE and Scientific American" Um, no, you have yet to give links or article numbers. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

With no effort I found [19] in the archives which agrees with the "science is atheism". But there is lots more in the archive I notice. So either you are completely incompetent, or you are being willfully difficult to prove a point. There is also a scientific American result which also describes the film's viewpoint "science is atheism" but it describes it as "big monolithic science" not "Big Science" [20]. Several other sources were also provided I notice. And if you go back over the weeks, you will see there are several further reasons presented to support the notion that this film classifies science as atheistic. And several reasons pointing out how this is completely in accord with intelligent design, which this film clearly supports, and is advanced in the interviews and other promotional materials associated with this film. This is incredible to ask this question 20 30 40 times over and over and over and over and to engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments and violate WP:TE and WP:POINT over and over and not expect there to be consequences. I promise you, you keep this up, and there very well might be consequences. Just a friendly caution, not a threat.--Filll (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the comicsconituum link, I was trying to multi-task. This is the link I thought I was giving, and note that it is from the same site as Filll's. Also, At this point I believe that we should take this to either Requests for comment, Requests for Mediation, Admin's Noticeboard/incidents, or Arbitration Committee. Any objections? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection. The last source Filll cites is a promo, not the film itself, and specifically identifies one scientist. Further, can the word "science" be validly applied if science, defined by a reliable source was not comprehensively (if anything that would fall under the definition were omitted in the film) covered by the film? Wouldn't the use of the word "science" fall under one of the (disputed) interpretations Filll objects to because the film itself would have been the primary source? Free onyx (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow that is amazingly incorrect. Do you do this on purpose?--Filll (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"How about "allegation", or "inference", or "delusion"? No, damnit, the film portays science as atheistic. Period. I tire of these lame attempts to make shit smell more like roses." That is not my intent, and please do not violate WP: Civility and WP: Assume Good Faith by presuming to know the intent of others to the exclusion of other possible intents. My only interest is in making sure that the article describes conflict and criticism instead of appearing to engage in or endorse it. That there are sources for critics who accuse the film of doing this is not in dispute. But the accusation should be properly attributed as such. Making this clear in the section title accomplishes this. I do not see how properly attributing an accusation as an accusation has the effect of "making shit smell like roses". All it does it make sure that the article is not taking a position on the issue.

"I still have seen no argument that contradicts my claim that "science" is not portrayed as atheistic." A multitude of sources have been provided that establish that critics feel this way. Personally, I think it's more precise that the film accuses some evolutionists of wanting to keep science atheistic, as even Conservapedia admits this when it says: "In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are 'people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God'". But whether the film makes this portrayal, however, is less salient than whether reliable critics accuse it of doing so. On that latter issue, the sources have been provided. Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It concerns me the only way to resolve this would be with a mediation or an arbcom case. Unfortunately neither is particularly suited to the problem. But otherwise I basically agree; there seems to be a lot of refusing to acknowledge the distinction between what they argue and what is thought to reside beneath the arguments. Why I'm still not totally sure, but the lack of willingness to discuss the issue seems pretty clear. Mackan79 (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, The sub-heading is not listed as an objection or accusation, it appears as if it were a description of the film. Even if it were describing a controversy or accusation, shouldn't the sub-heading have to accurately reflect the issue in question? Therefore, did the film comprehensively cover "science" as defined by a reliable source? If it does not then it cannot be validly stated, as a description of the film, that science is portrayed as atheistic. Further, the scientists interviewed were clearly delineated, some taking the ID position or at being open to it (including Dawkins in a moment of lucidity) and those that completely foreclose on the idea. The latter group was identified as atheistic. Is there some reason that the former group of people would not qualify as scientists, because that could also validate your claim that the film portrays science as atheistic? Short of that, you're flat wrong. Personally, I think Darwinists are portrayed as atheists is most accurate because they self-identified in the film and stated their atheism.Free onyx (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first two sentences in your post, Onyx, if you read the first paragraph of my last post just above, you'll see that I'm in agreement with you on that point. Nightscream (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, Geesh, I'm sleepy and have about 4 arguments going at the same time and did not thoroughly read what your wrote. I'm going to bed! Sorry!Free onyx (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

S'okay, it happens. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see there is still a dispute over this section title, and that I am far from the only one who takes issue with it. The main problem is that the section title gives an inaccurate impression of the portrayal the film-makers actually make. If one is of the point of view that methodological materialism is inherent to science (as the vast majority of modern scientists clearly are, regardless of their (a)theological persuasions), then one would of course take the film's message as an attack on all science as atheistic. But if one is of the point of view that scientific explanations may use both natural and supernatural causal explanations (as the film-makers clearly are), then one would see the film as an attack only on the view that science is a necessarily materialistic endeavor, not on science in general. The problem with the section title is that it inappropriately and misleadingly defines the film's portrayal through the filter of the former point of view (that is, the POV of contributors to Expelled Exposed and Scientific American). Their point of view may very well be correct (that science is or must be inherently materialistic), but it's the film-maker's point of view that is supposed to be neutrally described in the title. If we're going to title the section Portrayal of science as atheistic, we might as well go all the way and retitle the section Portrayal of rational thought as atheistic, or Portrayal of truth as atheistic. Expelled Exposed and Scientific American may be generally reliable sources, but if they describe the film's portrayal in a way that clearly contradicts the portrayal actually made in the film itself, we must conclude that they are unreliable with respect to that characterization. Nick Graves (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources? The current section's content and title reflects the sources used to write it. Do you believe that the sources are misrepresented? Do you have other sources that you think are not represented? And while we aren't obliged to reflect the opinions of the filmmakers, do you have a verifiable reliable source that presents the views of the film makers? If so, we should should reflect those views. But we need a source. Guettarda (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Would a reliable sources for representing the producers views' be the movie's website? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be the film-maker's point of view that is supposed to be neutrally described in the title? Sections should be based on reliable secondary sources, not on primary sources using misleading terms which the ID movement has been twisting for the last two decades. The idea that "big science is materialistic" is straight from Johnson's ideas of a new "science" based on theistic realism. Science having no comment on the supernatural, and not using supernatural explanations, is not just the point of view of Expelled Exposed and Scientific American, it's the overwhelming majority view of the scientific community, whether religious or not. The title should not give undue weight to the mislieading, and often confused, claims the film's producers put out for the simple. .. dave souza, talk 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What? How does Gone With The Wind neutrally describe the movie? It doesn't! Of course the film's web-site is a reliable source that represents the producer's views! Free onyx (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Stein attacks scientists again in Christianity Today interview...

Here we go again...[21]

"Scientists were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews. Scientists were telling Stalin it was a good idea to wipe out the middle-class peasants. Scientists were telling Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50 million people in order to further the revolution."

--Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well now we know the extent of Ben's research. He read one book cover to cover that was given to him by the co-producer. Ok then. Midnight Gardener (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is hands down the most revealing and craziest interview of an IP proponent I have ever read. Ben Stein as the new face of intelligent design creationism certainly makes things interesting. What part of this should be incorporated into the article? Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, Ben Stein isn't the new face of ID, so to speak. Also, people incorrectly refer to ID as "Creationism." Creationism is a subcatagory of ID, because ID implies that there is an intelligent designer, but not necessarily God. It could have been Al Gore for all we know, he's old enough and he invented to the internet so why not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Thank you for sharing but I'm quite comfortable coming to my own conclusions. I even do my own research. And you forgot to sign in again Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely glad that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions, as that is how it should always be. BTW, I'm signed in, but forgot to sign (sigh) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This quote should go in the Ben Stein article.--Filll (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"middle-class peasants" WTF!!!! Also if more facts were needed the scientist were the first up against the wall in the Cultural revolution. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

category American propaganda films

Category:American propaganda films should be removed from the article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To reply to one unsupported assertion with another - no, it should not be removed. Just looking at some of the other films in that category - Loose Change (film), Stolen Honor, and Reefer Madness - I'd say it is in appropriate company. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? I see no reason. --Filll (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, sources have been given. Verification is required, not editor's opinions. .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if we keep this one, we should also add An Inconvenient Truth, Fahrenheit 9/11 to the catagory. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Raise your hand if you are getting tired of specious comparisons between this movie and AIT.

One of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely true, and one of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely false. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which film is which (I don't think it'll be too hard).

It would be more accurate to compare this film to The Great Global Warming Swindle (which, in fact, used many of the same techniques as this film, including tricking the people being interviewed). And while that film isn't in the propaganda category, it is in the denialism category. Raul654 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"One of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely true, and one of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely false" That sir, is an opinion, not a fact. Also, if this film is similar to The Great Global Warming Swindle, then why isn't that film in this catagory? Also, one can compare this movie to AIT, because they are both equally controversial and both push a specific view. All I am asking for is that this catagory be removed or we add the movies similar to it into the catagory. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if this film is similar to The Great Global Warming Swindle, then why isn't that film in this catagory? - as I have already said, because it's in category:Denialism, which is a subcategory of category:Propaganda. Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Two plus two equals four? That, sir, is an opinion, not a fact". --Badger Drink (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The category should stay. 1) Its sourced. 2) Its majority opinion of the sources. If you want to discuss Moore's films take the discussion to that talk page. Paper45tee (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Badger Drink) You are assuming that we are using the decimal number system. Also, the implication of your post is that you believe AIT to be a fact (which, by the way, is your opinion). All I am asking for is that we remove the catagory or we add the other films to it. (reply to Paper45tee) What are your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sucked into a lengthy debate here. You can continue believing whatever you like to believe. In the real world, however, AIT is not a fact, but rather a movie based on facts. E:NIA is not a fact either, but rather, a movie based on fiction and exaggerated half-truths. Also, is there a number system that isn't decimal? I think you were searching for "base ten", but that's just an assumption on my part. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Trinary. "In the real world, however, AIT is not a fact, but rather a movie based on facts. E:NIA is not a fact either, but rather, a movie based on fiction and exaggerated half-truths." Yet another opinion. I will say this one more time: All I am asking for is that we remove the catagory or we add the other films to it. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be ternary? Anyways, your request is pointless. First, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Argue about this article here. Argue about other articles elsewhere. Secondly, as far as I can tell, reliable sources acknowledge AIT as an excellent rendition of the science as known at the time of productions (and, for the most part, as known now), while they similarly recognize that E:NIA is a complete and utter piece of fabrication. You don't get "equal time" for propositions of very different weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Base-three" would work for me. Under base-three, two plus two would equal eleven, or four under base-ten. The token's different, but the result's the same. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I know what Base-three is. B. As I said, what are your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? How is this relevant to the article?--Filll (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that RC is asking "what sources name this film as propaganda"? I found the answer in Archive 8 of this debate. There were numerous neutral sources (ie. film critics .... not film critics for Scientific American, nor film critics for pro-ID organizations) which called this film propaganda, by name (that is the word "propaganda" was used to directly address this film; it is not implied, it is named as such directly in the article). I could understand an objection if the only sources claiming this film to be propaganda were scientific publications, but that is not the case. These are professional film critics from third party, reputable sources in the field of film criticism. Love or hate the film, there is a neutral perspective that calls this film propaganda. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with listing what individual critics, and other parties opinions of the movie are. However, listing the movie under the category "American propoganda films" is pov as there is no universal consensus as to that description. While many movie critics may view the film as such, there are also other critics who would disagree [22]. To list this film a under that category amounts to an endorsement of that description which is not NPOV.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, it's a properly sourced neutral decription of the film genre, not a value judgement but rather a way of finding similar films. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If Expelled is a "conservative" film listed under "propaganda" shouldn't "liberal" docs like Fahrenheit 9/11 be considered "propaganda" as well? (I found this from Conservapedia's "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - see items #1 & 6) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources which would show that the mainstream consensus of film experts is that the film is propaganda, then you might want to make that case over on Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11. FCYTravis (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the film is attacking certain ideas. So to quote those who promote those ideas as a way of proving that the film is a propaganda film is rather odd. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this film is considered "propaganda" because actually it attacks scientific consensus. Now, I understand why Fahrenheit 9/11 wouldn't be considered "propaganda" the same way Expelled would: I've seen Fahrenheit and now there's a wider academic agreement regarding Moore's claims there about Bush lying to go to war in Iraq. I guess the "propaganda" category should be applied only if the product in question attacks "academic consensus". --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually (and much to my surprise) the Expelled movie scrupulously gives approximately equal time to both sides in the argument. Stein gives critics of ID extended, uninterrupted time to make their case, and does the same for the supporters of ID who have been abused for their beliefs. This movie is not propaganda. NCdave (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda" films are not to my knowledge defined by "length of time" given to each side, paricularly when editors with an agenda are cutting and pasting the footage of each side, and interspersing images of Hitler and Mao and the Berlin Wall and the Holocaust. Do you have a reliable source for that claim? Also how do we know that equal time was given? You are not a reliable source just because you saw the movie and allege such a thing; sorry. Also, if the film is not propaganda, why do so many mainstream media sources describe it that way? If I remember correctly (it will be in the archives) well over a dozen.--Filll (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For people who wonder why we write about the "background" a bit

This is an example of why we put in some references to give context and background. In the previous versions of this article, we had a lot more material showing that all the "evolution was responsible for the Holocaust" have been around for decades, and soundly dismissed by competent scholars for decades. In addition we had more addressing claims that intelligent design is not creationism and that intelligent design is science, and so on. Many attacked this material, and removed a good chunk of it since they thought it was ugly, or improper for a movie article etc. The reason we do this is to make the context clear, and for NPOV, otherwise one ends up with lunacy like this. Obviously there are a large number of people who feel the way this editor does. Producing an NPOV article gives them at least one place where they can see the other side, and the evidence of the other side. Maybe you will think twice before attacking the version created by experienced editors next time.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, those who removed all the painstaking formatting and combining of footnotes to turn one combined footnote into several create objections like this one. Of course the article is currently a mess and will eventually have to be rewritten now that hordes of assorted illiterate cretins have had their way with it. For now, all we can do is just try to keep it from being totally destroyed as people come by to visit the article and edit it, in their excitement and frenzy about discoverying this great "conspiracy" that the film "verifies".--Filll (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee, given these comments, we should really trust you to treat this article with the fairness and NPOV that it deserves, shouldn't we? Oh, and thanks for the name calling. I'm sure those who came here to try to make this into an article that isn't a hit-piece really felt un-bitten by that. Wikipedia is filled with elitist leftist snobs who "gang edit" articles like this and instantrevert anything that goes against their POV. When some folks arrive to edit out the bias, the blowback is a bitch, isn't it? - Nhprman 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you assume I am referring to you? Did you even edit the mainspace article? And I am referring to people on all sides of the dispute and from all different parts of the political spectrum (which does not correlate perfectly with the positions in this dispute; you should know that. There are left wing creationists and right wing creationists, etc). Please try to contain your profanity and unseemly taunting.--Filll (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you're not specifically referring to me. But it's YOU who should try to restrain yourself from calling people "illiterate cretins." (Did you forget that you just wrote that?) - Nhprman 14:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Do you claim that our article is a model of literary excellence? Do you think the English of our article is impeccable? Do you think it is well-organized and well-written? Do you think all the thousands of edits to the article were grammatically and semantically correct? Do you think this article is ready for FA status right now, as is? Are you ready to propose this article for FA status and defend it against those who come to criticize it? If you think this article is perfectly written and respresents the best writing on Wikipedia as it now is (regardless of assorted balance disputes), then feel free to do the necessary paperwork. I for one will be interested to watch you try to defend the current state of this article against challenges, if you believe it is so well-written. Should be quite entertaining.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

??? Did you just forget that you wrote: "For now, all we can do is just try to keep it from being totally destroyed as people come by to visit the article and edit it, in their excitement and frenzy about discoverying this great "conspiracy" that the film "verifies"? Apparently you think it's close to perfect as-is. Are you being deliberately obfuscatory here, ASKING someone to point out your inconsistencies, so you can claim they're not AGF? Very odd.- Nhprman 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where I claimed the article is close to perfect as-is.--Filll (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Seriously. Word games are annoying. I'll feed the troll one last time. You said: "For now, all we can do is just try to keep it from being totally destroyed..." The article is a disaster, is despicable and is perhaps not salvagable. You pretty much admit that in one line, then you infer that those pesky IDers coming here seeking balance are trying to "destroy" it. I'm done playing. - Nhprman 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not playing word games. I am not trolling and implying that I am trolling is probably violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I suggest you do not continue to do so. Of course the article is bad. I said that above, did I not? And it is not just "those pesky IDers" that have caused trouble on this article. There are many pro-science people and others who did not know what they were doing who caused this article to turn into a mess. Many do not know English very well. Many produce writing which exhibits bad grammar. Many cannot format references properly. Many want to shove in long quoted sections. Many cannot summarize. Many plagiarize. And so on. And after wave after wave after wave of this, things start to get frayed a bit. Just look in the article history if you doubt me.--Filll (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually sympathize with this and understand what you're saying here (no sarcasm intended. - Nhprman 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it, Filll. We're not a battleground, or here to set people straight. We're here to provide a good encyclopedia article for a wide audience. To say, "hold on, you came to read about the movie, but here's what you really need to know about" goes against Wikipedia's most basic principle of WP:NPOV. However important or necessary, it just isn't our place; that's what Expelled Exposed or any other number of sites are for. Of course: that doesn't mean we can't do something very close to what you're talking about, since sources that discuss the movie will naturally discuss the controversies and note the mainstream views. But what you're talking about appears to be a shortcut, not to go by them, but just to decide ourselves what topics here need to be clarified. It misses the basic distinction of what happens here versus other types of publications. Mackan79 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a battleground? Have you read the page? Good heavens.--Filll (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be, I should have linked: WP:Battle. Mackan79 (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Any idea why it might be? Could it be that some people here refuse to accept Wikipedia policy? Or want to rewrite Wikipedia policy? Or are not here to write an encyclopedia at all, but to fight instead? Hmm....I wonder.--Filll (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it, Filll. Next time a "thanks" would suffice. Mackan79 (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. So why not answer my next set of questions?--Filll (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We are here to produce an NPOV article, as well written and sourced as we can. And the two examples I posted show how we have failed in different ways. Of course we are not here to argue any particular view, but to present all the views in "proportion to their prominence". Do you disagree with that? Also, what purpose is taking condensed references and tearing them apart to turn one reference into 6? People find it ugly and offensive, probably with some justification. Just a note. This can all be corrected eventually.--Filll (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I've pointed out this analogy several times before, but as it keeps getting swallowed by the archives, I'll do it again. For those who think this article should be just a movie review: PLEASE READ The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This article declares that the book is "...a plagiarism, literary forgery, and a hoax, alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The writing has been revealed to be originally an antisemitic and anti-Masonic (and subsequently anti-Zionist) diatribe and conspiracy theory." It pulls no punches. It does not even try to present the pro-authenticity opinion as equally valid (but it does describe it in great detail, by country). It includes a great deal of information and expert opinion that isn't sourced directly from the book itself. It does all this to provide the context that the average person, who simply picks up the book and reads it, would be oblivious to. We ARE here to tell the reader "what you really need to know about": to give the background, to set this in context. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually you aren't here to tell people that this film is "wrong." Just as the ID people would be wrong to go to the articles on Darwinism and Evolution and fill it with perfectly good "sources" stating opinions that the ideas behind them are 'wrong.' I also want to point out that the opponents of Michael Moore haven't larded up his film articles with opposition opinions, either. This is a socio-political film just like Moores and Gore's films are. But unlike their articles, this has become a chat board for the opponents of the idea, rather than an objective analysis of the film and its critical reaction. - Nhprman 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I believe there is some confusion here. By NPOV, we are here to represent the views "in proportion to their prominence" in the relevant field. And that is what this article attempts to do. If you believe you can do it better, start writing in the sandbox given to you above.--Filll (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one option, the other is to fix this article. It's a false choice you keep pointing out. How this biased article is fixed is not incredibly important. What is important is your misstatement of the NPOV policy. The "N" stands for neutral, and that means all the editorializing in this article must be cut (I've quoted the relevent passage from the policy elsewhere here.) It may seem perfectly normal for some people to want to counter every argument in the film here inthe article using a long, well-sourced group of slam-quotes from opponents, but that's not encyclopedic in a Wikipedia sense, nor is it a neutral point of view. Nor, BTW, is the posting on this page by someonw saying, in effect, "Yea! This film is tanking in the box office.!" No bias in editing this page? I rest my case. - Nhprman 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you are welcome to "fix" the article by starting the rewrite in the sandbox, as you have been invited to do several times. Why haven't you started yet?

Also you seem to not understand NPOV. NPOV DOES NOT MEAN NEUTRAL. NPOV DOES NOT MEAN UNBIASED. and therefore WIKIPEDIA IS NOT NEUTRAL. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT UNBIASED. Read the policy and see for yourself. Also Wikipedia publishes what is verifiable, not truth. Ever hear that one?

For someone who wants to lecture everyone else about what is encyclopedic, why do you not show us by producing a new rough draft?--Filll (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again: NPOV *MEANS* neutrality. No, I'm not saying it means "cover up the fact that it received a LOT of negative reviews." Nor does it mean, however, that every point in the movie should be REBUTTED IN THE ARTICLE. That, actually is FORBIDDEN under NPOV. It's called *bias* and bias is NEVER allowed in an article here (LOL, I know, how Utopian of me.) Noting that the film recieved a *lot* of bad reviews is DEFINITELY allowed. But just as in other films it's noted briefly in the lead para. that the reception was warm - and then that is elaborated on several paragraphs down - the fact that this film stirred up a hornets nest in the scientific community can and should DEFINITELY be mentioned in the lead, and elaborated on, lower down. But (for the 146,000th time) making this article about the MERITS of Intelligent Design or lack thereof, is wrong, and is not allowed under NPOV.. As for drafting a new one, why don't YOU? - Nhprman 19:03, 9 May 2008

No you fundamentally do not understand Wikipedia and its policies. NPOV does not mean "neutrality". NPOV means that the views are reported in proportion to their prominence in the relevant fields. And in this case, what do you think the relevant fields are? And what views do you think are most prominent there?

We are required to state that the film received a lot of bad reviews. You think we should lie and report otherwise? It had over 90 percent bad reviews in the mainstream media. The reception was not warm, except in very special restricted communities. In the mainstream, the reception was chilly. And in the scientific community, the recpetion was chilly.

I have rewritten this article top to bottom at least twice. I have the most edits on this talk page. I have the most or second most edits on the mainspace page. I was the one who brought the article from about 30th in Google rankings to 3rd. I might very well rewrite it, but now is not the time. And I am sure if I rewrote it, you would fight me like a maniacal madman every step of the way, so it is pointless at this time for me to rewrite it. You are welcome to rewrite it since you are the person who is so angry about its current "imbalance". Do not expect to force other volunteers to do your work for you. After all, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Or didn't you know that?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll only state, for the record, that I've said over and over again that the negative reviews have obviously got to be included in the text of this article. Please don't imply that I want this article whitewashed of negativity. As for re-writing this article, I wouldn't brag about it. It's a poster child for bias and undue weight and imbalance. I'm surely not the only one who feels this way. Maybe the others have all given up, since the Gang Editing that has turned this into an anti-ID essay is very intimidating. WP itself is intimidating to even longterm editors, many of whom have given up on it, for the reasons illustrated here and in the article. I would never force anyone to do my bidding, though I'm not in the mood to be savaged for altering this masterpiece. - Nhprman 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So why havent you started working on the rewrite? What is the matter?--Filll (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, the entire movie is based on the idea that scientific establishment denouncing bogus science as bogus science (viz., doing its job) amounts to "persecution" and "bias". It goes without saying that people buying into this logic will also cry "persecution" and "bias" when critics denounce a crappy movie as a crappy movie (viz., doing their job), or Wikipedia reflecting that real-world situation (viz., doing its job). The premise appears to be, "we don't need to make sense, it's our constitutional right to spread evil nonsense. But woe unto those that dare point out that we are, in fact, talking nonsense." dab (𒁳) 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes very true.--Filll (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a more "NPOV" version possible?

If you thinks this article could be less biased, then it is time to prove it. Complaining is getting old, Guetterda already challenged us to do a rewrite. We either put up or shut up, so here it is:

• rewrite
• rewrite talk (these draft pages should not be on the main namespace so a separate discussion page is needed).

Personally, I can't spend too much time on this, but I am willing to help. I'm not myself a supporter of ID, so you can't count on me being particularly kind, but I believe that perhaps one could avoid giving the impression of bias, which I feel the tone and structure of this article gives.

Anyone up for the challenge? Merzul (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure if it's possible, but will help where I can. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One crucial question though is what the GFDL says about copying the current content. It would be nice to copy the current page and welcome everyone, who feel the article is biased make it NPOV. I'm really curious what the result would be, if we let people complaining go more or less free there. Will it turn into a total conservapedia version? It would be interesting. Merzul (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, per the precedent at Talk:Evolution/draft article, copy-pasting the current article is fine because the original contributors are still in the history of the main page. If the draft here turns out to actually be successful, which I'm sure many people doubt anyway, even then we would not replace the current main page. Rather, it would be a proof-of-concept about what kind of changes can be done to the main article. The draft page would still be kept though to record the contributions to that page. In short, all edits are preserved, so copying should be no problem. I will start the draft page with a copy of the current version. Please redirect anyone, who complains about POV, to that page :) Merzul (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, rather than this weird contraption of having two talk pages, an uninvolved admin has moved this to my userpage. This doesn't mean I endorse it and it certainly doesn't mean I will control or exercise any editorial control over it; but we have to have it some place, so here it is:

• User:Merzul/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/rewrite

And of course, then there is an associated talk page available. Silly me, Merzul (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, a serious advantage of the userified version is that there are no categories whatsoever :P Merzul (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am new here and unfamiliar with many of the rules but it seems that a format that first describes the film and then addresses criticism would be in order. I have been one of those critical of the article's POV and tone, but I'm not looking to turn it into conservapedia. I think readers are simply looking for an accurate characterization of the film and the controversy. I wouldn't want to undertake a rewrite of the entire article, but I might be able to contribute to a section or two of the description. I challenged the neutrality of the "portrayal of science as atheism" and "overview" sections of the article that I think can be addressed with simple edits. If someone can show me how, I'll be happy to take a crack at those. After the description, sections critical of the article need not have a NPOV and can be handled by those critical of the film without a lot of battling. The only challenge there may be volume and the need to consolidate. Free onyx (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an NPOV problem with the current version, which I'll point out is the result of a hard-fought consensus. Let's not rock the boat without good cause... FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the boat's gonna tip or something? Don't worry, that's why we use a catamaran (or at least I do). RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... what rocking of boats? See the above discussions, where Guetterda explicitly asked to be shown something different. The experiment is to see, if one can come up with a version that satisfies some of the "NPOV" complaints, while getting the approval of Guetterda and others. This is not a competition, but we need a subpage because you can't experiment radical changes on a live page. I'm happy to answer further questions to dispel any naval safety concerns you may have. Cheers, Merzul (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of who appears in the film

From IMDB, I have compiled a list of those who appear in the film, and what their position is and how they are classified so we can understand this better.

• David Berlinski ... ID supporter, mathematician
• Caroline Crocker ... ID supporter, biologist *
• Richard Dawkins ... evolution supporter, biologist, atheist *
• William Dembski ID supporter, philosopher at theology school
• Michael Egnor ... ID supporter, surgeon
• Guillermo Gonzalez ... ID supporter, astrophysicst *
• Robert J. Marks II ... ID supporter, engineer
• Stephen C. Meyer ... ID supporter, historian and philosopher of science

• Paul Zachary Myers ... Evolution supporter, biologist, atheist *
• Paul Nelson ... ID supporter, philosopher
• William Provine ... evolution supporter, biologist, religious *
• Michael Ruse ... evolution supporter, philosopher of science, atheist

• Gerald Schroeder ... ID supporter, nuclear physics *
• Eugenie C. Scott ... evolution supporter, anthropologist, atheist *
• Michael Shermer ... evolution supporter, historian of science and publisher, atheist
• Mark Souder ... ID supporter, congressman
• Richard Sternberg ... ID supporter, biologist *
• Richard Weikart... ID supporter, historian
• Jonathan Wells ... ID supporter, theologian who obtained a biology degree but never worked as a paid professional biologist
• Pamela Winnick ... ID supporter, journalist

Evolution supporters

Six evolution supporters appear, of which 4 are scientists, and 5 are atheists. Provine barely appears on screen apparently, so might not count. Shermer also barely appears on screen as well. Three are atheist scientists. These four scientists are all in fields relevant to evolution (66.7 percent)

• Richard Dawkins ... evolution supporter, biologist, atheist *

• Paul Zachary Myers ... Evolution supporter, biologist, atheist *
• William Provine ... evolution supporter, biologist, religious *
• Michael Ruse ... evolution supporter, philosopher of science, atheist
• Eugenie C. Scott ... evolution supporter, anthropologist, atheist *
• Michael Shermer ... evolution supporter, historian of science and publisher, atheist

ID Supporters

Fourteen ID supporters appear on screen. Of these 14, 4 have worked as scientists in paid positions (however, Meyer did work as a geophysicist but not as a research level one before going back to get an advanced degree in history and philosophy of science). Only two of these scientists are in fields relevant to evolution (14.3 percent).

• David Berlinski ... ID supporter, mathematician
• Caroline Crocker ... ID supporter, biologist *
• William Dembski ID supporter, philosopher at theology school
• Michael Egnor ... ID supporter, surgeon
• Guillermo Gonzalez ... ID supporter, astrophysicst *
• Robert J. Marks II ... ID supporter, engineer
• Stephen C. Meyer ... ID supporter, historian and philosopher of science
• Paul Nelson ... ID supporter, philosopher

• Gerald Schroeder ... ID supporter, nuclear physics *

• Mark Souder ... ID supporter, congressman
• Richard Sternberg ... ID supporter, biologist *
• Richard Weikart... ID supporter, historian
• Jonathan Wells ... ID supporter, theologian who obtained a biology degree but never worked as a paid professional biologist
• Pamela Winnick ... ID supporter, journalist--Filll (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the ARN blog, Richard Weikart is in the movie. He's a DI fellow and funded by them. Also the academic community has been critical of this work. Paper45tee (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok good I added him. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

By labeling people can we now ignore them? 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? And who is ignoring them?--Filll (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the name of section 1.3 misleading?

Because the original discussion got out of hand and uncivil, we need some third party opinions. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. The title of the section matches the description used in the sources used in that section. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So we have an RFC because the title is accurate yet unflattering (or embarrassing to fans of the movie)? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're saying no to? Are you objecting to the fact that I started a RFC, that the comments got uncivil, or we need third party opinions? BTW, that Scientific American ref describes it as "big monolithic science" Now, that's not exactly the same as science is it? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not misleading for several reasons: (1) the title is an accurate title for the sourced content in that section (2) we have reliable sources which describe the film's stance this way (3) in the promotion of the film, methodological naturalism is attacked as atheistic. Methodological naturalism underlies all of science since the Scientific Revolution a few centuries ago (4) in the promotion of the film, all of science that "denies" or does not acknowledge the existence of a designer is identified as atheistic, including astronomy and astrophysics and gravitational physics and electromagnetism and thermodynamics and planetology and celestial mechanics and evolutionary biology and molecular biology. (5) This article is not just about what is in the movie itself, but what the impressions that viewers came away with, the controversies, the promotional activities of the filmmakers etc. These are all associated with the film and therefore are germane to this article. So even if the exact phrase "science is atheistic" is not uttered by someone during the film (which we will not know until we have an accurate transcript, which might take a long long time), that does not mean with the juxtaposition of scenes and with assorted framing techniques and visual cues that this message was not delivered in the film or implied by the film. That is why film is such a powerful medium, and that is why we rely on secondary and tertiary sources mostly on Wikipedia. Also even if it never appears in the film or the film never gives that impression, if the associated promotional activities of the filmmakers framed the issue this way, which they clearly did, then that is still relevant for this article.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You only gave me two sources. One of which contradicts itself, while the other one did not call it science, but rather called it "big monolithic science" I also have reliable sources stating that "Big Science" actually means the scientific establishment. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<--Unless I'm missing something, the Scientific American also states the opposite:[23]

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.

Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference

This states again that it's "Big science" that the movie says is atheistic. Mackan79 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, reading all the available literature on the topic of ID, I think it's accurate. The DI's Wedge Document seals the deal for me. Odd nature (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about ID, it is about the Movie Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed, were (as far as I know) the wedge document does not apply. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's useful background reading. Sets the context and all that. Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it sounds as if that's the one of the points that the movie is trying to convey. This is not true, as they do not call it science, but rather "Big Science", which several sources have linked to the scientific establishment. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No. RC, I appreciate the RfC as it reflects a question of at least one editor. I hope you will find the responses helpful. I think the section's title accurately reflects its contents. FWIW, I do not understand why the movie needs an age-old canard if there are real problems to tackle. (Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet, will have to muster courage and find time to watch it and form my own opinion on how reliable our sources actually are in this specific case.) Avb 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in this science or big science discussion again but I want to point out using the wedge document as evidence for it one way or another without secondary sources is very conspiratorial. I don't doubt the connection exists, but using it as a justification is lame. Must reading for those who follow this movement but until a secondary source links it, and links it well, I cannot see using it as a justification for the title of a section in this article. Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's useful for a number of people who've been actively discussing the issue to respond here, but if so, then yes. In fact even the major source being used for this, Expelled Exposed specifically states that the qualm of the movie is with a "scientific establishment" that refuses to acknowledge the "scientific validity" of intelligent design.[24] One would think this would concern those relying on the site, but somehow it continues to be ignored. Even the Wedge document, to the extent we're considering it, suggests the goal here is to portray evolution as atheistic, not to portray all science as atheistic which as everyone here well knows would hardly be a strategy. Unfortunately a number of editors seem to think the argument is too disingenuous or too subtle, so they have substituted in something else. The result is a number of things, including that we're misrepresenting the argument but also that we're misrepresenting what's wrong with it. However as a basic matter of what the sources say, it's been made clear for some time that our wording goes with an extreme minority of sources (apparently two, one of which contradicts itself), as opposed to what the film and the vast majority of sources state: either that acceptance of evolutionary theory leads to atheism, or that an atheistic "scientific establishment" is imposing their atheism on everyone else. These are also of course what the section itself talks about, which is another reason it would make a more accurate header. Mackan79 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. As has been explained to you before, ExpelledExposed says that the scientific establishment, called Big Science by the movie, does not accept ID. But, that isn't what this section is about. This section is about the portrayal of science as atheistic. And it's supported by this page on EE. Which says: Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism. The page you are pointing to isn't about this section. It's about an entirely different idea. You aren't really trying to argue that this section should be titled "Failure of [the scientific establishment] to accept ID", are you? Unless that's what you are talking about, your link is specious. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely not what I'm suggesting; my problem all along is with what we're attributing as their portrayal. This is the overview, of course, where we also say they portray evolution as behind the Holocaust, a position much more extreme, absurd, and presumably strategic. Which would by no means allow us to have a pargraph on connections between evolution and the Holocaust, for that matter. My point is solely that we should accurately represent what they portray, which at least from Ben Stein's comments appears to be somewhat disingenuous in his case, but isn't an argument that science itself is atheistic. Incidentally I recently came across a website I may find again through Raul's user pages where one of the producers says to him its really about the "philosophy of science" and how to look at that. It sounded to me like he was being candid; the problem then is to take someone's view on the philosophy of x and portray it as anti-x. You can do that if the sources do it, but the sourcing for this here is very weak. Mackan79 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They're using various misleading terms for various things, and code words like "Darwinism" and "Big Science" are used to refer to science generally. Hence Stein's complaint that "Darwinism" doesn't explain galaxies, the universe or whatever. The film lies by saying that its "persecuted scientists" are "expelled" for just believing in God, or saying that they believe in God, when the examples they present have actually not been promoted for deviating from doing science, and instead doing things with a religious basis which they want recognised as science without them meeting the accepted definition of science. The film portrays science which doesn't include God as an explanation as atheistic, in accordance with ID dogma, and since the "ground rules" of science are that explanations have to be controllable and testable, which God inherently isn't, de facto normal science is in their view atheistic. Anyone who 'ridicules" these poor martyrs is described as "Big Science", and that means the scientific community. The martyrs undoubtedly have scientific qualifications and / or have done science at some time, but their problems have arisen when they stop doing science and turn to their other speciality, theology. So, in summary, we have to be careful to meet WP:UNDUE in not giving undue weight to the extreme minority view (amongst experts on science) that supernatural explanations should be given credence, and that applies to the section heading. The point is properly explained in the text of the section. .. dave souza, talk 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you're saying they're dishonest, but the heading would suggest they're not, and rather that they directly portray science as you say they believe it is. You're also using WP:Undue in a way that can't be right, to re-characterize someone's view into something somehow more acceptable. With respect, it seems self-evident to me why these aren't the right approach. Mackan79 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"So, in summary, we have to be careful to meet WP:UNDUE in not giving undue weight to the extreme minority view" Um, while ID is a minority view, I wouldn't go as far to call it an "extreme" minority. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in the relevant field of evolutionary biology, it has way less than 0.1 percent support. What would you call that? I think it is a bit less than a minority. I think extreme minority is a little more apt, don't you?--Filll (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Even using the broadest definitions of "published papers", even counting things like PCID, pro-ID papers are 1 in a million in biology, probably less. Not 0.1% - closer to 0.0001% Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackan - philosophy of science, not a personal "philosophy" of science. The philosophy of science is what determines how you can use science, how you use inference and causation in science. Most people don't think much about it while doing science. Most scientists are about as aware of their philosophy of science as English speakers are aware of grammar (declension? case? English has things like that?) ID wants to redefine science to allow supernatural causation, though they have not (as far as I know) proposed a coherent philosophy of science, which is a necessary precondition for them to do any science. (So instead Dembski charges churches $10,000 to have him come for a weekend and talk to them.)

At the heart of science is a philosophy of methodological naturalism, which could also be called methodological materialism. It requires that science rely on naturalistic (or materialistic) explanations. You need to explain observations using naturalistic causation. If you drop your pen and it falls you can use gravity to explain the pen's descent. You can't use divine intervention. Not because you dogmatically reject diving intervention, but rather because you can't design an experiment to test divine intervention. In that way, methodological naturalism is functionally atheistic (since you can't factor divine intervention into your experiments), but it isn't philosophically atheistic. Johnson, however, conflated methodological naturalism (the idea that your experiments need to assume that only naturalistic forces are involved because you have no means of testing supernatural forces) with a belief that only natural forces exist. Some scientists assume that supernatural causation (ie, God) exists. Others assume that no such causation exists. But when they perform an experiment and analyse data, both the devout Catholics like Miller and the atheists like Dawkins assume that only natural forces are acting on their experiments. For that matter, when asked "what would you have a student do differently", Behe said "nothing". Although the ID movement wants to incorporate supernatural causation into their explanations of the universe, there is no way to incorporate supernatural causation into their experiments. Johnson conflated both philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism, calling it all "materialism" (it's possible that earlier creationists did so too).

So when the Expelled people call science atheistic and materialistic, they are following Johnson (the "godfather of intelligent design"). And to heighten the dichotomy they only used scientists who were atheists, saying that people like Miller would "confuse" things. (Which may be why Behe, who appears in the trailer, but not in the actual movie himself "expelled" - since back when he was doing actual science he was using the same methodological naturalism that Johnson - and apparently the Expelled people - proclaimed atheistic. Guettarda (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I keep agreeing with you... at least from a critical perspective. However, one thing I can't agree with is that to make a statement about the philosophy of science, your views have to somehow be coherent. My view is these guys have a view that isn't particularly coherent, but that this hardly allows us to turn it into something that looks more coherent to us while we attribute it to them. There are some things they clearly argue, and other things that come out much less clearly. Considering they're making statements about the "philosophy of science" (whether or not they have coherent views on what this is), talking about the "scientific validity" of ID, etc., the idea that they just think science is atheistic is obviously to put their views through a strainer and come out with something else.

On the other hand, it seems your point would almost lead to saying that their problem isn't with science at all. It's not the scientific method they have a problem with, you could say, but just the refusal to consider supernatural explanations after the fact. So should we say their problem isn't with science at all? Unfortunately this is the problem when you try to rework an unclear argument, that you can come up with basically anything. It's one of the main reasons why it makes sense to stick much closer to what they say and to address that more directly. Mackan79 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.[25].. dave souza, talk 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said before somewhere to someone (probably buried in the depths of this page), I don't think you need to assume that the producers of the film have a coherent philosophy, or for that matter an independently constructed philosophy. Mathis has said he doesn't know much about science. Neither, obviously, does Stein. (Although, according to Josh Rosenau, he understands the situation a lot better than he lets on in the film). What they have have done, presumably, is to adopt Johnson's ideas, whether consciously or unconsciously. Now I'm not saying that we should say so in the article, I'm just trying to put the whole thing into context. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside: This isn't an RfC. It's not actually linked anywhere, so no new users are going to comment. Either the template's broken, or you edited it somehow that it isn't getting linked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• RfC response: (now bot listed) No, it is not misleading based on the content of the section. Faith (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  If you care to expand, Faith, the initial question should probably have been posed more clearly to note the alternative. The issue we've discussed is whether the film portrays "science" as atheistic, or if rather it portrays a "scientific establishment" of some sort as atheistic. I personally and some others haven't seen the support for the former view, while many sources state the latter. You could say its a subtle distinction, but the problem at least to me is that it's also the difference between a view they hold and a view they attempt to criticize: the various sources are pretty clear these guys think that the scientific method should not exclude religion. Considering the position is fairly clear then that they don't think science needs to do this (whether they are right or wrong), it seems poor form for us just to bowl over their point. In that light it's a bit like having a heading in Sicko which says "Portrayal of healthcare as bad." Either one would seem to miss the point. Mackan79 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my lad, you missed the nuance. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the title is misleading. From the title, one gets the impression that the film-makers think science is atheistic. But they don't. They do think it's been hijacked by some sort of atheistic cabal, and that methodological materialism and Darwinism are atheistic. The Sicko comparison is especially apt: titling the section "Portrayal of science as atheistic" is just as misleading as titling a section in the Sicko article "Portrayal of healthcare as bad." If the makers of Expelled truly believed that science was atheistic, why would they write this on their website press kit?: "'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' rejects the notion that 'the case is closed,' and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy." Here we have a clear description of the film-makers' own view of science (as something that is not inherently atheistic) that disproves the contention that they portray science as atheistic. The target of their portrayal is very specific, and they tell us exactly what it is: "Big Science", not science as a whole. However reliable Expelled Exposed and Scientific American might otherwise be, if they conclude that the film portrays all science as atheistic, they got it wrong, and a simple observation of the primary sources (the film and its official website) proves them wrong. Nick Graves (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the title is misleading as is the content of the section. There is a rewrite underway that will hopefully put this shamelessly POV article out of its misery. Free onyx (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The only problem that I have with the title is "atheistic" rather than "atheist". According to Expelled, "science" includes the possibility of ID. So, the argument is that the title is misleading because Expelled doesn't consider its own personal definition of science to be "atheistic". That's not very convincing to me. According to Expelled, science is atheist. What they call "Big Science" is science. Why does the fact that they've made up a new definition matter?Heqwm (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Overview sets up a false dichotomy between "scientists" and ID proponents

The overview states interviews with "those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists who are atheists" and later "Intelligent design proponents are also shown." This violates NPOV because by implication the aforementioned "those claiming to have been victimized" and "Intelligent design proponents" are not qualified to be identified as or on the level of the "scientists who are atheists." This implication is verifiably false. Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Caroline Crocker and several others interviewed unquestionably qualify as scientists. I suggest "scientists claiming to have been victimized" and "Scientists who support intelligent design and other ID proponents" in place of the flawed constructs. Free onyx (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so unquestionably. These people are noted as intelligent design proponents, and also have scientific qualifications or have done scientific work which does not introduce or use intelligent design. It's certainly clear that their scientific work isn't on the level of the scientists chosen as atheists, simply because they're not working as scientists and have undistinguished or poor publication records. . . dave souza, talk 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With one exception, the term "intelligent design proponent" is used in a context where the people are either non-scientists (Berlinski, Dembski, Meyer) or mainly non-scientists (in reference to the Dover trial). The one exception is in the line: and that intelligent design proponents are "suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion." Changing this to "scientists who support intelligent design" would be needlessly wordy, and would wander too far from the source (which is Ben Stein's statement taht "Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion".) I just don't see the false dichotomy about which you are speaking. Guettarda (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unquestionably! These scientists are acknowledged by Wikipedia! By what objective standard can you measure that "their scientific work isn't on the level of the scientists chosen as atheist," if that were even the standard, which it is not. Wordiness is also not an acceptable defense for the requirement for WP:Accuracy. Propose something that includes non-atheists scientists or scientists supporting ID or something that accurately reflects the fact that scientists interviewed, not merely victims, because all of the scientists supporting ID were not victims. The way it is worded now clearly violates NPOV.Free onyx (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wandering from the source? LOL! The writer, by not acknowledging the scientific credentials of those described as either "victims" or "ID proponents," makes a non-neutral value statement by contrasting them with the atheists who are identified as scientists. "Victims" or "ID proponents" would naturally be adjudged by readers to be less or unqualified by comparison to the atheist scientists, to take up this line of reasoning as scientists. Last time I checked a Ph.D. in molecular evolution qualifies one to be identified as a scientist. Certainly so, if additionally that person also earned a Ph.D. in systems science. Likewise, an astrophysicist holding a Ph.D in astronomy qualifies one as a scientist. How about a person holding a Ph.D. in immunopharmacology? If someone wants to make the case that these are not qualified scientists, an overview describing the film is not the place because it is inaccurate.Free onyx (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I have tried to read your confused incoherent ungrammatical post a few times and I must confess I still have only the vaguest grasp of what you are trying to communicate. Any false dichotomy between "atheist scientists" and "ID proponents" has been created by the filmmakers themselves. Mathis and others have even admitted as such in interviews. For example, the reason Kenneth Miller (biologist) was not included in the film was he would have wrecked the agenda the film was trying to push, according to Mathis. At least he was honest. And Wikipedia just follows the sources, not reality. If the film sets out to make this stupid claim, we report that. This article is about the film, not about reality. And the film sets up this false dichotomy. So that is what we report. Is that so hard to understand?--Filll (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, your articulate insults notwithstanding, THE FILM does not make the case that the "victims" are not scientists. To the contrary, it establishes their credentials as scientists to qualify them to enter into the debate. Therefore, your statement, like all that I've seen from you, is entirely inaccurate and irrelevant. If the film establishes the "victims" and ID proponents" as scientists and the film is a primary source and secondary sources also verify that these credentials have been established and it is key to the ability to engage in this debate, then, by failing to identify the non-atheists as scientists is inaccurate, misleading and in violation of NPOV.Free onyx (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually a systems scientist is not a scientist, but an engineer. And a philosopher is not a scientist. A historian is not a scientist. A theologian is not a scientist. A mathematician is not a scientist. And so on. And all of these characters appeared as ID proponents in the film (although I anot sure about the systems scientist since I have not checked). ID proponent is an accurate and more general and encompassing term. So what?--Filll (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

THE FILM does not make the case that the "victims" are not scientists. Neither does the article.

Wandering from the source? LOL! The statement uses a quote from Ben Stein. The wording in the article needs to stay close to the quote it is using.

The writer, by not acknowledging the scientific credentials of those described as either "victims" or "ID proponents," makes a non-neutral value statement by contrasting them with the atheists who are identified as scientists. I'm really not sure where you're getting that from. If what you are talking about is something other than the points I have hit, you need to be more specific. There's a lot of text in that portion of the article. Obviously I can't find the part you are talking about. Guettarda (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, The article does not explicitly say that the "victims" or "ID proponents" are not scientists, but omits the fact that some are, which would disqualify them from having an informed opinion on par with the atheists who are identified as scientists. It would be acceptable to identify the atheists as Darwinists and not scientists, because the film states that and that places all groups in the debate on equal standing, just as the film does.Free onyx (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to identify them as "Darwinists". Guettarda (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No more incorrect than omitting the appellation scientist entirely from the group supporting or open to ID.Free onyx (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't quibble on the word "incorrect." However, it is biased and non-neutral to omit scientist from the description of the entire group supporting or open to ID it is also inaccurate based on the credentials of the individuals and the film's treatment of the group. The film identifies those whom the producers consider Darwinists. It would be neutral and appropriate to put quotation marks around Darwinists to make the reader aware that it is the filmmaker's appellation and may not fit their own or another definition of the word. The result for the Overview would either be the exclusion of scientist from the description of all groups, "victims," "ID proponents" and "Darwinist atheists" or the inclusion of scientist in at least the description of the "victims." Because this Overview is supposed to be a neutral description of the film, either approach would provide the reader with an accurate, balanced and appropriate description of the film. Free onyx (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jargon is a bad thing. We need to aim for clear, concise descriptions. And I still don't see the dichotomy. Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll play! Dichotomy - 1: a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities. Merriam-Webster Online [26]. The following phrasing is taken from the first paragraph of The Overview of the article, "He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists who are atheists, selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution, culminating in an interview with Richard Dawkins.[15] Intelligent design proponents are also shown." This phrasing intimates that neither those claiming to have been victimized nor the intelligent design proponents are scientists setting up the dichotomy between they and the scientists who are atheists, selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution which suggests that the victims and id proponents therefore, may not be qualified or as qualified to enter into the discussion. This dichotomy, set up in the opening paragraph of the article's Overview has been demonstrated to be false. To clear up the false dichotomy, either the "victims" and "id proponents" can be identified as scientists qualified to enter into the debate or the word scientist must be removed from the description of the atheists. The removal of scientist only satisfies leveling the stature of those engaged in the debate, it is not accurate. With regard to "jargon," Darwinism (Darwin, Darwinist, Darwinian) is a description the filmmakers used for what the author of the Overview describes as "scientists who are atheists." If "Darwinists" replaces "scientists" in the description of the atheists, it would satisfy the need for accuracy. It is a commonly accepted literary convention to include quotation marks for words that have disputed meaning or use. Since we are describing the film, and not your irrelevant opinion, quotations marks used with the words of the filmmaker satisfy both an accurate portrayal of the film's content without bias and anyone who might quibble with the filmmakers use or definition. This also accomplishes what you've said "We need to aim for," which is clarity and conciseness. Free onyx (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"This phrasing intimates that neither those claiming to have been victimized nor the intelligent design proponents are scientists"

Well, in the second case it should, since the intelligent design supporters who are not members of the first group all appear to be non-scientists. (Check the list below - I may have missed someone, but for the most part, the ID supporters interviewed in the film are non-scientists, except for Crocker, Sternberg and Gonzalez.)

In the first case, since since the first group claim to have been victimised for their beliefs in ID, that implies that they are scientists. Of course that isn't entirely accurate (Marks being an exception), but that's the way they are portrayed.

If you think the article is inaccurate, why would you be "satisfied" is we replaced neutral language with a creationist slur? If you think there's a problem with the wording, you work to make it better. You don't work to make it worse. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "evolution supporter" a "creationist slur?" If not, use that in place of Darwinist, provided you think it accurate. My purpose is not to slur but to provide clarity on what the filmmakers posit, not to support creationism or ID. After making clear what the filmmakers put forward, every and all criticism of the film can be added. The value of a web based encyclopedia is being able to get information. I forget who suggested looking at Wiki's treatment of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for comparison. That is a muddled mess too. I know that the book is inaccurate, racist trash, but if you were looking for info on the book and what its authors wanted to put forward, you would have a difficult time understanding based on that article. That article needs to be edited to put forward descriptive information and then present criticism, just like this one. Free onyx (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Yikes. Where's the ACLU when you need them! (I say this partly in jest.) Whatever happened to defending minority viewpoints? The fact/opinion that ID is nonsense is irrelevant, frankly. Editorial opinions of the issues must be wiped from this and every WP article to ensure NPOV. (See my response to Filll above regarding the distinction between whitewashing an article to clear out all negativity - something I don't advocate - and accurately and fairly representing the negative response to a film, book or issue, which is completely legitimate under NPOV.) - Nhprman 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

we don't "defend minority viewpoints". We report on viewpoints depending on their relative weight per WP:DUE. The weight of ID in mainstream scholarship is neglegible, and for good reason. This isn't about "editorial opinions" at all, this is about reporting near-universal consensus amongst everyone with half a brain that ID has no merit. I agree we need to cut all the snide asides, there is really no need for that in a case as clear-cut as this. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost speechless at the arrogance of that remark. Seriously. "everyone with half a brain"? Really? This is a MOVIE article, not an article on ID. Even in the ID article, your elitism about this issue is unwarranted and is not allowed to exist, under NPOV (and yeah, I understand it backwards and forwards.) - Nhprman 19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nhprman: Please read WP:UNDUE, in particular. Yes, Wikipedia policy requires us to present the mainstream scientific rebuttal to each point that the film makes (as reported in reliable sources). Failure to do so would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. As for "all the editorializing" that you keep referring to: when that is being done by notable sources, we report on that too. --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to be aware that NPOV states clearly that editorializing is FORBIDDEN. Please re-read it, as well as sections on balance and fairness of tone. This has clearly gone way over the line and is unbalanced and is unfair in its tone. - Nhprman 19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have been unable to provide a single example of this alleged "editorializing" that we're supposedly indulging in. What I see is, overwhelmingly, the fair reporting of comments made by others in relation to the film. Comments that, apparently, you wish to remove. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nhprman, we do not defend minority viewpoints here. We follow NPOV. And NPOV states that we present the majority viewpoints, for the most part. Sorry if you do not like it, but many other wikis follow other rules. Try Conservapedia for example.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the door, but perhaps you ought to be more civil, first of all, and not be a jerk to other editors. And secondly, you may need to decide in your own mind whether you're defending the article or calling for it to be revised. You're a bit confused, based on your last five or six postings. You also need to learn the basics of fairness and balance. This isn't LEFTopedia, but it sure resembles it in this article.

I also think all the anti-IDers here who are hell-bent on using a FILM's article to vent about how wrong ID is need to step back and take a hard look at what this encyclopedia has become. The entire article is about soapboxing and trashing a concept, not simply describing a film fairly and evenly. (And for clarification, for the 146,001st time, I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design, and do not subscribe to any part of it. I simply want fairness in how this is presented. - Nhprman 19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nhprman how have I been unCIVIL to you? Please provide a diff. I have bent over backwards to tell you what the principles are under which Wikipedia is written, and you have been beligerent over and over and dismissive of the major tenets on which Wikipedia is built. This is not a very auspicious omen frankly. And you are presuming to dictate to me about what Wikipedia is and how it should be written, but you have a grand total of 1708 total edits including 605 mainspace edits in about 2.5 years of editing. I hate to tell you this, but it shows that you have extremely limited experience here at Wikipedia and likely are not at all familiar with the policies. This is evidenced in your repeated WP:SOAPboxing here on the talk page about how Wikipedia should be written and ranting and raving against "leftists" and how terrible they are and have created a biased article. Um... well ... this is nonsense. Sorry.

Let me try to help you. Wikipedia is not about fairness. Wikipedia is not about balance. WHOEVER TOLD YOU IT WAS? That is just ludicrous. I am sorry. It is hogwash. Wikipedia follows NPOV, which means the mainstream position in a relevant field is most prominent.

If you have a reference that shows that, among professional PhD biologists in the United States, the majority subscribe to intelligent design, please produce it. I have several sources which claim otherwise in peer-reviewed publications and other WP:RS. If you have a reference which shows that among mainstream media professional film reviewers, more than half gave this film a glowing review, please produce it. We unfortunately have several sources to the contrary. So if you have sources, produce them. Otherwise, your taunts here mean nothing.

I am not venting about how wrong ID is. But if a film review states that, then that is what we report. And many film reviews DO state that. And many of the scientific media, DO state that. And that is relevant, since this purports to be a film about science and the science community, not about religion and the religious community.

Think of it this way. If I wanted to publish something about how Christians are $#%^&* and get it published in the Focus on the Family Newsletter, how far do you think I would get? If I wanted to get a job at Ken Ham's Creation Museum and hand out atheist and evolutionary biology literature to guests, how far do you think I would get? Should I declare that I am being persecuted because I cannot show up to your church this Sunday and demand that I be able to lecture to your church's members how they are all disgusting filthy ^%$&&*? Is that discrimination that I cannot do that? Please, give it a rest. Of course the response to this sort of claim, which is the thesis of the movie, is quite negative. So this should be no surprise. And start writing.--Filll (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you've consistently mischaracterized NPOV as a licence to rebut and refute ideologies within articles about films like this one. You're just plain wrong, but I admit, you're probably not alone. This is routine at this point. Thanks for venting about how wrong ID is, then saying "I'm not venting about how wrong ID is." I don't agree with ID, either, I just don't think this is the place to rebut and refute it with a dizzying array of negative news articles and quotes (however, it is OBVIOUSLY acceptable on a "Reaction" page, which duplicates most of this negativity, and that's clearly where almost all of it belongs.)

As for fairness, check out WP:NPOV and look under the subhead "Fairness of tone". It states (in part) Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. That's this one, at this point. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so no, you cannot come here (on a film article page) and use it to trash an ideology you dislike and lard it up with negative news links, any more than you can go to a church and trash Christ. But you CAN certainly come here and create an article that says, in effect: "This is what this film is about. Here's a list of external links. This film got very bad reviews. It was recieved badly by the scientific community and others. See the 'Reaction' article for a full list of critical reviews and rebuttals by academics." That's it. That's fair, that's balanced, and that's not POV. That's all I'm asking and all others here are hoping for. Why is that so hard to accomplish, and why have we reached such a point in Wikipedia's history that we must we have two links (one negative news article) on the word "FILM" in the very first line, for crying out loud? Oh, and I've never been ordered to write an article here before. That's new. - Nhprman 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing and confusing the issue is silly. You are not just wrong, you are very wrong. And why havent you started working on the rewrite? You do not have to of course. But I can see userification in your future if you continue.--Filll (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nhprman, do you think you can write a more fair version that still conforms to Wikipedia's policy: to reflect reliable sources fairly and proportionately? I'm willing to help provide (maybe softer) Anti-ID balance to help you conform with wikipedia's standards, if you should accept this offer. Please comment below. Merzul (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I sincerely appreciate it. Whatever effort that's undertaken surely won't be one person's work, anyway. I think, frankly, about half the problem with the article is that it's too long, the other half is that people have gone to great lengths to explain what's wrong with ID, rather than sticking to the film itself. Both problems are related, and solving problem two just about solves problem one. However, I admit that I'm not going to be the martyr in charge of cutting out all the fat. - Nhprman 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Martyr? The material you might find oleaginous was added in response to challenges raised by those "positively inclined" toward the general premise of the movie. Surely defending that positive inclination does not qualify one as a martyr. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you are conflating your muted, tepid opposition to the concept of ID with the film. Wikipedia has an article on Intelligent design. This article is not an extension of the criticism of that concept. This article is about the film.Free onyx (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! And well stated. The article is about a film, not the subject of the film. So let's simply delete the 27 or so paragraphs of rampant soapboxing refuting ID in this film article, since this is NOT the place for such a discussion, it belongs in the ID and Evolution articles. - Nhprman 15:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Where am I conflating the two? Give me an example. I am following reliable sources. What do you think the reliable sources in the relevant fields say? What do you think the reliable sources in the mainstream media among movie reviews say? What do you think the reliable sources among the science media say ? (this film is about science, remember, so that is the relevant field). Answer those questions for me.--Filll (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nhprman, what is your problem? We are clear on the point that this is a movie about ID, or rather alleged persecution of ID proponents. Since ID is pseudoscience, it's a movie on the alleged persecution of proponents of pseudoscience. But is the movie isn't just claiming that poor crackpots are being sneered at by scientists. It "claims that intelligent design deserves a place in academia". You can denounce the persecution of a religious minority even if you have no connection with them, and if ID proponents were tortured or raped in university basements, I am sure there would be a scandal also among detractors of pseudoscience. But the movie is in fact pushing ID as an ideology besides claiming the ideology is being persecuted. Thus, the parts about "Darwinists are like Nazis" need to be treated separately from the claims that "there may be some merit to ID". The part about "is there some merit to ID" is addressed at the Intelligent Design article, and the answer is a resounding "no, it's just a propaganda stunt", with terminology streamlined as to avoid a US court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science. From this it follows that we should present this movie as an attempt to push pseudoscience (besides the part about libellous comparisons of academia and the Nazis). Nobody wants to "soapbox" about how there is no merit to ID here, it will be enough to just state it. Repeated references to how ID is pseudoscience only become necessary in the face of oppostion to presenting the movie for what it is. The point is that as soon as we are clear that "ID" is just an attempt to force creationism down people's throats even after they went to great pains saying "please stop shoving creationism down our throats", the allegations of "persecution" sound very hollow indeed. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this is an example of your conflating ID with the film " believe there is some confusion here. By NPOV, we are here to represent the views "in proportion to their prominence" in the relevant field. And that is what this article attempts to do. If you believe you can do it better, start writing in the sandbox given to you above.--Filll (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC) This is not an article about the relevant field of science, ID, evolution or tiddly winks, it is an article about the film and the NPOV applies to a description of the film not the subject matter covered by the film. Free onyx (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is wrong.

• This is an article about more than just the film. It is about the promotion of the film, and the reactions to the film, the claims made by the film, the reviews of the film, the controversies associated with the film, the interviews with the filmmakers, the screenings of the film, and the political campaigns associated with the film. It is not just about the film. Sorry.

• If it was just about the film, we could say "This film opened at X time and played for Y days and then closed having made Z money. The end". That is only about the film, and since you seem to claim the content of the film is irrelevant for an article on Wikipedia, we would have to excise almost everything, maybe including who appeared in it and so on.

• What is the subject of the film? Well it is about part of science as a subject, focusing on some topics in science, and about academia and science as a profession, alleging that there is discrimination and persecution in academia and science as a profession, and history, claiming that science is responsible for the Holocaust or Stalinism or Maoism or the Planned Parenthood movement etc. Therefore, the relevant fields and groups here are:
  • science as a community; namely its reaction to the film and views of the film
  • academia as a community; namely its reaction to the film and views of the film
  • professional film review community, since this is a film
  • other relevant fields in public relations and politics and the media, although these are less important
  • science itself, because we cannot just state "intelligent design" in an encyclopedia as a naked statement without a few words to explain what it is. And intelligent design purports to be science, so under NPOV we describe the views of intelligent design in proportion to their prominence
  • legal community, associated with some of the controversies, but fairly minor at this point since not much has happened yet
  • history a bit, associated with claims that science was responsible for the Holocaust and other horrors. We have no article on this as far as I know, but to explain it a bit we have noted this is a common belief among creationists, but is opposed by mainstream scholars. I do not know if this remains in the text at this point, but it was there and should be there. --Filll (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All of that wasted typing to be as wrong as you were from the outset. You've provided no sourcing or examples from Wiki where an article headed by the title of a movie or documentary gets the treatment you're suggesting. Any and all of the criticisms you are eager to make can have their own page or pages, but this does not obviate the requirement to accurately portray the film, its content and arguments. If after an encyclopedic entry has been made, you want to write about hoola hoops or little green men or your aspirations to perform on American Idol, have at it, but your irrelevant opinion has no place in the main body of the article! Free onyx (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Free onyx, with all due respect, your account shows a total of 31 edits to talk pages and none to the mainspace. You also display no knowledge of Wikipedia policy in your time here, which as of today is about 5 days. If you believe I have misquoted WP policy to you, please feel free to provide diffs of what you feel are the germane sections of policy. As far as I know, what I told you is correct. What you are attempting to advocate violates WP:CON, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read all of Onyx's posts, but it appears to me he is advocating what is in WP:NOR: "[T]o demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." What's great about this is that if something is really relevant to the movie, then reliable sources which discuss the movie will discuss those topics, and accordingly the material can be included in the article. In any case, if people would go from there, I think it would simplify the discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The first three bulleted items listed in your post above, Filll, do pertain to the film, and are not only appropriate for inclusion, but are not mutually exclusive from what Onyx said in the closing sentence of the post of his that preceded the one by you in question. We are not going to insert material pertaining to the history or science related to the controversies unless they are based on sources discussing how those things pertain to the movie. And yes, "NPOV", does indeed mean "neutral". That's what the "N" stands for, as it is a core WP policy. I would point out to both of you that screaming in bold all-caps, on the other hand, and referring to someone's statements as "irrelevant", and other personal comments, are not. They violate WP:Civility.

"PLEASE READ The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This article declares that the book is "...a plagiarism, literary forgery, and a hoax, alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The writing has been revealed to be originally an antisemitic and anti-Masonic (and subsequently anti-Zionist) diatribe and conspiracy theory." It pulls no punches." Because all of those statements are facts that are not in dispute by any credible, mainstream, non-fringe group. The E v C controversy, however, is a far more prominent, current controversy with advocates on both sides in the mainstream, and in positions of great political power. It is for this reason that the article must describe the conflict relating to this film, and not take sides in it.

"We ARE here to tell the reader "what you really need to know about": to give the background, to set this in context." Only if the sources that do so refer to the movie. Otherwise, such "context" belongs only in articles about evolution and creationism, which readers more than able to decide for themselves what they "need" can go to by clicking on the wikilinks for them in the article.

"Where am I conflating the two? Give me an example." All but the first three bulleted items in your list above, which do not reference the film, especially the last one and the third-to-last one, which explicitly refer only to related subjects, but not the film itself.

"this film is about science, remember, so that is the relevant field)." No, this is a film about the allegation by creationists that their ideas are being excluded from science academia, and that they are being persecuted for their advocacy of them. Nightscream (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, now that you have ignored the response to your post, and just continued to lengthen it with more claims, let me ask you a question or two. If the film is not about science as you claim, then why was there any copyright issue associated with the use of an animation based on a Harvard animation? Why is there any discussion in the film of abiogenesis? Even the trailers contain "science". And there is plenty of discussion of science by the filmmakers in the promotional materials. So, if the film is not about science at all, and none of the promotion, controversies, responses, etc to the film are about science, or make any comments about the science, then why is there a copyright issue and why discuss abiogenesis, for example? --Filll (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind consideration Nightscream. However, as much as I respect your opinion, I might note that you have little experience at Wikipedia, and little experience at editing contentious articles.

Please permit me to address some of the points you so kindly raised:

• The first three bulleted items listed in your post above, Filll, do pertain to the film, and are not only appropriate for inclusion, but are not mutually exclusive from what Onyx said in the closing sentence of the post of his that preceded the one by you in question. We are not going to insert material pertaining to the history or science related to the controversies unless they are based on sources discussing how those things pertain to the movie. Well I will let you discuss that with other admins with a lot of experience on these kind of articles. Those are the people that instructed me and I only follow their instruction. If you want to disagree with them and the consensus that has developed on these sorts of articles over the last few years, be my guest. I will not stop you.

• And yes, "NPOV", does indeed mean "neutral". That's what the "N" stands for, as it is a core WP policy. Actually, even Jimbo gave a speech on this subject a couple of years ago at one of the Wikimedia meetings where he pointed out that the term "NPOV" was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it confused people into thinking that the articles were supposed to be neutral. I would love to see how you can reconcile the operative phrase "in propotion to their prominence" with your interpretation as "neutral". I also would humbly point out that this article more than likely falls under the categorization of WP:FRINGE, or some variant thereof.

• I would point out to both of you that screaming in bold all-caps, on the other hand, and referring to someone's statements as "irrelevant", and other personal comments, are not. They violate WP:Civility. I see. So I am being charged with the violation of WP:CIVIL for writing in all caps or using a bold font? Dare I ask if italics also constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL? Are you sure you want to make this claim? And you are also claiming that my use of the word "irrelevant" which I have not applied to someone else or even someone else's opinion on this page, as near as I can determine, constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL? That is an interesting theory. I wonder if others would agree with you on that? What do you think?

• PLEASE READ The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This article declares that the book is ...a plagiarism, literary forgery, and a hoax, alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The writing has been revealed to be originally an antisemitic and anti-Masonic (and subsequently anti-Zionist) diatribe and conspiracy theory. It pulls no punches. Because all of those statements are facts that are not in dispute by any credible, mainstream, non-fringe group. The E v C controversy, however, is a far more prominent, current controversy with advocates on both sides in the mainstream, and in positions of great political power. It is for this reason that the article must describe the conflict relating to this film, and not take sides in it. I hope you realize that I did not write anything pertaining to the Protocols of Zion. And if you learn a bit about your history, there have been substantial controversies that have raged for decades about the Protocols of Zion. And these controversies were probably just as prominent as the Creation-evolution controversy if not moreso. It was also quite mainstream, and involved substantial amounts of political power, such as the Russian Tsar and so on. The article of course does not take sides in the conflict and should not; but the sides should be described in proportion to their prominence. This is a bit difficult for WP:FRINGE subjects, but that is a small failing in WP policy that people hope can be resolved by WP:CON. It does need to be changed, however.

• We ARE here to tell the reader "what you really need to know about": to give the background, to set this in context. Only if the sources that do so refer to the movie. Otherwise, such "context" belongs only in articles about evolution and creationism. I will let you argue about context and proper writing styles for hyperlinked articles with another Admin, and one experienced in this area. With all due respect, I think you have so little experience that you are unfamiliar with the consensus that has developed. If you are in fact correct, and the hundreds of other editors in this area are wrong, I would invite you to rewrite several tens of thousands of articles (if not more) which are therefore incorrectly written according to your standards. I for one will just choose to stop editing. But you are welcome to try to reform all of Wikipedia in your own image if that is your goal. Good luck. --Filll (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, please become more familiar with the clause of WP:NPOV which says "The NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.". Your argument above seems to ignore it. ID proponents claim ID is a valid scientific theory, making the view of the scientific community of that claim material to its veracity. It also means the view of the scientific community is the majority view and and that of ID proponents the minority. An extreme minority at that. The article as it stands reflects both views accurately and the only issue is that it gives undue weight to ID proponents since they are a tiny minority in the scientific community and NPOV says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". Frankly, the community expects its admins to understand all the clauses of our policy, and I'm surprised by your reasoning in your argument. You should also become more familiar with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience since ID is consider it by the majority of the scientific community. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem to have missed part of WP:Undue: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." But I admit I don't really see how any of this applies. If people think we should characterize majority views there's no disagreement; if people think we should ourselves specifically characterize the film as bad, there is no consensus for that position. In specific instances, though, I still don't see people contending that we should do this, unless there are disputes I'm missing. Mackan79 (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Undue applies because the views of the film's producers as well as the ID proponents they cover remain a tiny minority view in comparison to the large scientific community ID proponents stakes its claims against. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this has been explained and explained and explained and explained and explained here. However, you still do not seem to get it. Hmm...I wonder why that is?--Filll (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what is this discussion about anyway? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This and all of the discussions are about the integrity of Wikipedia. If this horridly wretched, biased piece of trash is allowed to remain as is, then Wikipedia would rank right up there with The Protocols of The Elders of Zion as a reliable source for information. Free onyx (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Silly me, I thought that discussion would take elsewhere. Also, a non-biased version is currently in the works, as explained above. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

“You have little experience at Wikipedia, and little experience at editing contentious articles.” Putting aside the fact that both of these assertions are untrue, disputes are resolved by considering the reasoning, arguments and/or evidence presented by the person you disagree with, and how they relate to the pertinent WP policies that are cited. They are not resolved by making personal ad hominem attacks about how much WP experience other editors have. You have no more authority to make arbitrary comments about others’ editing experience than you do to be making uncivil comments, or threatening others with blocks and other actions for non-existent violations. So calm down, read up on WP: Civility, and stop violating it by attacking others with your thinly-veiled condescension. Okay?

“Nightscream, now that you have ignored the response to your post, and just continued to lengthen it with more claims…” Which response are you referring to?

“If the film is not about science as you claim, then why was there any copyright issue associated with the use of an animation based on a Harvard animation? Why is there any discussion in the film of abiogenesis? Even the trailers contain "science". And there is plenty of discussion of science by the filmmakers in the promotional materials. So, if the film is not about science at all, and none of the promotion, controversies, responses, etc to the film are about science, or make any comments about the science, then why is there a copyright issue and why discuss abiogenesis, for example?” The article is about a film that alleges that those of a particular religious view are persecuted by those adhering to a particular scientific position. Because the allegation is part of a broader sociopolitical conflict, science is a related topic, one of several that it touches upon. Religion is another. It does not mean that the article is “about science”. There is a distinction between whether an article touches is about a film that touches upon a scientific issue and whether it is “about science”. This article is the latter. This one is not. What this has to do with the fact that there is a copyright case involved, I have no idea.

“I will let you discuss that with other admins with a lot of experience on these kind of articles. Those are the people that instructed me and I only follow their instruction. If you want to disagree with them and the consensus that has developed on these sorts of articles over the last few years, be my guest. I will not stop you.” No, I’m talking to you, since the statements I’m responding to are by you. The fact that all editors are in some way influenced by admins who helped instruct them does not mean that every single statement you make or position you take is directly attributable to them, or that you should respond to challenges to your statements by invoking other, unnamed people who are not present, rather than by directly rebutting the argument of the person disagreeing with you. You are responsible for your own statements, not others.

“Actually, even Jimbo gave a speech on this subject a couple of years ago at one of the Wikimedia meetings where he pointed out that the term "NPOV" was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it confused people into thinking that the articles were supposed to be neutral.” So it’s your position that neutrality is not one of WP’s core policies? Sorry, but this assertion is unsupportable. It’s all over Wikipedia, and if Jimbo thought it inaccurate, then he’d just change it. No one’s forcing him to keep policy pages out of date. Neutrality is a WP core policy, whether you like it or not, Filll. But if you can substantiate this assertion about what Jimbo has stated, please do so.

“I would love to see how you can reconcile the operative phrase "in propotion to their prominence" with your interpretation as "neutral".” Given that they’re not mutually exclusive, it hardly requires any reconciliation. When you describe a conflict accurately, you’re being neutral. If I say, “99x people believe this, and 1x people believe that”, that is a statement made in proportion, and it’s neutral. If I understand what you’re implying—and correct me if I’m wrong—you’re saying that any accurate description of a conflict in which one side disproportionately outnumbers the other is not neutral. But this is a non sequitur. The people within that conflict are not going to be neutral when expressing themselves with respect to that conflict. But an objective observer can certainly be neutral when he accurately describes it.

“I also would humbly point out that this article more than likely falls under the categorization of WP:FRINGE, or some variant thereof.”

“Nightscream, please become more familiar with the clause of WP:NPOV which says "The NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.” If either of you can explain how this means that we should include material that does not pertain to the film, then please do so, because I do not see how these policies, which I support, are mutually exclusive from anything I’ve said, nor do I recall arguing that we should not represent viewpoints out of proportion to their prominence. What I’ve argued is that we should not include material that does not pertain to the film.

“I see. So I am being charged with the violation of WP:CIVIL for writing in all caps or using a bold font?” It is my experience and observation that in print, particularly on the Internet, all-caps are considered the equivalent of screaming. Italics are not.

“And you are also claiming that my use of the word "irrelevant" which I have not applied to someone else or even someone else's opinion on this page…” I never said that you did. If you read the sentence in question closely, you’ll see that it says, “I would point out to both of you…” The admonition about the “irrelevant” comment was directed to Onyx, who was the one who used it.

“And if you learn a bit about your history, there have been substantial controversies that have raged for decades about the Protocols of Zion. And these controversies were probably just as prominent as the Creation-evolution controversy if not moreso.” Right. They were prominent. They are not any longer. Is it your position that the allegation in The Protocols are championed by people the mainstream and in politics to the degree and of the stature that ID and anti-evolutionism are? Most Americans doubt evolution, and the President and John McCain have expressed the opinion that ID should be taught alongside evolution. Does this currently hold true for the Protocols? The fact remains that E v C is an current, ongoing conflict, and Wikipedia can only describe that conflict, not take sides in it. Do you dispute this?

“The article of course does not take sides in the conflict and should not; but the sides should be described in proportion to their prominence.” Only as they pertain to their statements about this movie.

“I will let you argue about context and proper writing styles for hyperlinked articles with another Admin, and one experienced in this area. With all due respect, I think you have so little experience that you are unfamiliar with the consensus that has developed. If you are in fact correct, and the hundreds of other editors in this area are wrong, I would invite you to rewrite several tens of thousands of articles (if not more) which are therefore incorrectly written according to your standards. I for one will just choose to stop editing. But you are welcome to try to reform all of Wikipedia in your own image if that is your goal.” The only standards that I advocate in this or any other edit dispute are those of Wikipedia. My statement stands: The only material that belongs in a given article is that which pertains to that article’s subject. We are not going to place background material simply so that you can express your personal viewpoint in the E v C debate. Again, the only one arguing that we should include such material (which at this point has long-been removed from the article) is you. I do not see “hundreds other editors” arguing this, nor “several tens of thousands of articles” that violate this principle. But if you can have some of these editors participate here to corroborate your claims, or cite these articles in question, by all means, do so. Nightscream (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you are incorrect in almost every respect and have engaged in somewhat problematic and polemical argumentation. I also however believe you are too dangerous to have a conversation with, for the most part. I will respectfully decline to try to educate anyone who is in your position with your attitude. Sorry.

I will only say that I never threatened anyone with a block; obviously I cannot block anyone or ban anyone unilaterally, the way you can (at least temporarily, although I notice you have a somewhat uneven history there. My condolences, and I mean no offense). I do not threaten such things as some others here are doing, although I have from time to time warned people from continuing to engage in WP:DE and WP:TE and other abuses of WP principles, because of the potential negative consequences which I do not think would be in anyone's best interests.

If you personally feel you can personally rewrite the article to suit your own tastes and what you claim are the principles of Wikipedia better, I would also invite you to join the others in the sandbox rewrite.

I also might mention that while you have claimed the majority of Americans disagree with evolution, surveys also show that the majority of Americans cannot pick the definition of evolution out of a multiple choice list. So it is a somewhat meaningless statement. I mean no offense; that is just an observation.

I apologize if I have offended you in any way shape or form. --Filll (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I really think nightscream needs to become more familiar with the interplay of the various clauses of NPOV and how they apply to this article. That, and calm down and stop shouting at us. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" IS being taught as fact throughout much of the Muslim world, as the article on that subject plainly indicates. It isn't considered "fact" by the relevant experts: but neither is creationism or ID. The analogy holds. There is no mainstream scientific opposition to evolution. Furthermore, I wonder if some of those who oppose the article have actually read it recently? Almost without exception, every single anti-ID statement in the article was made by a notable expert commenting on the film itself, and is therefore entirely relevant. "So let's simply delete the 27 or so paragraphs of rampant soapboxing refuting ID in this film article"...??? What nonsense is this? What 27 paragraphs? I count, at most, two sentences of background information which don't actually cite the film itself! So what's being proposed is obviously the deletion of relevant, cited, on-topic negative comments from notable experts. What else could it be? --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert, you are making the mistake Filll continually makes, conflating criticism of ID or creationism with the film. There are already articles on ID and creationism. This is an on-line encyclopedia. People searching the titles are looking for information about the subject, not the author's beliefs. People can form on their own opinion once they have the information. As tripe filled, racist and inaccurate as The Protocols is, the article makes it difficult to understand what the book is about because of the warranted distaste the authors/editors had for the subject. Make no mistake, I think it is trash, but Wiki does nothing to aid my understanding of the book itself. Further, I'm not suggesting that criticism is not warranted or that it shouldn't be included, but I am suggesting that it should be included after the topic has been described. In this case, it means putting forward what the filmmakers posit using their reasoning. Then, go for all the criticism you like! Free onyx (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...So what you're now suggesting is keeping all the current content (which IS about the film), but simply rearranging it? However, that would be tantamount to having a "criticism section", which is currently frowned upon in Wikipedia. It would also make the article even longer, because we'd need to basically repeat ourselves in order to insert the criticisms into their proper contexts (indeed, as there are so many, we'd probably end up reproducing the existing set of headings to accommodate them all and make them readable). IIRC, current style guidelines indicate that aappropriate criticism should be incorporated throughout the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact, I am suggesting a rearrangement using the film as a primary source as opposed to Expelled:Exposed, for example and an article in the Scientific American, both of which are editorial. This is particularly important in the headings. Portrayal of science as atheistic does not reflect the film in any way, yet we've used an editorial as an acceptable source and used its perspective in the heading of a section. This is misleading. Editorials as secondary sources for criticism are useful for that purpose but misleading for accurate portrayal of the film. "ID proponents" and "victims" are also treated as less than qualified by the article's Overview, something the film clearly does not do. Free onyx (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Couple problems -

• We should always give preference to secondary sources over primary sources
• How do you propose we use the movie as a primary source? It isn't available, so it's not verifiable. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Free Onyx, the "accurate portrayal of the film" is the paragraph which begins the "overview" section (which you could expand if you feel it's too short): and that paragraph does not use either the NCSE or Scientific American as sources. Only after that does the article move on to what these (and other) notable authorities have to say about the film. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

“With all due respect, I believe you are incorrect in almost every respect…” Then you should be able to refute my statements by virtue of evidence, reasoning and policy citation. The fact that you instead resort to unsupported personal comments would suggest that you know that you cannot do this because my statements are well-founded.

It remains that you have shown no regard for WP:Civility, and have violated it by attacking others, including those who have politely pointed this out to you.

“…and have engaged in somewhat problematic and polemical argumentation. I also however believe you are too dangerous to have a conversation with, for the most part.” And yet, the evidence that I presented shows that you have repeatedly insulted and threatened others here who disagree with you, whereas I have been quite polite and direct with you. It is for this reason that these bizarre, self-serving accusations and attempts to supposedly gauge my mental state are simply rhetorical, and made because you know you’re wrong, and cannot seem to admit that your own behavior has not been in the best spirit of civil discourse or WP policy. Being politely criticized for your behavior is hardly “dangerous” or “polemical”.

“I will respectfully decline to try to educate anyone who is in your position with your attitude.” Again, if this not mere rhetoric, then why did three paragraphs follow this statement? In any event, declining to speak to those attempting to speak to you is not a very good ideas, as it is part of the edit dispute resolution process that WP prescribes.

“I will only say that I never threatened anyone with a block” Yes, you did, here, here and here, as well as in other instances. The fact that you sometimes do so in an oblique or vague manner does not change the fact that you clearly were violating WP: ATTACK by threatening other users with administrative actions, in some cases for things that are not even policy violations.

“I also might mention that while you have claimed the majority of Americans disagree with evolution, surveys also show that the majority of Americans cannot pick the definition of evolution out of a multiple choice list.” Which implies that these two things are mutually exclusive. They're not, as many people have been observed to take a position on a given issue while simultaneously being completely ignorant of the finer details of it. Creationists’ opposition to evolution is a prime example. So the notion that most Americans cannot define evolution does not contradict the fact that they’ve taken a position against it. Indeed, the fact that they’re ignorant of it is one of the things that explains such a position, so rather than being mutually exclusive, it’s logically causal.

“I really think nightscream needs to become more familiar with the interplay of the various clauses of NPOV and how they apply to this article.” I don’t know why you seem to speak as if the mere disagreement of someone with your position means that they lack understanding of the various NPOV clauses, but I am quite familiar with them. But if I’m wrong, why don’t you select a quote by me, and then cite the policy or clause with which it is inconsistent? So far, your assertions have involved the notion that proper proportion of prominence of views and their sources is somehow inconsistent with both neutrality and the principle that articles should describe conflicts instead of engage in them. I’ve responded to both of these notions by explaining why they’re wrong. If my position is wrong, then why not rebut it?

“That, and calm down and stop shouting at us.” If I have shouted, I apologize, but where have I done this? Can you show me? As far as I know, I have tried to conduct myself with politeness, and have not shouted at, insulted, or cast aspersions at anyone.

“"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" IS being taught as fact throughout much of the Muslim world, as the article on that subject plainly indicates. It isn't considered "fact" by the relevant experts: but neither is creationism or ID. The analogy holds. There is no mainstream scientific opposition to evolution.” No, but there’s mainstream popular opposition to it, here in this country. Is there any mainstream popular advocacy of the assertions in The Protocols? Moreover, I think we need to recall the original point of whether we should include “context” material to give the Expelled reader the proper “background”. My position is that we should only include material as it pertains to the movie. The Protocols articles supports this, as it does not seem to contain material that does not pertain to that book. At no point in that article does it launch into a satellite discussion of anti-Semitism, conspiracy literature, hoaxes, etc. It only mentions such things as they relate to The Protocols. This is what the Expelled article should include. In addition, there’s nothing in the Protocols article that gives the appearance that Wikipedia takes a position on anyone’s advocacy or denouncement of it. It states that it’s a hoax, a forgery, conspiracy literature, and anti-Semitic, all of which are facts, but it also contains a huge “Contemporary usage and popularity” section which details endorsement of The Protocols in the Middle East, Africa, the U.S., etc., and the few criticisms of this are all attributed to sources, and not worded in such a way that they could be construed as the positions of Wikipedia itself.

“So what's being proposed is obviously the deletion of relevant, cited, on-topic negative comments from notable experts. What else could it be? ” For my part, material that does not pertain to the movie. Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, I am still utterly baffled as to where you think this "material that does not pertain to the movie" is hiding. Nhprman seems to think there are 27 paragraphs of it, but I just can't find it. So if it does not exist, what are you arguing about? And what's this "No, but there’s mainstream popular opposition to it, here in this country". I can assure you that there is NOT mainstream popular opposition to evolution in THIS country. Are you forgetting that this is the Internet? There is "mainstream" popular support for the Protocols in many countries, whereas ID is an issue in ONE country. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First, to expand on Robert's notes, saying "THIS" country on an Internet site that has editors from the world over is certainly a bit confusing at best. What precisely is "THIS" coutry.

Secondly this talk page hardly presents WP in a good light -- the snarky comments don't bother me, but trying to figure out precisely what the bloody topic is is like trying to figure out what that container of former food in the back of the refrigerator (the one with the talking green slime) used to be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to all and sundry who feel I have insulted or threatened them. If that is how it came across to you, I apologize. That was not my intent as I noted in several cases. I do want to caution editors from engaging in disruptive editing behavior. If this is forbidden, I apologize and will not do it again. I am sorry for any misunderstandings and for anything that might have appeared as a challenge to your authority or improper disagreement in any way shape or form.--Filll (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert, I am referring to the "background context" that some here are arguing should be placed in the article. Previously, there was such material in the article that was not based on sourced pertaining to the movie. It has since been removed, I wanted to make sure that the aforementioned material suggested for inclusion would not be a rehash of that.

I already responded to your statements about about The Protocols by making a point of comparing the power and prestige of those championing ID to those championing The Protocols' authenticity. Since you did not respond directly to that point, perhaps we should drop it, and focus on the more salient point I made in my last post regarding what The Protocols article has and does not have, and how the Expelled article should emulate it, as you suggest.

Filll, thank you. And again, if anyone feels that I shouted or anything, or said anything not in the spirit of civil discourse, by all means, please point it out to me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Issues - The Killers

Under legal issues, incongruously tacked on at the end of the paragraph about Ono's lawsuit, the article says, "A song by The Killers is used in the film under a license which they claim was obtained by misleading them about the film."

However:

1. That's not a legal issue. And,
2. The reference given to support that statement is a reference on a blog site to other blog sites -- about as far as it is possible to get from a reliable source. And,
3. The source doesn't even support the claim. It says that the band's manager "is mad about" the film, and that they were told:

"The film is a satirical documentary with an estimated running time of 1 hour and 50 minutes, exploring academic freedom in public schools and government institutions with actor, comedian, economist, Ben Stein as the spokesperson,"

which is exactly what the film is (except that the running time ended up being a bit shorter).

Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with any "legal issues." So can we all agree to just delete that sentence? NCdave (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It fits where it is. Claiming that the license was obtained deceptively is still a legal claim. Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And why do you consider the Wall Street Journal not to be a reliable source? I know some of their Op-Eds are crap, but this was part of their general reporting, which is still pretty good, even after News Corp bought it. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no lawsuit, there's no threat of a lawsuit, and there's no claim of legal wrongdoing. Ergo, it is not a legal issue. It is just a bunch of bloggers talking about how the band's manager is unhappy.

The only pertinent thing there from the WSJ is this pair of sentences, saying that the anti-Expelled bloggers are wrong:

"Bloggers also questioned whether another popular rock group, the Killers, had given permission for the inclusion in the film of one of their songs, "All These Things That I've Done." A spokesman for Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, which owns the band's record label and music publisher, said licenses had been issued."

There's nothing there from the WSJ supporting any claim of any sort of misbehavior, legal or otherwise, by the producers of Expelled. NCdave (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And that makes the WSJ "about as far as it is possible to get from a reliable source"? I don't see your point? How is the WSJ not a reliable source? Guettarda (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Like us they just report -- and I think they reported that the use was unlicensed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, richarddawkins.net bloggers blogging about bloggers is about as far as it is possible to get from a reliable source. The WSJ is a reliable source, but the WSJ is not the source for this claim, and did not support it. The WSJ reported that the use was licensed. They wrote, "A spokesman for Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, which owns the band's record label and music publisher, said licenses had been issued." NCdave (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Were we relying on bloggers at richarddawkins.net? Huh? We were claiming that The Killer's music was not licensed? Not as far as I am aware. --Filll (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the one and only source is those bloggers. NCdave (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Smith's article is from the WSJ, and Boyce's article was in HuffPo. Guettarda (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the reference. It is Boyce quoting information posted on the Band's official bulletin boards by the admins who talked with the manager of the Band. This is probably accurate information, but it's not an official statement by the band; so I toned it down a bit. Merzul (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to make room for this non-issue, is there any room for the response:

Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft explained, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

Ben Stein: "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.'" Press Release

Er what? This is the discussion about the Killers issue. If you want to discuss the Yoko Ono issue, do it in the proper discussion, i.e. the one above this Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All this about a movie that is still one of the top rated movies on Yahoo! It's not surprising that an alleged 90% of critics hate this move. Is it coincidence that 90% of critics are hardcore liberals? Isn't it odd that Michael Medved, one of the few prominent and conservative reviewers, gave the movie three stars? This is the type of article I'd expect from Wikipedia. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is still this: it's not a lawsuit, and the film had a license to use it. Saksjn (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the band asked for their music to be removed and felt lied to while the movie is involved in an on-going lawsuit about music is relevant. Paper45tee (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But it should not be in a section about copyright issues. The movie is what they said: a satire looking at issues regarding ID and evolution, in particular persecution. Saksjn (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, the movie's use of The Killers' song is not a legal issue. The producers obtained a proper license. The band's manager didn't like the movie, but so what? The description of the movie that they had when the license was sold was perfectly accurate. The band's manager's problem is that he didn't bother to ask who was being satirized in the "satirical documentary." NCdave (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Still a legal issue. The Killers and fans may want to take action to stop the song's use in a disreputable film, but their manager has given the producers a legally binding license so the film is entitled to use the music legally, if not morally. .. dave souza, talk 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)