Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Films     (Rated B-Class) Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale. Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Intelligent design WikiProject (Rated B-Class) Creationism Portal This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Contents 1 NPOV in Caroline Crocker section 2 respone belongs at bottom of article ? 3 Needs to be added 4 Blogs 5 Inflammatory Article 6 Shortening

[edit] NPOV in Caroline Crocker section

The juxtaposition of the creationist claims with the claims about Nazi atrocities is enough to give readers pause. There is no need to rub the reader's nose in it. Bwrs (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the source that characterized the many examples taken from a Crocker lecture at NVCC as "discredited" creationism claims also admitted not knowing if that was exactly what she taught at George Mason University, where she claims she was penalized. The NCSE based their claim of "discredited science" teaching on what was published in the Washington Post from NVCC, as well as from slides of hers from the Coral Ministries website, admitting "Though it’s not known whether Crocker used the same slides while teaching at George Mason". The claim in the article here should be tweaked just slightly so as not to be more assertive about what she taught at George Mason than either of the two sources cited. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't have a big issue with losing "discredited", the description here is an extremely brief summary of what the Washington Post describes as "The lecture she was to deliver had caused her to lose a job at a previous university, she told me earlier". So we're relying on Crocker's statement to a reporter, and a reliable source describing what she taught students at NVCC. We don't mention the slides. It might help to head the section with See main article: Caroline Crocker. .. dave souza, talk 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It does help losing discredited because the Expelled Exposed was backing up the charge "discredited" with examples from the slides and the NVCC. Crocker does seem to admit in the Wash Post article that the lecture is the same as that given at George Mason, but if that isn't enough to sew it up for EE it shouldn't be enough here either (especially in line with BLP concerns and all).Professor marginalia (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] respone belongs at bottom of article ?

It seems odd to me that we have the response from the media covered at the top of the article even before an overview of what the film is about and the points it makes. That sort of thing belongs near the bottom with it's own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.139.218 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be added

NY judge: Film can use John Lennon song 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a ruling against the preliminary injunction, but includes the opinion that a fair use defense is likely to prevail. See also – [1], [2] and [3] . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

One of the areas this article should be improved is to prune some of the infatuated blogmentary. There are nearly 200 cites, a fourth of them to blogs, and one of them authored by a community college math teacher/blogger identifying himself as "Zeno". One of the more notable and RS justifiable, PZ's blog, has been cited over a dozen times-that's a lot. But many of these blog cites are used, not because they're offering a balanced representation of general opinion, but because there was something peculiarly unique about it, a juicy editorialized quotation to use here or quirky supposition taken to play up in the article here. The blogs offer much of the less encyclopedic material, such as coverage of PZ's intervention in the conference call, which I don't recall mentioned by any sources outside of the blogosphere. The article is unfocused, the main points are unclear, and it's more Entertainment Tonight than it should be due to the gossipy bloat. Looking at claims sourced to blogs is a good place to start improving this.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess after the release of the film, there are now more reliable sources so many, so going through and upgrading sources is not a bad idea. Also, shortening and focusing the material in the process. Less is More. Only problem, of course, is that sharpening and focusing an article is terribly hard. Do you have specific suggestions as to where to start? Merzul (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory Article

Half of the introduction of this article is dedicated to negative reviews of the film. I believe that these should be placed under a "controversy" section, and that the introduction should be a brief synopsis of the film itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of this comment would make me think that you had not actually read the article. Both the first paragraph of the lead and the first section of the article are synopsis of the film's content. Yes there is much content about the controversy of the article and the bad reviews, but they are in proportion to the movie. (i.e. controversy over the movie is much more widespread than actual content of movie, bad reviews overwhelm the good.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For an explanation of the style used in the introduction, see WP:LEAD. Anything in the body of the article (including the controversy) gets summarised in the lead. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortening

I've not checked this article for a long time and it is still as lengthy as it was. Did all of the editors abandon the endeavor to cut it down? Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, I haven't seen this on my watchlist very often lately. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In fairness when I put the tag on it, in the morning of April 29, it was roughly 45KB longer. Immediately after I did that it was still growing, but it started getting shorter by that night. It kept reducing until about May 3 when it got down to a 105KB. After that it started slowly growing again, but it's nowhere near its previous high. So all totaled declining period lasted 4 days, but the length has been comparatively stable at 110-115 for the last month.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)