Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Contents

Intelligent Design debate Inappropriate on Expelled page

Polemics against ID have been copied and pasted verbatim from the ID page into the Expelled page. Not only is this not germane to the Expelled film, it is biased POV and simply not appropriate for this page. The debate over ID should be done on the ID talk page, and controversy about ID belongs on the ID page, not on the Expelled page.Supertheman (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which sections specifically? The Squicks (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph, On his personal website, Dr. Sternberg elucidates all the retaliation and discrimination attempts at the Smithsonian, and quotes the findings from the Office of Special Council (OSC) concerning his treatment. A letter from the OSC states: "During our initial investigations, OSC has been able to find support for many of your allegations. However, the SI [Smithsonian Institute] is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation" and "In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI", cites http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm, which violates WP:SPS. The section is POV right now, but any counterbalance has to as be properly cited as the other quotes. The Squicks (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If you read the numerous reviews you can't help but note that the movie is advocating intelligent design. Stein's words in numerous interviews indicates he too believes the movie is advocating intelligent design. They want ID to be treated as scientific as evolution. This "documentary" is an ID advocacy film. So they are debating the merits of ID as science and it makes sense we add the views on ID clear in the article. Angry Christian (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not make sense that we would debate ID on the Expelled page. There is a place for that, on the ID page. If you read numerous articles about Richard Dawkins you will find that he is an atheist, however his page is no place for a debate on atheism.

Secondly, on the comments on Dr. Sternberg, other references are cited to dispute his claims that he was persecuted, I simply added documentation by the governmental agency (OSC) to verify his claims. This is germane and goes directly to the comments disputing his claims.Supertheman (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether your changes are justified or not, but you have removed sources that are used elsewhere in the article leading the software to generate error messages. Please fix this ASAP or we have to revert to a healthy version, and you can make gradual changes. The changes you are doing are also too drastic and should be discussed here before implemented. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the issue I have with your edit. Th gov "report" is meaningless and it was pure partisan posturing, Sternberg was not an employee. THAT is why the report is bogus and why it resulted in nothing. Your edit does not reflect this fact and as is will mislead the reader. This edit perpetuates the dishonest claims made in the movie. Please correct this. Angry Christian (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits by Supertheman, while keeping the addition of Angry Christian. I don't agree/disagree on any of this, but I do not tolerate those glaring red error messages on the article page. Supertheman, feel free to discuss changes here, but please be careful with the article, Merzul (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Two comments about that OSC report:
- Can one assume that a copy of a report on this guy's web site is a valid (unmodified) source?
- I've not read the whole report, just a few bits and most of the conclusion. The feeling I get is that the guy was a total screw-up. My knowledge of companies and organizations is that if you have a collegue who is a total screw-up, then it's normal that everyone does whatever they can to get rid of him. Quote-mining that report to make it look like he was being persecuted without mentioning why he was being persecuted is not cricket. --RenniePet (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "is not cricket"? The Squicks (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we simply summarize Sterberg's position ("I'm a victim") and let people click on the Sterberg controversy link if they want all the gory details? Angry Christian (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And I think anyone editing that section would be wise to read the Sternberg peer review controversy and you might enjoy this PT article on the OSC investigation. Angry Christian (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The section as is includes sources which predate Expelled, as did the addition of the primary source which Sternberg presents, which violates WP:NOR unless set in the context of a reliable secondary source evaluating his claimed defense. Recent sources relating directly to the film include [1] [2] [3] and the section can be reduced to a concise statement relating closely to the film, with the Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy handling all the detail. Will try to produce a version on these lines shortly. .. dave souza, talk 18:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It goes directly to the claims of Dr. Sternberg of his treatment at the Smithsonian. Why are you all so afraid to include this on the page? We're looking for a neutral POV here, and attacks on his credibility being allowed, with no references to any that confirm his claims violates the NPOV. This get SO old. Why are some editors here absolutely terrified to allow referenced material to be quoted on this article? Supertheman (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary Topic Break

When a citizen's group in Virginia sponsored an essay contest for high school students on the topic "Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution", Egnor responded by posting an essay on an intelligent design blog claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine. His essay was met with considerable criticism by medical professionals, professors and researchers. In the film, Stein describes this as "Darwinists were quick to try and exterminate this new threat", and Egnor says he was shocked by the "viciousness" and "baseness" of the response. The National Center for Science Education surmises that "Michael Egnor had apparently never been on the Internet before."
The "had apparently never been on the Internet before" remark is somewhat mystifying. The way the paragraph is phrased, it looks as if the NCSE doesn't mind profanity/threats made to ID proponents. That is completely wrong- the NCSE counters ID claims objectively and civilly. The Squicks (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
See the source, a better paraphrase would be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 19:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It goes directly to the claims of Dr. Sternberg of his treatment at the Smithsonian. Why are you all so afraid to include this on the page? We're looking for a neutral POV here, and attacks on his credibility being allowed, with no references to any that confirm his claims violates the NPOV. This get SO old. Why are some editors here absolutely terrified to allow referenced material to be quoted on this article? Supertheman (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

rename of section 1.3 (again)

I started a new thread because the other was just too long. Now, I think we should use, "Portrayal of 'Big science' as atheistic" and let the readers decide what "Big science" is. Sound OK? RC-0722 247.5/1 13:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. As stated already, there's no such thing – it's a propagandistic neologism which simply means science, as shown by the cited sources. We should not be giving undue weight by headings to an extreme minority pseudoscientific view. .. dave souza, talk 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight: You're against letting the readers come up with their own view on what "Big science" is? Also saying that it is a, "it's a propagandistic neologism which simply means science" is your and the sources' views. Now, what if the sources are wrong? What if we've beeen throwing "Big science" around and twisting what it really means? That is why we must present it in a way that the reader decides what it is, and what it means. Unless of course you have a sourced quote from one of the producers saying that it means science, we should present it in a neutral way, and let the readers decide. RC-0722 247.5/1 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(crickets) RC-0722 247.5/1 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hardly cricket, old chap! See continuing discussion at #How about "Portrayal of scientific methodology as atheism"? above. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article about movie?

Or is this a proof that the premise of the movie is false. Some people never understand that they harder they try to push something into a box the more it comes out. 72.205.37.144 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Short answer at present this is an article about this film's role in the Intelligent design controversy. So no it is not at present an article about a film as such. This explains the length and the unusual method of ordering. Despite my annoyance this is is not too unusual of controversial films. At some point it'll be wise to have a separate article, as there is with Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, to deal with the controversy and then leave this one to deal with the film. That separation has not yet happened, but it's not impossible it will.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well what do you propose we do with the over 90 percent of mainstream professional critics that give the movie a negative review? Ignore those? What do you propose we do with the scientific media sources that are negative about the media? Ignore them? This movie is fundamentally about an issue in science. Does the opinion of the science community in this matter have no bearing? Should it not appear in this article? Please...--Filll (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You do what you do with any other film or documentary that's a critical bomb. See Manos: The Hands of Fate or Battlefield Earth (film) for how to properly deal with bad films. The "Battlefield Earth" article has several quotes, but they are usually kept short and don't go on for whole paragraphs. Both of them have segments with common film names like "Production, Synopsis/Plot." This is also true of documentaries. I was probably too mean to you in the past, but I think you might be more use to editing articles on science than on films. This is a problem with other editors here too I think. It's probably one that's unresolvable.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're basically right. I have a feeling people will have to wait until the hype dies down and then do some serious editing when things have settled down a bit more. It should be more about the movie itself than about ID, which is covered elsewhere. I also think it's overly argumentative and nitpicky. Look at the final section. A guy gets an email that the screening time has been changed and that makes it into an encyclopedia article? Seriously, why is that there? The article should resemble other movie articles more than it does. Yes, it should cover the controversy well, and explain that ID has been resoundingly rejected as unscientific, but point-by-point rebuttals of everything are not really what this needs. -R. fiend (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone told you earlier not to guess percentages. We don't know the mainstream response based on john doe's 1 paragraph review from Rotten Tomatoes. And no, NCSE and Scientific American are not the mainstream scientific community. Secondly, posts like the first one don't work here. I'm all for fighting bias and agenda if it exists, but making a post expecting it to open everyones eyes just isn't going to happen. Make an account, and stay around watching edits and helping with the maintaining of the page if you want change. Joe3472 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"And no, NCSE and Scientific American are not the mainstream scientific community" are you suggesting the NCSE and Sci Am are fringe science organizations? That they are not representaive of mainstream scientific views? I'm curious Angry Christian (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I am going by the RT rating of 9 percent rotten, and 91 percent fresh. I am not estimating anything; I am quoting what Rotten Tomatoes stated for mainstream reviewers. Do you have another source that is better? And NCSE (associated with the largest science organization in the United States, the AAAS) and Scientific American are definitely mainstream scientific organizations. What do you propose that they are? What do you think is a mainstream scientific organization instead?--Filll (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this article contains way too much dialog about the issues contained the in film and very little about the film itself. Is there any way to split out this article so that there's one about the film and another concerning the controversy surrounding the film? --Novan Leon (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I also believe one could do a bit more in ways of dispassionately describing the film, but most people here disagree. As this film has been denounced in almost all reliable sources, it is hard for Wikipedia to give a dispassionate account. Do you have any reliable third-party source (not affiliated with the discovery institute or otherwise politically motivated to support it) that you think fairly describes the film? That might help, Merzul (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the comments concerning the "negative media" response to the Media section, it was moved back.

This is what I don't understand, my edits on pages such as Global Warming and Evolution are erased immediately, despite the fact that they are good contributions with reputable citations. There is no controversy section on the evolution page, and no controversy section on the global warming page, yet the Intelligent Design has a massive controversy section and my suggestion to move it to it's own page (on the ID talk page) were summarily dismissed as unneeded, yet my suggestion to put a controversy section on the global warming page were met with Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section notations that discourage such a practice, so why is one on the ID page?

I realize that I'm talking about many topics here on the Expelled page, I am simply in confusion as to why people who advocate Evolution are actively erasing edits, and making edits of their own on the Expelled page creating a defacto summary dismissal of the film? The Expelled page is there to *describe* what the movie is, as well as provide criticism, but as it stands now there is NOT a "neutral" point of view on the page, it is clearly biased towards those that don't like the film. Isn't anyone concerned about that on the side of evolution?

The Expelled page shows exactly why many of my friends no longer contribute to or use Wikipedia. I have *no* desire to turn Wiki into Conservapedia, I don't use that site or wish to contribute to it, but I would like for Wiki to have a "neutral" point of view. Is that too much to ask? It's bad enough that *no* edits are allowed on the evolution or global warming pages that differ with the party line, but to have pages such as Expelled literally turned into a destruction of the film is not only unfair, but it completely counters with the Wiki purpose. It's time to return the page to a *neutral* point of view, and stop the meanspirited cacophony that exists there now. Supertheman (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, AngryChristian, you derided the comment by another person who said, "And no, NCSE and Scientific American are not the mainstream scientific community". No, they are not the "mainstream scientific community" one is a private special interest group and proevolution advocacy organization and the other is a magazine with a slick cover and advertising inside. Neither is the "mainstream scientific community". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak about NCSE, but Scientific American is about as mainstream as it gets. I have been reading it for 45+ years. They always use highly respected authors, usually from the top echelon of their respective fields, including Nobel laureates. Their letters to the editor have a 2-3 month lag time, to allow the author to respond to any critical letters, and sometimes they can be highly critical. The editors seem to fear no criticism from the mainstream scientific community. Just because SciAm has a slick cover, internal advertising, and is written in highly accessible jargon-free non-technical language, doesn't make it less mainstream. If anything, I would say those features, as well as its huge circulation numbers, make it more mainstream. --Art Smart (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Derided the comment" WTF? I asked for clarification. People need to lighten up. When in doubt ask for clarification. I believe he noted neither were mainstream science which begs the question does he feel they represent the fringe. Asking for clarity before responding to someones comments is not a crime. I wish other people would do the same. Angry Christian (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
When I said "and no, NCSE and Scientific American are not the mainstream scientific community" I meant and probably should have phrased more appropriately, that they are just 2 organizations out of many hundreds of thousands exist. So just because these two well known organizations say it, doesn't mean the rest of them do. Its kind of like someone saying "well I saw it on wiki so its a fact". Thats what I want to avoid. Joe3472 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Joe, thanks for clarifying your comments. Your previous comments make sense to me now. Angry Christian (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

propaganda in the lead paragraphs

I edited it to reflect at least one science organization and one leading, mainstream science journal considers the film to be propaganda. That is notable but this is not the section to delve into all the gory details. I added the cites and it now reads similar to the Chicago and NY papers being quoted that the movie stinks. Angry Christian (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A few conservative and Christian media outlets have given the film favorable reviews.

We should quote a notable christian or conservative critic that liked the movie so add some sense of balance. Sust a very simple and brief comment like the negative ones shown would add to the article. Not suggesting we violate undue weight but as it is there is absilutely NO positive weight torwards the movie in the two lead paras. Let's add a brief "I loved it" from a notable christian or conservative source. Angry Christian (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Here is what I'm getting at "a few conservative and christian blah blah" Well check out the ARN page of resources found here and it's more than a few. We should add one of those voices in the lead, briefly mind you, like the others. Angry Christian (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) National Review, Baptist Press, American Spectator, those are well known publications, perhaps a quote from one of those. They are all on that ARN site. Angry Christian (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree quite strongly in principle with that suggestion, this seems like a good time to point out that the article is still approx 3 times the recommended maximum length. I think it would be a mistake to add anything without first trimming something to make room for it. Still, introducing some sense of balance is a good idea. Doc Tropics 02:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Doc I am so totally with you. But the lead was so out of balance I was getting dizzy reading it. We have an entire section devoted to a single guy who realized they may be giving different screening times so as to keep the naughty people away. I cannot think of anything more useless than that in this article. We have devoted space to the fact the movie was released later than planned. Yawn. Seriously, we have an atonishing amount of trivia and other useless information but I'm concerned about the hassle to get it removed. Back to your point, I am all in favor of trimming useless info, especially the stuff that was put in back when we had nothing of substance to add. Angry Christian (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
And if the lead is too long then we shoudl rip one of the 4 "it sucks" to we can add one Hallelujah.Angry Christian (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just cite tagged my edit concerning support from the ID/creationist community. Thank you very much for using a tag and not simply reverting me. I appreciate that. I'm working on cites now. Give me 15 minutes or so to finsih, I'm slow with the fancy cie formats Angry Christian (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing what was tagged for now:

The film has been garnered considerable support from the intelligent design and creationism community.

This was rightfully tagged and I'm tired and I didn't want to leave it up there. Sounds dramatic too. Where I was coming from is the lead weighs in several prominant voices about the movie and they are all negative. We don't need to compensate for the negative as much as I think we're not giving the reader the full scope without showing that the ID and creationism communities (a few exceptions) have been very positive about the movie. That is where the 5 million dollars has come from. Not from curious bystanders but the intelligent design, creationism, and evangelic cirlces that are firmly behind the film. We're overlooking that in the lead. A choir exists if you will. Sorry I'm wordy. Angry Christian (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I tried to add a quote from Rush Limbaugh, but it ended up in an edit war because of claims of WP:Undue Weight. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A positive side of this controversy

When everyone here having an opinion is easy debating, we omitted a fact that deserves applause. During the process of editing and re-editing by users of different views, the prose quality of the article is getting better and better, refined by each editor. Comparing to many film articles I read on Wikipedia that are typo-laden, no links, and badly written, this is quite an achievement. After the controversy is resolved, we could well nominate it to a featured article. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after the controversy is resolved, and after we pare the article down to something under five times the length warning limit. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Rush be in the General Media

There are some rather obscure reviews in the general media section, I believe that Rush Limbaugh would generally be considered general media. He's not science media, and he's not Christian media, so where does he go? Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a good point and for starters I think the "christian media" title might not be the best one. Maybe we should add the term "conservative" to that title. Keeping in mind not all christian media have been supportive of the movie and John Derbyshire's article indicates the conservative reaction is not consistant either. Anyhow, I think you have a valid point. Angry Christian (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? 1) "Shouldn't Rush be in the General Media" Um, he is under "general media." What's the problem? 2) "and he's not Christian media". He's not and he doesn't belong there. Furthermore, there is no "Christian media" section there is a "religious media section." Thus, I don't see the point behind your comments. Paper45tee (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When I checked earlier this morning he wasn't and I wasn't asking for him to be taken out of the Christian media section, I was simply stating that it would be an inappropriate place to add him. Saksjn (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative Christian Media review

[4]. Of course, it is not American media, but Canadian so it stands to reason.--Filll (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so Kevin lives in Abbotsford – ah, more likely this namesake. Nice article, some interesting comments. .. dave souza, talk 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He used to write for Hollywood Jesus, which also has some sort of mixed reviews of the movie, although not as bad as that National Review article linked above. So even among those ideologically predisposed to favor the movie, the reviews are decidedly mixed. Although at first it looked like the reviews were evenly split along political and religious lines, as time goes on, this is less clear. I suspect that this movie is so over the top, and the evidence of assorted malfeasance on the part of the filmmakers is substantial enough that it is not easy for someone who wants to seize the moral and ethical high ground to support it wholeheartedly. On the other hand, both Shermer and the Flock of Dodos filmmaker warned that this film was very appealing and well done for its intended audience.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like becoming a cult movie. .. dave souza, talk 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The only reviews I'm relatively sure that you guys have even cared to look at are the ones that have been posted in the article and on this talk page. So 6 total? 50% America is Christian and you want to call 6 negative reviews a fair share of the pie and call it a cult film? Thats going to far. Joe3472 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


It depends on what your definition of "Christian" is. By some definitions, the US is more than 80 percent Christian. And of the mainstream reviews reported by Rotten Tomatoes, 91 percent were negative. Of the science media reviews, all were negative. Of the Christian media reviews, most were positive, but a couple like this one were neutral or negative. I have personally read or listened to over 50 reviews; maybe over 100 reviews. I am not sure it will turn into a cult film. I suspect it will just disappear into obscurity fairly quickly when it is out of the theatres. The interest in this article has plummeted in the first week for example.--Filll (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to fork

I believe that this article has just grown beyond any reason. Can we consider breaking it into 2 or 3? How about a separate article describing the controversies around the movie?--Filll (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The fork definitely should happen, the question is: when? How bout we wait until one month after the release of the film to do so. Saksjn (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we split the article, and splitting a "controversy" daughter article wasn't the best thing to do according to the Manual of Style and Neutral Point of View policies (I think), how about just going through and trimming unnecessary bloat from this article. I think we can trim and merge enough to make this manageable. One proposal, instead of going through each review one-by-one, isolate the few biggies, and roll the other reviews into a couple of sentences. Something like, "Other critical reviews have called it 'trash', 'pig-filth', 'dog-balls', 'coprolite on celluloid'.(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)" I don't propose eliminating any of the reviews entirely, just trimming down to the essentials. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestions for the splits:

  • Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
  • Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Controversies (could possibly be split into copyright controversies in one article, and interviews and screening controversies in another)
  • Media, Scientific, and Public Response to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (A little wordy, but the basic idea)
--Saksjn (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to split an article is to spin off existing sections into daughter articles. Ali'i is correct in saying that creating a "controversies" daughter article is usually a bad idea; since the film is mostly notable for its controversies (as opposed to its artistic value or actual content), creating a "controversies" article is an especially bad idea. Logically one could probably spin off the legal issues, since it's a coherent section, but as yet it might not be notable enough. (That might change if the Lennon family's lawsuit advances.) One could spin off the reviews, but again, it wouldn't create a viable article.

I'm not convinced a split is necessary. But any splitting needs to be logical and create viable daughter articles. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For such a long article, it's actually quite readable at present. The only section which looks "bloated" to me is the "General media" reviews section, which is a rather hefty block of text. However, this shouldn't be separated from the film, and would look just as ugly in a daughter article: I think it needs some work, to condense it somehow. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Until everything get settled, there is a lot going on between the lawsuits and reactions, it should stay the way it is. Paper45tee (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a split would be good. We have one for global warming controversy, and this helps to separate the facts of the film from the polemic and partisan bickering around it. As it stands now, you don't learn a darn thing about the film in the article. Most of it is spent refuting every, single point and doesn't provide a neutral viewpoint. There is no "condensing it", it will just get bigger and bigger. The practice of forking to separate the politics of a subject from the information isn't discouraged. It's just going to get bigger and bigger and sooner is better than later. Supertheman (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Split it. To say that it is quite readable for such a lengthy article is like saying "It's quite readable, for such an unreadable article." And waiting until "everything gets settled" is a distant hope: the lawsuits and controversy may drag on for years; and anyway, why wait? Supertheman is right: right now description of the film itself is lost in the coverage of the reactions. Plazak (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is several months too early to look at splitting off sub-articles, per WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary & WP:LENGTH#No need for haste. We should wait until sufficient time has past that we have more perspective on what aspects of the film are notable long-term. In the mean time, we should look at distilling the article down, and removing trivia and issues given WP:UNDUE weight. But even if the article is split up down the road, a 'controversy' article is not the path to follow -- as it is in clear violation of WP:CRITICISM#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history). HrafnTalkStalk 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no rush. Let's see how things look in a few months. Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree: prune, don't split. If you split it, you'll only be left with bloated sub-articles left unattendend. You might as well "split" it and then delete the sub-articles immediately. Or just remove the material not notable to the "main" article without any splitting. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for additional sister/daughter articles. The flash over this movie will shortly die down and the article will be more easily trimmed back to appropriate size as editors are able to take a more historical and less 'currentist' view of the topic. In six months the very thought of 'needing' additional articles on this subject will be thought of as silly.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ADL denounces Expelled's exploitation of the Holocaust

Here is the ADL's statement on Expelled:

Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust


New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.


The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Found here:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

Did Mathis and Ruloff really think they could insulate their exploitation of the Holocaust with Stein, Berlinski, and other Jewish shills for rubbish?

Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.207.71 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is significant. These folks are not involved in science, have no position on ID, they are not film critics and they have made a very strong statement. I think the entire quote should be put in the article. This is much more significant that the New Scientist author I think and would lend itself well to block quotes or something else. When it comes to the holocaust I think they have the most noteworthy voice. My opinion of course Angry Christian (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I could see it being added to general media or a criticism section if one gets created I guess, but right now its one of the largest sections of uninterrupted text. Is it really necessary? At the moment though, I think alot of people are assuming that the film attempted to place darwin and hitler in the same line as well as bridge their motives and world views together. But further research into the topic, as well as comments from producers show that they were only trying to say that evolution applied in practice is what Hitler did with the Nazi's. Joe3472 (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid Joe3472 that the filmmakers took a bit of a gamble, by relying on that moldly old creationist claim. Before World War II, creationists used to claim that evolution was responsible for World War I, so this sort of game is very old news for them. Since World War II, creationists for decades have tried to push this nonsense, and it has been soundly and repeatedly dismissed for years and years and years. Nevertheless, they just decided to take a chance and try it again, in the hopes it would help rally the public to their cause. It does not look like the gamble will pay off very well this time.--Filll (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If the the producers were "trying to say that evolution applied in practice is what Hitler did with the Nazi's" then they are outright lying. Neither natural selection, nor any other evolutionary mechanism, involves the conscious genocide of one subgroup of a species by another. If you want to find precedent for such behaviour, you must look to the Old Testament and to the writings of Martin Luther, not to science. HrafnTalkStalk 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well you know excepting those cases where scientists works or publications lead the way or supported such genocide intellectually. See Eugen Fischer. Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Fritz Lenz, Alfred Ploetz, Ernst Rüdin, or Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting source. It appears that the film should be blaming Mendel, genetics and Rockefeller rather than Darwin. Got a reliable source relating all this to the film? . . dave souza, talk 10:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A slam on the Old Testament or Martin Luther doesn't necessarily relate to the film either. Still I'll strike the post out.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Although it's an obvious logical fallacy to extend blame backwards, in countering Stein's argument the Old Testament / Luther connection has been noted,[5] as has the academic case that Hitler was openly influenced by Pasteur and Koch.[6] However, there clearly were scientists (whether Darwinist or not) who supported Hitler, as you pointed out, and the point you make is legitimate. As the NCSE says, The Nazis appropriated language and concepts from many sources, including evolution, genetics, medicine (especially the germ theory of disease), and anthropology as propaganda tools to promote their perverted ideology of “racial purity.”[7] . .. dave souza, talk 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I Have to agree with AC. This needs to be in the article.--Filll (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is where it belongs, in the Nazi claims section. My point is we should include the entire statement for the benefit of the reader. Again, considering the source this is truly significant. Huge. right now we have the Amanda New Scientist block quote, does anyone feel that quote is more significant than what the ADL has to say? I guess that's my point. Angry Christian (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Even though I'm trimming elsewhere, I have to agree with AC. Given the source, The entire quote merits inclusion. Doc Tropics 03:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur. The full quote is not excessively long (similar length to Shermer quote), and it is most certainly a very prominent, highly-relevant and non-partisan (Evo vs Creo) opinion. I would consider failing to report it in full to be a violation of WP:DUE. HrafnTalkStalk 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree. It's by far the most neutral source we've found and absolutely blasts the movie. I don't know about the whole quote but, It needs to be mentioned. Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are given the gravity and neutrality of the folks making the statement and what it's in relation to I thought it was important to quote them without us providing a summary or whatnot. I think we've done just that now. Thanks Hrafn for doing the heavy lifting. Angry Christian (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessive use of Pull quote templates

I would draw editors attention to the fact that the cquote (and rquote & lquote, which don't seem to have been abused) templates are for use as Pull quotes "serving to lead readers into an article and to highlight a key topic". Per documentation for cquote, they are NOT for general usage and "work best when used with short quotes, and at the start or end of a section, to help emphasize the content of the section." I will go through and replace this template where its usage appears to be unwarranted. HrafnTalkStalk 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend a full quotation of the ADL statement (as discussed in #ADL denounces Expelled's exploitation of the Holocaust), at the very end of the 'Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution' section would be one of the few legitimate candidates for a cquote-templated 'pull quote'. HrafnTalkStalk 09:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. .. dave souza, talk 14:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic: Strategies to FIX the article

NOTE: This section was improperly "disappeared" by the combined edits of Filll edit and Jim62sch edit an hour after I posted it. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. It is improper to delete legitimate discussion towards improving the article. My undo attempt failed due to combined edits, restoring by paste job. Alsee (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who does not think the current article is a complete disaster area? I began a local attempt to rework the article from top to bottom, but the article has multiplied in length since I last looked at it. The mess is expanding too fast to even keep up.

Instead of so much tactical squabbling over the content, perhaps it would be more productive if we take a moment to reach some consensus on broad strategy of what the article should (and should not!) be, and what the article should (and should not!) include. Now, my personal position is that the movie is a lousy and dishonest piece of propaganda pushing pseudoscience. However this article reads like a badly done hit job, because it IS a badly done hit job. The movie puts forward a bogus persecution complex, and THIS ARTICLE TAKES THE BAIT, this article just feeds the persecution line. I would like to put forward some principals, strategies, and conclusions, and see which (if any) people can pretty well agree on.

1) The article should be as short as possible. A short strong article is more effective and more powerful than a long dilute article. 2) This is an article on THE MOVIE, and on notable response directly to the movie. 2a) This is not an article on ID, this is not the place to defend or refute ID. 2b) This is not an article on evolution, this is not the place to defend or refute evolution. 2c) Add a sentence that the movie doesn't really define ID, explicitly saying something like "see [Intelligent Design], [Evolution], and [Evolution Controversy]." 3) NPOV, DUE WEIGHT. Articles on Science should present the NPOV DUE WEIGHT position of the scientific community, however this is NOT a science article. This is a movie article and should present a NPOV DUE WEIGHT view of the movie and reaction to the movie. 3a) The NPOV DUE WEIGHT reaction to the movie is that it was almost universally trashed, and in particular the predominant reaction is that it is dishonest ill-factual propaganda trying to push garbage. Even supporters of the movie should (hopefully) be able to agree that that is the due weight reaction. 3b) The general reaction should be summarized, kept SHORT with a SMALL number of quotes or cites for it. We do not need to prove why that is the reaction, we do not need to back their reaction. The DUE WEIGHT NPOV Verifiable Reliable Sources position is that the movie is crap, we report that without arguing it. 4) Building a laundry list of petty controversies DETRACTS from the impact of the major controversies. A laundry list of petty bad behaviour diminishes the impact of the central goss behavior. Most controversies not mentioned below should be cut. 4a) Probably two sentences and a quote about the movie being misrepresented to interviewees. 4b) Probably a paragraph on the Nazi angle, and that most reaction was that it was offensive and illegitimate. Do not attempt to "make the case". People will either be find it illegitimate and offensive or they won't. Trying to make the case is counter productive. 4c) A brief story for each supposedly "Expelled" individual as reported in the movie, along with a brief-as-possible outside counter story of "not persecution" for each. Do not attempt to argue the case. 4d) Most people don't care about the copyright issues, but the coverage of it was so notable that we do need to minimally-summarize the main film clip issue with a half sentence saying that there are music copyright disputes too. 5) Source links are vital - in moderation. I currently see 201 references which is absolutely insane. [Fahrenheit_9/11] has 32. Critical points get ONE source, multiple sourcing looks like (and IS) a lame attempt to push a claim. See Fahrenheit_9/11, not all simple statements need a source tag hanging off it. Alsee (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are admitting to be a sock puppet of someone else then given the record of your amazing 110 edits in the last year and a half. And yes the article is too long and should be forked. Or were you not paying attention? The idea that somehow the controversies are not worth cataloguing is a bit silly. And actually, most of the editors here disagree with you. But nice try anyway.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Filll's deleted comment restored by Alsee (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No Filll, I am not a sock puppet. I made no such "admission". You are purely Assuming Bad Faith. And if you're going to go check my edit history, you could at least have have actually bothered to LOOK at it. The edits with "Evolution" in the edit summaries should have rather caught your attention, and you would have seen in fact which side I am on. To save to the trouble they are Foraminifera‎ (New section == Evolutionary significance ==) and Talk:Foraminifera‎ (Evolutionary significance) on one of the FUNDAMENTAL PROOFS of evolution. Alsee (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but along a few lines. I think your description of NPOV due weight is a bit off. Universally, according to user based websites where reviews are published and the links currently in the article, anyone would believe the response is negative. I think NPOV due weight would be to say that "response from evolutionist interviewees from the film and scientific websites such as sciamer, ncsa etc etc. was largely negative." But we should not overlook the religious or neutral id community response. I dont agree that the movie is crap and that we should report that, I think we should stick with the actual WP:NPOV view as stated by the article. As for the german nazi angle, I think we should do as you said and put 2 quotes with a short description directly from the movie. But if your going to add that some people were offended or that they find the claims unsubstantiated, then add one from the filmmakers or an opposing side as to why they found the claim substantiated in the form of a quote and leave it at that. I agree with your expelled interviewees, I think we should keep it short and sweet, and not attempt to discredit any of them in a short paragraph. Lets keep the copyright section the shortest, the animation, music, lawsuit by XVIVO, and that it was dropped. In conclusion I'd like us to each a general yes or no on something before we actually put it into the article to avid disputes and have as little edits as possible. Joe3472 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Joe3472's deleted comment restored by Alsee (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Joe, no, the NPOV due weight is indeed that the movie was totally trashed by virtually all critics, not merely "response from evolutionist interviewees from the film and scientific websites". The RottenTomatoes.com website is a perfect case in point of that fact, collecting movie reviews of assorted critics from across the nation. The combined score of all 33 reviews was 9% out of 100 and "Consensus: A cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary". Of 33 reviews, 30 trash it, quite often calling it dishonest, propaganda, and far worse. The 3 nominally positive reviews are mediocre at best, and even those 3 leave the "truth value" of the movie in doubt. Due weight is that positive reaction to the movie is extremely rare, it is an extremely fringe view. Alsee (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
uh no. Btw, please learn syntax. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Jim62sch's deleted comment restored by Alsee (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Alsee, you've reposted your vague hand-waving. Got any specific proposals to improve the article? If not, WP:SUMMARY applies, and we can also look at tightening individual sections. .. dave souza, talk 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it got overlooked in there, but I said "perhaps it would be more productive if we take a moment to reach some consensus on brroad strategy of what the article should (and should not!) be... I would like to put forward some principals, strategies, and conclusions, and see which (if any) people can pretty well agree on." That was followed by about 14 number-letter items, in the hope that people could express agreement or objections/alternatives to specific items. I was seeking points of strategic consensus, even if it was consensus on something different than my specific points. For example my point three is seeking consensus on exactly WHAT we NPOVing, which may be valuable in smoothly resolving some disputes. Some of the other points are attempts to place boundaries on subject sprawl. So of the number-letter items, what do you and others agree with or object to or have alternate suggestions for? Alsee (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not the sharpest crayon in the box but I have been around long enough to make the following observation - Laying out a 14 point proposal, that is not formatted at all, is the quickest way to get ignored. People don't have the brain matter to jugle that kind of mind boggling enterprise. I have found it much more effective to address one issue at a time. Make it easy for the other editors to see your point and make it easy for them to agree or disagree and make it easy for them to help out. Asking a bunch of volunteers to stop their world to study your 14 point proposal is asking a lot. And asking people to weight in on what NPOV means to them is asking for and endless round of disagreements. And to be clear, I'm not trying to sound sarcastic or scold you, I hope it does not sound that way. what I'm trying to do is suggest a strategy that *might* yield positive results for you. Just an idea. Angry Christian (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is if you want people to help you the first thing you do is make it easy for them to do so. 14 points - if 4 people (plus you) weighed in on each of those we'd have 74 conversations to keep up with. I don't have the brain capacity or time to indulge in that sort of discussion. I suspect I'm not alone. So, there you have it :-) Angry Christian (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the copyright section should be trimmed, I disagree 'most people don't care about copyright issues'. For me, that was one of the most interesting things. I don't need a so many reviews to tell me the movie was a POS. That's obvious once you know a bit about it. The many stupid things the producers did in making and promoting it are of far greater interest. Of course what the sources tell us is what is most important. And the sources tell us especially given that the producers responded and there is even a lawsuit involved that the controversy is noteable. BTW overeliance on Fahrenheit 9/11 as an example is a mistake. Firstly, while a somewhat controversial documentary, it something that has sparked reasoned debate not ridicule like this movie. Secondly, it doesn't seem to be close to be a FA. We should always be aiming for FA status, not B-class status. 32 references while potentially sufficient, is hardly a lot for a FA article. 200 is perhaps a lot, but I wouldn't recommend trying to cut it down to 32 Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The article should be as short as possible. A short strong article is more effective and more powerful than a long dilute article
    • No, not really. It's good to be concise, it's good to be readable, but brevity per se is of little value.
  • This is an article on THE MOVIE, and on notable response directly to the movie
    • We need to provide readers with enough context to figure out what's going on
  • This is not an article on ID, this is not the place to defend or refute ID
    • Again, context is important - we need to give readers some sense of what ID is and why it's controversial. We also need to be factually accurate. We can't just repeat talking points as it they were true.
  • This is not an article on evolution, this is not the place to defend or refute evolution.
    • As above.
  • Add a sentence that the movie doesn't really define ID, explicitly saying something like "see [Intelligent Design], [Evolution], and [Evolution Controversy]."
    • I'm sorry, you need to be more specific. Add a sentence where? In what context?
  • NPOV, DUE WEIGHT. Articles on Science should present the NPOV DUE WEIGHT position of the scientific community, however this is NOT a science article. This is a movie article and should present a NPOV DUE WEIGHT view of the movie and reaction to the movie
    • It's a movie about science, or so it pretends.
  • The NPOV DUE WEIGHT reaction to the movie is that it was almost universally trashed, and in particular the predominant reaction is that it is dishonest ill-factual propaganda trying to push garbage. Even supporters of the movie should (hopefully) be able to agree that that is the due weight reaction.
    • OK...not sure what your point is here
  • The general reaction should be summarized, kept SHORT with a SMALL number of quotes or cites for it. We do not need to prove why that is the reaction, we do not need to back their reaction. The DUE WEIGHT NPOV Verifiable Reliable Sources position is that the movie is crap, we report that without arguing it.
    • Honestly, I'm not sure what you're proposing here. You need to be more specific.
  • Building a laundry list of petty controversies DETRACTS from the impact of the major controversies. A laundry list of petty bad behaviour diminishes the impact of the central goss behavior. Most controversies not mentioned below should be cut.
    • OK...but I think the main reason the film is notable are the controversies.
  • Probably two sentences and a quote about the movie being misrepresented to interviewees
    • You're more than welcome to try to summarise that section into two sentences. I suspect that it would take more than two sentences. No one is stopping you from taking a shot at it.
  • Probably a paragraph on the Nazi angle, and that most reaction was that it was offensive and illegitimate. Do not attempt to "make the case". People will either be find it illegitimate and offensive or they won't. Trying to make the case is counter productive.
    • Not quite sure what you mean by "making the case", but again, I'm interested in seeing your proposed paragraph.
  • A brief story for each supposedly "Expelled" individual as reported in the movie, along with a brief-as-possible outside counter story of "not persecution" for each. Do not attempt to argue the case
    • Isn't that what we have? Again, I'm interested in seeing your improvements.
  • Most people don't care about the copyright issues, but the coverage of it was so notable that we do need to minimally-summarize the main film clip issue with a half sentence saying that there are music copyright disputes too
    • I disagree with the assertion that "most people don't care". I think it's one of the most interesting bits, and it says a lot about the underlying honesty of the producers. As for saying that there are "music copyright disputes too" - that really wouldn't be adequate.
  • Source links are vital - in moderation. I currently see 201 references which is absolutely insane. [Fahrenheit_9/11] has 32. Critical points get ONE source, multiple sourcing looks like (and IS) a lame attempt to push a claim. See Fahrenheit_9/11, not all simple statements need a source tag hanging off it
    • I think Nil Einne has answered this far better than I could. While there's such a thing as "too many references", we aren't nearly there yet. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Portrayal of scientific methodology as atheism"?

Thoughts? I find it more to the point myself. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

redundant. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this about the section name change? If so, no. Thats not what the film is attempting to say, the object is atheism in the scientific establishment. Not atheism in how science determines if information is factual or not. Joe3472 (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The scientific method isn't just about whether information is factual, it involves making a hypothesis and testing it. The film is demanding that untestable supernatural hypotheses be given equal validity with hypotheses restricted to testable natural explanations which comply with this "ground rule" of science as it stands. Which was the reason that the Dover ruling found ID to be a religious view, not science. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember at any point in the film was any demand made. I'm not talking about the inclusion of ID in the classroom either. The statement "Portrayal of scientific methodology as atheism" does not fit how the film portrayed its view, and the current one should be left as it is. However, if a change is made, it should be changed to say "Portrayal that the scientific establishment as atheist".Joe3472 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when do the courts make scientific decisions, that's worse than a high school science teacher making a major decision. Sorry, I just had to get my two cents in. Saksjn (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


This is a standard bit of creationist nonsense. In this case, the court is just summarizing the opinions in the scientific community. In fact, one of the pillars of law used in most US courts is that scientists get to state what science is, not the courts; and the courts just rely on the scientists for that. For example, when the court made that decision, did you ever consider what it was based on? How much testimony by scientists? How much time and money and effort was spent to try to describe the position of the scientific community to the court? --Filll (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Back on topic, I think a change to the section name is inappropriate and should be left as is. Joe3472 (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Mark Mathis in this interview the media are all atheists too. In fact he seems to suggest anyone who does not agree with the premise of the movie is an atheist. Angry Christian (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Interestingly in that interview, Mathis states that only 9 percent of those interviewed liked it, but 96 percent would recommend the film to a friend. Surely this is a typo.

Also, I am not surprised that he states the media are atheists. It is common among fundamentalists to declare everyone but someone who has identical beliefs to them to be an atheist, including Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Catholics and mainstream Protestants. Also, if Mathis is trying to stir up controversy to keep people coming to see the film, then he is probably doing his job.--Filll (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I already said, I think we should rename the section "Portrayal of 'Big Science' as atheistic" and let the readers decide. Sound OK? RC-0722 247.5/1 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it misrepresents the impression the film conveys and the underlying claims they're making. .. dave souza, talk 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Which would be? RC-0722 247.5/1 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Dave, how would such a title misrepresent the message of the film? It's their own terminology. And it would be in quotatin marks, indicating that it is their terminology. As for the sources for the claim that the film portrays science as atheistic, I don't think we can categorize Expelled Exposed and Scientific American as being neutral in their criticism of the film. I see this as a case of overzealous critics misrepresenting the position of what they're citicizing (or else using the sort of "shorthand" that Angry Christian was speaking of earlier). While they might be otherwise reliable sources, when they state that the film presents science as atheistic, they are clearly misrepresenting the message in the film itself. The Expelled website makes it clear that those who made the film think science itself isfine. They do object to methodological materialism, and the scientific "establishment" (that is, "Big Science") that adheres to it. They believe scientific explanations do not need to limit themselves to materialistic/naturalistic causes. Are they misguided in this belief? Certainly. But their view needs to be represented accurately. The current title does not do that. It makes a strawman of their position (quite unnecessarily, I might add). It's a non-neutral title. Nick Graves (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
(crickets) RC-0722 247.5/1 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New review in Chemical & Engineering News

In case someone is interested in adding yet another review to the article: Melody Voith; Reel Science 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'. Chemical & Engineering News, April 28, 2008, Volume 86, Number 17, pp. 53. Here is the link: [8] (May require subscription). A couple of quotes from the review: "a cleverly edited but convoluted and misleading diatribe that tries to lend legitimacy to intelligent design"; "a messy, illogical, insulting, and poorly researched work of antievolution propaganda". --Itub (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres plenty of negative reviews, I dont see the reason for adding another one that we cand read without paying. Joe3472 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Reel Science is also online, presumably that review will appear on there in due course.137.195.68.169 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Positive Reviews

I've seen alot of

"the mainstream community/scientific response has been unanimously negative."

and

"should we ignore all the critics?"

So I did a little perusing, and found several positive and neutral reviews. I'll add to this list as I find more. But should I find enough to show people that the response is not completely negative, we should add some to the article. Of course I realize the current article is way, way to big, and this should be added to the list of things to accomplish once we trim it down. I will also strike out articles/reviews that are mentioned in the article already.

Joe3472 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No one denies that there are some positive reviews; it would be unimaginable for there not to be. I believe what the article states is that the mainstream reviews have been overwhelmingly negative (which appears to be true) and that a significant percentage of the positive reviews come from Christian/conservative outlets. Without even checking any of he sites you linked, I recognize many as falling into these categories just from their names. Certainly creationontheweb, answersingenesis, thinkingchristian, townhall, nationalreview, discovery, and floridabaptistwitness are all either well known to be Christian and/or conservative, or it's obvious from their titles that they are. So the article already mostly covers this information, even if it doesn't mention these reviews specifically (which, let's face it, isn't necessary). -R. fiend (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Im in total agreement about the article. However, few people who have been posting on this talk page want there to be recognition of positive reviews. Just glancing at the /Religious media and /Scientific media section you see that there is almost no bridge between them. Any positive christian reviews are filed under religious media(and even then there are only four). While any science based website is filed under science media (and there are more than due weight should be, I counted 13). Even in the religious section there is a review attacking the movie. My main concern is that organizations such as AIG/CMI/ICR not be filed immediately under religious and instead considered a scientific source as the research these people perform is in no way less scientific or bible thumping than a source like SciAmer. Not to mention, 8 of those reviews arent technically conservative or religious in nature. I guess my overall point is that the reviews your going to find are going to depend on where you look, its almost a guarantee that SciAmer and the NCSE which are heavily referenced in the article are going to have negative reviews up the arse. Joe3472 (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Joe3472, look closer at the article. For example, for the ICR/AIG/DI look under "Promotional efforts by others." For Bozell, the NY Sun, or World Mag look under "general media" or "Religious media." They are included already. The AOL blogger and Ray Comfront reviews aren't in there and I don't think they warrant inclusion anymore than some randomn unscientific blogger who criticizes the movie belongs. Paper45tee (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
While I understand where you are coming from, thats not what I'm suggesting. The promotional section contains direct in-wiki links of AIG/Discovery, and the general media section is completely negative and doesn't cite nysun or world mag. I would like sources from AIG/Discovery/ICR/CMI to be included in the scientific response section, and the general media section have a somewhat balanced number of negative and positive reviews. Some None of the reviews I posted are in the article. Joe3472 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Joe, you seem to have missed this Landover Baptist review that captures the essense of the film wonderfully. Gotta stop for a minute, more soon. .. dave souza, talk 07:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Landover Baptist Church is a parody, as I imagine you know. There's no need to outright make fun of this Joe person.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding it that the video it links is a parody too, but it makes serious points aboout this film. I imagine that Joe knows that Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute are creationist organisations promoting versions of creation science which is not in any way mainstream science, way outside the scientific consensus, and in the views of the scientific community and court rulings on admissibility as teaching material in public school science classes, present religious views and not science. Nuff said? ... dave souza, talk 09:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Your missing the point. All three organizations promote a literal interpretation of the bible. They promote the idea of creation/ID through science and at the same time address criticism toward it via peer reviewed articles written by intelligent legitimate scientists. If you have taken more than two minutes to read an article or two, you will see anything but bible thumping "creationist nonsense", and instead a legitimate scientific source. The only reason you would attempt to discredit all three organizations in one post is if you are up to the latest backwash that Eugenie Scott has to offer.

This is getting far off topic and I know someone is probably already itching to archive it. There is no practical reason to exclude positive reviews from the general media section, or exclude AIG/ICR/DISC/CMI from the science section.

Nuff said?... Joe3472 (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

or exclude AIG/ICR/DISC/CMI from the science section
Why would anyone want to include them in the science section? They aren't science-related - these are religio-political groups. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I was attempting to articulate last night (very pooly) I think we're not recognizing the (to borrow a grossly overused phrase) overwhelming positive support the film has found in the ID and creationism community. There is a clearly defined choir the film is singing to and that choir is loving the music they're hearing. I don't think the article articulates this well. Angry Christian (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions means that we've no need to rehash the question about their scientific legitimacy here, WP:RS means we can only use them as what they're saying about themselves, and WP:NOR requires us to find secondary sources evaluating how significant their statements are. Naturally they're spinning it as a terrific success that all born again Christians love, but the extent to which it appeals or to which even Creationists want to avoid being associated with it is still an open question. A lot of circulation as DVDs seems probable, but we need a reliable secondary source making that prediction. .. dave souza, talk 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Dave, just to be clear, I am not suggesting even mentioning the scientific claims made by the IDists, or the false claims that the movie is anything other than a complete flop. I am only suggesting the article reflects that the ID and creationism community have been vocal in their adoration of it. Their opinion of the movie (it rocks!) seems to be missing from the article. The reader sees where maintsream media thinks it sucks, science thinks it sucks, some of the christian and conservative community thinks it sucks, but what does the ID/creationism community think of it? That question is not explored in the article. At least not clearly. Angry Christian (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we can mention that such sites have given it rave reviews, but can't suggest any inferences or conclusions about the opinions or extent of their following without a reliable secondary source. .. dave souza, talk 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

> They promote the idea of creation/ID through science and at the same time address criticism toward it via peer reviewed articles written by intelligent legitimate scientists. If you have taken more than two minutes to read an article or two...

OK, Joe, just for you, I actually started reading this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

"Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions."

At this point there is no need to read farther. The guy writing this bullshit doesn't have a clue as to what science is. Science does not have presuppositions. Any so-called scientist who starts doing research with presuppositions is a lousy scientist.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm wasting my time. Christians who knew that the earth was the center of the universe didn't want to hear otherwise either - they burned the heritics who first figured out that the earth rotated around the sun at the stake. The older I get the more I can see that childhood indoctrination is disgusting, and on a par with child abuse. --RenniePet (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect how does this help? Dave has already pointed out none of these organizations represent the scientific community and anyone who has studied these folks already knows they promote bibical truth over scientific evidence or experimentation. Why contribute to the personal hostilities on the talk page? How does this help? Angry Christian (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This is taken from the same article you stopped reading:

"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them."

Its even being proven right now, you don't have a single doubt in your heart that Evolution is true and Intelligent Design is false. But according to how science perceives evolutionary theory, you cant be truly sure without knowing more. But of course this is overlooked, and article likes this one continue to brim with your presupposition. If you want to continue to assume that organizations that provide real scientific evidence don't hold any merit because of their presupposition, then thats your personal problem and you will have to square with it one day. But it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I hardly think you need to start throwing around profanity either, its completely unnecessary.

As for the legitimacy of the organizations being challenged, that again comes down to where your looking for your secondary source. Any scientific organization such as the NCSE which has an opposite ideology is obviously not going to have many nice things to say. Ill go digging around for some legitimate comments that could be used.

I truly doubt it has been shown that most christian media thinks the film sucks, and that most general media thinks it sucks. Statements like these need to be completely avoided until we have conclusive evidence that shows it. Which there is clearly not. Joe3472 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"I...found several positive and neutral reviews..." Hmmm....let's see: Creation on the Web? ICR (The Institute for Creation Research)? Answers in Genesis? Ray Comfort? The Discovery Institute (which is profiled in the film)? So basically, your argument is that the film has been positively reviewed by..........creationists? Sorry, but I could've told you that. I also notice that some of the domain names, like Discovery.org (The Discovery Institute) repeat themselves in your list. Telling us that more than one reviewer at the Discovery Institute gave the review a positive film isn't saying much. (LOL.) The article already says that the film has received positive reviews from some Christian sources; we could possibly amend them to read "some Christian and creationist sources". Beyond that, nothing in your post is news, Joe. Nightscream (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Only once does the discovery institute read twice, and its because on is a "myths about expelled" article, while the other is a genuine review. I see no reason why it shouldnt be included as a "6 things expelled doesnt want you to know" is already included in the article. My position stands as I want direct links to positive reviews, instead of inside links to other wikipedia pages for the organizations that gave the links. For example, expelled exposed is references numerous time int he article with direct links to the page in question, but in the christian media response theres is 1 negative review and 3 neutral/positive reviews. This is vs the +14 that are listed in the scientific media section. Im not asking for a unanimous change in perception based on these, just a little balance.Joe3472 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the mainstream media (1) is well known for having a liberal bias, and (2) hardly represents the opinions of a majority of Americans. A poll would be much more representative of majority opinion Also, EVERYONE makes presuppositions about the world, it's called a "worldview". EVERYONE interprets the world around them in the framework of their preconceived worldview. We can try to balance our worldview, as many do, but there is no such thing as truly objective point-of-view. You will find the vast majority of people giving negative reviews of the film have political and scientific beliefs contrary to those portrayed in the movie. Likewise, you will find a vast majority of the people giving positive reviews hold beliefs that coincide with those supported in the movie. To go and claim that "X source is objective" is merely a demonstration of ignorance. I think the important stance to take in articles as greatly polarized as this one is to present as many differing perspectives as possible. For those of you who are opposing this balance, you're merely demonstrating your own arrogant bias (bias is fine, bias which refuses to allow other views to receive exposure is the product of arrogance). In cases where the subject matter is this polarized, it is simply better to present as many sides of the issue as possible and let the reader make up his/her own mind. In actuality, I wish it were possible for this article to be a cold-clear-cut description of the film itself and not include commentary on the topics contained within, but I realize this may not be possible in this environment. --Novan Leon (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Novan Leon -- read WP:DUE. HrafnTalkStalk 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Also: "Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the mainstream media (1) is well known for having a liberal bias, and (2) hardly represents the opinions of a majority of Americans. A poll would be much more representative of majority opinion"... Please try to remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. The rest of the world generally doesn't have issues with evolution: the so-called "controversy" is an American political issue, not a worldwide scientific one. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Robert, the international community also doesn't have as much of an issue with ID as do many in the American community. Science in other nations is generally more accepting of new ideas than in America. In my experience, only in America can something like the R. Sternberg controversy, for instance, become such a big deal. Point being, all things being equal, the majority of the controversy is coming from the American community and hence should be aware of the points I illustrated in my comments above. Hrafn, I'm familiar with WP:DUE, can you elaborate a little more on how this applies to this situation instead of just referencing the article (many people do it and it's generally not conducive to discussion to simply reference an article and not bother to elaborate further). --Novan Leon (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ID is not a "new idea", it's a very old one. And scientists elsewhere would certainly "have an issue" with ID if it was a problem in their own countries. You seem to be buying into the propaganda that ID is science. It isn't: it is repackaged American creationism, designed to get past the American church-state separation barrier. WP:DUE means that we must give due weight to the expert opinions of the scientific community: which is that ID is pseudoscience. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
See intelligent design#Status outside the United States. The only country more open to ID than the US is Turkey, as far as we've been able to establish. Any verification of the claim that other countries are "more accepting" would be interesting, but note where it obviously does not hold true. .. dave souza, talk 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Novan Leon: (1) "the international community also doesn't have as much of an issue with ID" not because it is accepted, but because it is largely ignored. (2) In no nation does Science accept ID. (3) Yes, only in America are you likely to find a sufficiently large number of anti-evolution cranks that it's likely that one would be in a position to grossly violate editorial ethics by publishing a deficient, self-plagiarised and off-topic article when he has a conflict of interest due to his ties to its author (and then pretend to be a martyr because people said a few mean things about him, but did not take any action against him). (4) Per WP:UNDUE: "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." It does not say "...unless these sources are part of the mainstream media so have a (purported) liberal bias". HrafnTalkStalk 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with most of the above. As someone who has never set foot on the US in my life, I would say a lot of the world does actually have issues with ID. They definitely don't consider it a 'new science' or 'new idea' but a load of crock, at least as much as it pertains to be a science. At least in nearly all of the developed world outside of the US, evolution is widely accepted and you don't get the political or other advocacy for ID that you get in the US. Yes, you do get the odd nut-job, but thankfully that's mostly all they are and all they are treated as. And there virtually nil movement to teach ID/creationism as a science in the public education systems. (Note for example this [9] where someone is concerned about 1/10 people believing in creationism compared to 20%+? in the US. Note the concern here is that teaching are avoiding not that there is any likehood of ID/creationism being taught in class.) What all this means, outside of the fuss that 'those silly Americans' seem to make about ID, it is true that a lot of the world doen't actually care about ID. But this isn't because we consider it has any merit as a science, but because it's irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your insights ladies and gents (sincerely), but can we please try and stick to talking about the film's article. The place for discussing ID in general is elsewhere. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Everyone needs to remember that ID's validity has nothing to do with the bias of the article. The bias of the article is evident, not in whether it supports or refutes the validity of the topics presented in the movie, but in it's determined effort to destroy the movies credibility when no effort should be necessary! The bias against the movie is overkill to the point where it harms the credibility and readability of the article. Simply present the facts about the movie itself. If people find the need to discuss the controversy surrounding the movie, pro and con, I suggest splitting that portion off into a branch article. (We can save the ID discussion for a more appropriate forum. I just wanted to refute the "objectivity" myth.) --Novan Leon (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Novan Leon: you were the one who made "ID's validity" an issue by making fallacious claims as to its international acceptance. If you don't want to be told that your claims are completely lacking in merit then don't make them. The article accurate reflects the weight of opinion in prominent sources, per WP:DUE (a policy that you seem to be completely unable to comprehend), the vast majority of which consider that this movie is a complete crock of excrement. The movie contains little if anything that has not been 'controversial' (generally to the point of being discredited and demolished) so to try to separate this out would amount to nothing less than an illegitimate WP:POVFORK. HrafnTalkStalk 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Only once does the discovery institute read twice, and its because on is a "myths about expelled" article, while the other is a genuine review. I see no reason why it shouldnt be included as a "6 things expelled doesnt want you to know" is already included in the article." Um....only once does it read twice? What does that mean??? Anyway, articles about "6 things Expelled doesn't want you to know" sounds like an article critical of the movie, and as such, its contents belong in criticism sections, not in sections about reviews. Similarly, any article about "myths about the film" sounds like counter-criticism, and thus, belongs in those same sections. Criticism is not the same thing as a "review". This link, which you listed as one of the "reviews", is not one at all. Nightscream (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Derbyshire review

Is this a review of the movie, or just an annoyed rant? It isn't really a review of the movie (Derbyshire admits that he hasn't seen it), but I think it's a notable opinion on the underlying issues. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

>an annoyed rant?
Jeez, it's beautiful. --RenniePet (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I don't like Derbyshire, but I can't find too much to argue with in that article. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
O hai. In sort of related articles, David Berlinski (the character in the film who gives Stein the excuse for the Nazi rant) writes "Why shouldn't the scientific community find atheism so attractive a doctrine? It is only sensible for scientists to suggest aggressively that no power exceeds their own.", and wittily compares modern scientists to the Politburo. Derbyshire replies "David Berlinski's article on atheists manipulating the sciences is both deceptive and illogical. Here's an attempt to set the record straight." Both articles refer to Expelled, really a spin-off rather than a direct effect or review. .. dave souza, talk 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Trimming

The section "Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution" is extremely long and seems to contain excessive detail which is better covered in Creation-evolution controversy. I think that the basics are very well covered in the first two paragraphs of that section, and that the second two are essentially unnecessary. I propose truncating the section after those first two paragraphs and adding a link under the header: "For more information on this topic see Creation-evolution controversy". Having made this suggestion I'm going to duck and hide for awhile until people finish throwing tomatoes at me. Doc Tropics 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Doc, reading that section again I'm with you except I think a better see more would be intelligent design and not Creation-evolution controversy. I think the section is bloated and I just added the see more intelligent design blurb. This is an important section but I agree if we could get it down to 2 paragraphs and let the reader click on the link to read more would be an improvement. Angry Christian (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, that seems like a place that could use trimming. Since the article is in need of massive trimming, we should just start listing areas that need trimming.

in Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted

  • Everything after the first paragraph should go

In Portrayal of science as atheistic

  • "On the film's portrayal of science, Lauri Lebo, a York Daily Record journalist who covered the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, noted "The first half of the movie is devoted to explaining how intelligent design is not religion" and then "the filmmakers seem to completely forget their earlier message. The rest of the movie is devoted to proving that atheistic scientists hate God and are trying to suppress intelligent design because, well, it's all about belief in God".[49]"

In People presented in the film

I have been thinking about this for a while, I think every person in the film should get 1 paragraph about their role in the film. Every single person has 3+ paragraphs with a review of their actions in the film, this is unnecessary. This, in my opinion is exactly what an entire section on that person should contain:

Guillermo Gonzalez is an astrophysicist, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He is also a fellow with the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design and co-authored The Privileged Planet.

Joe3472 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe3472, I disagree with each of your propositions. While the article needs improvement, none of the above make the issues clearer or improve it. It just seems to either remove claims (limiting each person to one paragraph is just silly, it needs to be based on need and information) or downplay importance. As for the Darwin quote, that is notable for its own section for several reasons. It shows mispresentation of Darwin and a common creationist misquote that has a pre-ID history. Paper45tee (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the darwin quote after I posted it, and was removing it when I saw your reply. The trimming down isnt necessarily about making things clearer, but simply removing unnecessary information. About the people mentioned in the film, the reason I opped for 1 paragraph is because that it really all you need to describe a persons qualifications and a simple role in the film is 1 paragraph. Some of them have 3 paragraphs with numerous quotes, and some of them have just what is necessary. Needless to say it is imbalanced and should be trimmed in my opinion. These are not the only ones I'm listing because they stand out. Those are just quick little observations. Joe3472 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that People presented in the film is a section that goes on at unnecessary length and could be trimmed. I would handle the process carefully to insure that enough info was included to show their importance, but especially when so many of these individuals have their own articles it seems we could trim the length here to one paragraph each. Doc Tropics 02:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I made cuts in Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution and the "Caroline Crocker" section of People presented in the film. Now I'll wait for reaction. I think the subjects I trimmed remain balanced and informative, so I'm hoping for discussion rather than blanket reversions. Doc Tropics 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks great! Keep up the nice work, it looks alot slimmer and still maintains the same meaning. Joe3472 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the William Dembski piece in the cell animation section so notable that we want to keep it there? His "borrowing" of the same animation is already in his article. I could be very mistaken but I'm not seeing how devoting to much space to Dembski's opinion on the film alleged use of it is making the best use of space. Should some of it be movied to Dembski's article, or could we at least review that section and confirm it cannot be condensed? I think this section offers some low hanging fruit in the interest of condensing the article by removing fluff. Angry Christian (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, on the trimming efforts, I think we should move stuff to the main article (and not delete it) if it is not already in the main article(s). Angry Christian (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the piece where the guy is reviewing the 10 minute trailer. We added that back when we were desperate for reviews. Since then we have folks who have seen the movie so I don't think a review and summary of the 10 minute trailer is as noteworthy as those who have seen the entire film. Angry Christian (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
AC, in short, "yes". I agree with all of your last 3 posts. Those are exactly the areas we can trim without losing primary content. Doc Tropics 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

quick "nice job"

Whoever slimmed the Florida Legislators section down did a mighty fine job. I was just reading it and it went from massively bloated to reasonable in size. Nice work whover worked on that. Angry Christian (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahalo nui loa! Now we should probably somehow work the current Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution section into the Florida legislators section. Or somehow otherwise merge the two. I see them as being able to flow very well into each other, and would continue to decrease the size. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, these are two aspects of the same issue. .. dave souza, talk 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW - Kudos to both of you. In the last 24 hours a long series of productive edits have helped make some good progress towards appropriate reductions and overall quality. Doc Tropics 04:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NYT

From an NYT article on Ayala:

But Dr. Ayala said another proposed engagement, at a conference at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, Calif., a 10,000-member church that is the base for the “Hour of Power,” a weekly televised religious service, was canceled earlier this year. A spokesman for the organization said Dr. Ayala’s talk was canceled “due to overbooking” of speakers. Dr. Ayala said the event’s organizers wanted him to be introduced by Ben Stein, a writer (and business columnist for The New York Times) who is the star of the new anti-evolution movie, “Expelled,” and wanted to show the film in conjunction with his talk. “I don’t mind who introduces me,” he said he told them, “but I would not want the film to be part of my presentation. They said they could not meet my conditions.”

Might be useful for a section on publicity techniques. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This belongs in article about the church... if we add it here it's just trivial. Saksjn (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC - external links

The term Darwin and Darwinism is used extensively in the article and obviously it's a key ingredient in the movie. I went to add a link to the Darwin Online site so any interested reader could go and read Darwin first hand but that link does not lend itself well to the existing sub-cats - "Supportive" and "Crititical". Should we create a third cat called "General" or "Related" or? Angry Christian (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as it is wikilinked appropriately within the article, and there is a good explanation on that page, no additional external links are needed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How about a new 'background information' section for it? HrafnTalkStalk 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ali'i, Charles Darwin's works is not wiki linked in the article. Hrafn, unless someone comes up with something better I think "Background Information" would do the trick. Angry Christian (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I just added it. When I was reading the Derbyshire article I noticed he had linked to the X chapter of Voyage of the Beagle which I read again. That's what made me think the reader would probably enjoy reading Darwin first hand. BTW, Derbyshire is not done with Mr Stein. He takes him to task again today - Science Equals Murder Ouch! Angry Christian (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
We should add a few more links to make it look like it is even necessary. The article is huge as we have mentioned before, and I think it got that way because were adding sections for single links. Put some in-wiki links to the creation, id, evolution pages. Joe3472 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Joe (sorry, I had to do that) I think I hear what you're saying. Another option would be to get rid of the external link sub-cats and have a sigle "External Links" where they would all go and then give good descriptions so the reader knows a little about the link before they click on it. MAke sense? Got an opinion? Angry Christian (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In other inherently controverisial articles, like Abortion, it seems fairly common to provide 3 subsections, one for "pro-X" links, one for "anti-X" links, and the third for "Neutral" links. I think a similar approach using a term like "background" could be very useful here as well. Doc Tropics 22:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the policy or manual of style says about the placement of the external links section? I think it would be more usefull if it came prior to the zillion refs. The placement of external links is inconsistant on other pages and so far I have not been able to find anything in the manual of style, etc. Anyone know? I'd like to move them up if no one objects. Angry Christian (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say based on general sightings to keep them above the references, but below the Reports of false cancellation notices for screenings section. Either above or below the see also section.24.7.160.74 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I'm thinking below the See Also section makes the most sense. Angry Christian (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Layout, Wikipedia:External links#External links section, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Standard appendices all state to have the External links section last. We can deviate from these, but I strongly favor keeping them where they are. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ali'i thanks for the link. Can you elaborate on your objection to moving the external links to come prior to the refs? My thinking is no one is going to scroll through several pages of refs to see what might be at the very end. Moving the link up will help the reader see them. Angry Christian (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides me liking things to be uniform throughout Wikipedia (and generally following the guidelines for this type of thing) I think most readers of Wikipedia will already know the layout, and know the external links come at the end. Which other pages do the external links come before the references? A hui hou. --Ali'i 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
After reading through all the links you provided I'm comfortable folding my hand. I wish the standards were different but oh well. I didn't note which articles had the external links prior to the refs, I just made mental note of the inconsistancy. Not a big deal. Thanks again. Angry Christian (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
ʻAʻole pilikia. No worries. Remember, we can change it here if we come up with a strong consensus to have it that way. Ignoring all the rules and such (which can be a good thing). --Ali'i 20:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear you and I'm comfortbale going by the letter and spirit of the guidelines, I don't feel strongly enough about it so push for a change. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AC, it just doesn't seem right. To me, the references should be at the very end. Putting relevant information below the giant list of references just makes it seem like a chore to get some further reading in. The policy is going to assume that your references section is not 5x the normal length, so this case merits them being above it.Joe3472 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible daughter articles

This article is getting too large.

Some possible articles that could be summarised and split off might be:

Care should be taken to avoid forking content. All major and controversial details should remain on this page, and no daughter article should avoid major or controversial details nor introduce new major/controversial information.

Does anyone know an example of summary style working for films that we could look at?--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't resort to more articles just yet. There are already numerous efforts (see above topics) to trim down the article. Lets give it another couple of weeks.Joe3472 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we please stop creating new sections to talk about splitting or forking the article. Find a section where it's already discussed and add your opinion there. We now have about 4 or 5 sections on this page discussing splitting the article. Keeping the debate together is valuable for everyone. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reaction split

In response to overwhelming public demand, I've split Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed into a sub-article, keeping a WP:SUMMARY of the main points in this article. Feel free to review and revise what's in each article, note that the sub article is about ideal article length and this article is still over 100 kb so some more summary style action is in order :) .. dave souza, talk 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I still would have preferred to have seen it distilled down rather than spun out. The spin-off article still has a very 'everything but the kitchen sink' feel to it. E.g. the Colorado Confidential review was originally in there because it was the first (and thus at one stage the only) review we had. It should long since have been pushed out by more notable reviews. Ditto E! & Reuters should go (particularly as the latter is a famous news service, not a famous film review service), and probably a number of others. HrafnTalkStalk 09:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the overwhelming demand? The section above about Forking the article in fact seems overwhelmingly opposed to splitting the article. In fact NONE of these section_S_ Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Proposal to fork Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#POV? OR Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Possible daughter articles shows anything like demand supported by policy for splitting the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm hopeful that the summary section can be improved to be a distilled version of the whole sub-article, which is readily available sa a resource and can be improved on the basis of changes made here. If consensus is that this was a bad change, it can easily be reversed and the sub-article can be deleted. However, in my opinion the distillation with the full text available as a resource is more likely to be fruitful. Either way, the current size of the section seems about right and the full text is overwhelming. The Colorado Confidential article is worth noting because it came so far ahead of the others, but its review content has to be assessed on merit against the recent reviews. . . dave souza, talk 12:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave is definitely on the right track. I haven't looked at Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed yet, but the work he did reducing the length of this article is exactly what needs doing. This is not in any way about POV, or even about the content. It's all about the size of the article, which is totally out of control. Let's face it....in the long run this is not a significant film, it's just made a temporary splash. There's no good reason for this article to be more than 50 Kb which is what we should try to reduce it to. That almost certainly means a combination of trimming and spin-off articles; the only real question is which topics get spun off. I'm not sure I agree with 100% of Dave's editing related to the content that was kept, but he did bring the section down to a more appropriate size and I think we can keep working from there. BTW - I thought the phrase "In response to overwhelming public demand" was intended to be humorous...that's how I took it. Doc Tropics 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article is long and was longer, but we might as well all put the new article on our tickler for 3 months time when we will be !voting to delete in an AfD as non-notable (if the article doesn't get {prod} before then).TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shermer quotes

I'm sure Michael Shermer is a great guy, but do we really need 4 templated quotes of him (three in his own section, one in 'Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution')? Could we trim some this down to inline quotation, or summarise & move the full quotes into footnotes? HrafnTalkStalk 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, its been on the list of things, but never has been done. 24.7.160.74 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I yanked the (seemingly) least relevant quote altogether. There is room to trim more, but I don't want to do too much at once. Doc Tropics 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes vs. Yahoo Movies

Everybody here keeps mentioning rotten tomatoes and it's bad reviews. Well, why don't we all head over to Yahoo Movies and check out the overwhelmingly positive reviews there. Saksjn (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Got a link? Angry Christian (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn, if this is what you're talking about I don't think we can use it. It's an online poll. Rotten Tomatoes is a collection of professional reviews. Yahoo (if I linked to what you're talking about) is an online poll. Online polls like this are not considered reliable and cannot be verified. The yahoo movie poll and Rotten Tomatoes do not compare at all. Angry Christian (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll check when I get home, right now it's blocked. Good point about the professional vs. amateur reviews. Is it significant that the reviews on yahoo are largely positive. It's proof that the movie was received well. Saksjn (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think rotten tomatoes is a repository of professional views....anyone can make an account and write a review. See here. I never though to look at Yahoo since im more of a google man myself. This should definitely be added to the article in general media, it seems there are overwhelmingly neutral or positive reviews. Joe3472 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe, please go to the Rotten Tomatoes link given in the external links section and note the 33 professional reviews given. Note ALL those are off site links to major/minor media sites. We do not link to nor menion the amature reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Guys, it is important to be familiar with what were discussing if we want these discussions to be useful and far less frustrating. Angry Christian (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, it appears that in the article we correctly referenced the professional reviews and not the amateur ones. But make no mistake, numerous negative reviews that are referenced lead to blogs that do not represent professional websites or popular critics. My only hope was that some type of acknowledgment of positive reviews from a non-christian based website (yahoo), as so many have claimed that such positive reviews don't exist. Joe3472 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That Rotten Tomatoes link has 3 positive reviews, only one of those is from an openly Christian source. I have not read anyone on this talk page claiming positive reviews don't exist. In fact the article has a few such examples. Angry Christian (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda cat

I noticed that the propanda cat had been removed but then reverted. At first I thought this fine until I realised that this article is also in Category:American propaganda films. Unless I'm mistaken, it's standard practice that we do not put articles in categories, if they are already in that category by virtue of a subcategory. Category:American propaganda films is already in Category:Propaganda by at least two ways so I really don't see any reason to include it. Am I missing something? Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like some evidence, beyond the opinion of some editors, that it is "propaganda". I don't see many other films in this category, and I'm not sure this belongs there. In any case, it seems a bit POV. I'll remove it, pending further discussion. If this topic is covered elsewhere on this page, I apologize. Do let me know if that is the case; I didn't see it anywhere. -R. fiend (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's properly sourced, see the citations under Reaction. The category isn't an endorsement of that opinion, it's a way for users to search for similar films, and the term isn't particularly derogatory.. .. dave souza, talk 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the propaganda category is proper for this film. Just on the first page of Rotten Tomatoes' review listing, there's four separate quotes from four separate reviews using the term. FCYTravis (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We follow our sources, which call it propaganda.--Filll (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really? Wasn't it stated earlier that most of the review sites that we use to call the opinion of the media unanimously negative call it a documentary?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ - Documentary

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ - Genre: Education/General Interest

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/expellednointelligenceallowed - GENRE(S): Documentary

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll - Category: Documentary


Of course if your heading over to the NCSE website Expelled-exposed your obviously going to find bias criticism, but thats not what we here at wiki call a legitimate source. Joe3472 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They call it a documentary and they call it propaganda. The two are not mutually exclusive. FCYTravis (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, but I also disagree that the term does not carry negative connotations. And just because someone calls it propaganda does not mean it is. I'm sure we can find plenty of reviews calling it "shit" as well, but I don't think that warrants putting it a category:feces. Do we have actual reliable sources that state it is a propaganda film, not merely that they equate it with one? While I actually have little doubt that "Reece Pendleton, Chicago reader" is probably right on the money with his review, I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source. While I hate to bring up the Michael Moore comparison again, many people have called his films propaganda, and I don't see them in this category. What is the criteria for being in this category? -R. fiend (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"What is the criteria for being in this category?" that's the best comment in this thread so far. I don't know what the answer is but if I had a dog in this fight I'd go find an answer to that question before I did anything else. Something to consider. Angry Christian (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that comment, however, what'd I'd appreciate more from those who insist upon this category is a response. If the criterion for being in the propaganda category is simply that a film is referred to somewhere as propaganda then I think we have some serious reliability problems. The footnotes after the word "propaganda" in the "Reaction" section lead to Scientific American and a blog. The latter is hardly authoritative, while SA is a reliable source about science, it's not as if they don't have quite an axe to grind in this debate. Also, I haven't look at the SA article yet, but this article says that SA "compared it to" propaganda. I've compared President Bush to a retarded infant on various occasions, but he doesn't belong in that category (is there one? There should be). Yes, people have called this movie propaganda. But people have also called Bush a mass murderer and Obama a Muslim. They don't go in those categories. Oh, and let's not pretend that putting in the propaganda category is not an endorsement of its classification as propaganda. That argument doesn't even begin to hold water. I see POV issues with including in this category, while not including it is hardly a de facto endorsement of its contents. Shall we err on the side of neutrality? -R. fiend (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories are a way of finding things, not an endorsement or otherwise of any "pov" some might associate with the category. The film is clearly polemical, and well regarded film critics are the experts here, not your personal opinion.. . dave souza, talk 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on! That is the biggest load of malarkey I've come across in some time. Putting it in a propaganda category is not actually "endorsing" the statement that it is indeed propaganda? It's a "navigational tool". Like putting Bush in category: mass murderers. Not to actually endorse the view that he's a mass murderer, just to help in case some readers want to find other people who have, you know, killed a lot of guys. Totally NPOV. Just a search aid.
Obviously the film is polemical, but that's not the same thing as being propaganda. What makes this film, and only 8 others, propaganda? No one has defined it in any meaningful way, or provided a reliable citation that the film is propaganda, rather than merely that detractors have called it that or compared it to that. Why is this film apparently almost unique in being propaganda? -R. fiend (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, assume good faith and try to learn. This film has reliable sources expressing the view that it's propaganda, both film reviews and science media articles about the film. Your arithmetic is rather out, the subcategories include other American propaganda films and there are about 145 in total so far, including such well respected films as Mrs. Miniver. If you feel other films should usefully be in the category, find reliable sources that describe them as propaganda. . . dave souza, talk 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, including the WWII category, there are quite a few films. Now, as for films from the past 50 years, we have very few, and it's hardly surprising. I'm sure any attempts to add this category to Farenheit 9/11 or An Inconvenient Truth will be fought tooth and nail, and I can't say I blame them. Note, however, that it is not difficult to find a multitude of sources describing the latter film as propaganda, including a British judge.
As for the sources calling Expelled propaganda, many are the opinions of reviewers, both professional and amateur (someone argued that the use of the word by 4 largely anonymous reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes is enough to warrant the category). Critics say a lot of things about movies, and use many words to describe them. There is no shortage of reliable citations stating that the film has been called "propaganda," to be sure, but they also call it "poorly argued", "shameless", "repugnant", "grossly unfair", etc., but Wikipedia would not use any of these words to describe it except by stating "critics have described it as...." I'm sure there is no category:repugnant, or category: shameless, but if there were, we certainly would not put this movie in those categories, as it would violate NPOV by endorsing that viewpoint. Why is it different for propaganda, which does carry a strong negative connotation? I looked at the references for the use of the word in the article and found Scientific American, which in an article said "The movie's one-sided version is either the result of shoddy investigation or deliberate propagandizing—neither of which reflects well on the other information in the film." [10] Not exactly the same thing as calling it propaganda. In the 2nd Scientific American article [11] I didn't see the use of that word at all. I quickly scanned it searching for it, but it's 5 pages so I probably jut missed it. If someone could point it out to me, or at least tell me which page it's on, I'd appreciate it. The third source said "it seemed more like a pro-religion, pro-intelligent design propaganda film ..." (emphasis mine). Again, that's not calling it propaganda, just comparing it.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I think that use of the propaganda category in this case opens it up for use in any polemical movie that tries to make a case for something, which is an awful lot of movies. The selective use of it (here, but not for An Inconvenient Truth) strikes me as quite POV. I think there is little or no harm in removing it from the category (the article still states that many have called it or compared it to propaganda; it' not a whitewash by any means) but leaving the category creates at least the appearance of some serious POV issues. -R. fiend (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> While you seem to have pov issues, the term itself describes the purpose and technique of films, irrespective of their quality or whether or not you agree with the film. 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)

I've re-added Category:American propaganda films based on this evidence. It is not mutually exclusive with being a documentary film. These categories are useful for navigation and I think there are enough sources here that we are not being unfair. (The category propaganda is in my opinion not appropriate because we should try to keep articles in one category in the vertical hierarchy, and then use the most specific one.) Merzul (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And I'm going to remove it again. Apparently I'm not the only one who finds the category inherently POV. To enforce it in one of these films and reject it in the other is pretty damn inconsistent, and evidence of bias. Apart from the category, this article doesn't even label the movie propaganda, it just rightly states that it has been referred to as such, so if anything it belongs in category:American films that have been called propaganda, which does not exist, and which I don't feel like starting. I may well end up nominating the whole category for deletion, as, apart from the separate WWII propaganda films, I don't find it all that useful and I find its use extremely arbitrary. -R. fiend (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the cat on AIT, and I support R. fiend's removal of the cat to Expelled. When I think of "propaganda", I think of government-sanctioned persuasion, usually with falsehoods. I haven't seen this movie, but even if it were laden with falsehoods (note my subjunctive mood), since it's not sponsored by the government, I wouldn't consider it propaganda. That's just my opinion. As someone above asked very cogently, what is the exact definition of "propaganda film" that we should be using? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've taken a look at Wikipedia's own articles on the subject, they seem to be promulgated upon the following quote: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. – Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion" Self-disclosure: My wife recently received a Communications degree after having taken at least one course under Jowett on this very subject. I'll ask her about it later. In the meantime, I think Jowett's definition is overly broad, and it would include all TV commercials and a whole lot more content than most people would think of as blatant "propaganda". I still think government sanctioning should be a hurdle within the working definition for our use, but again, that's just my personal opinion. I'll do more research on the subject, including consulting with my wife. --Art Smart (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My wife just pointed out that the Nazi's used blatant propaganda before they came to power, and Hitler's Mein Kampf was written before he came to power. So obviously, I'm wrong about the need for government sanctioning to be considered propaganda. Furthermore, I personally consider today's AM talk radio to be quintessentially propaganda, the ultimate (albeit unidirectional) realization of Orwell's predicted telescreens in 1984. (Again, my personal opinion.) And there's no government sanctioning there, aside from granting the broadcast licenses. Perhaps the film-maker's motive could be considered: Is the goal, first and foremost, to make money, or to alter public opinion? One might be tempted to say "both" (e.g., AM talk radio), which is always going to be the case to at least some extent. But if persuasion is much more important to the film-maker than making money, and especially if falsehoods and/or misleading half-truths are incorporated with a wanton disregard for truth and accuracy, then I would consider it propaganda even if there were no government involvement. Of course, determining the film-maker's motive is a major problem in and of itself, but with reliable sources, it's not an insurmountable problem. More later, once my wife and I have had a chance to review Jowett's textbook. In the meantime, what are other opinions? Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with your statement that the WP definition of propaganda is incredibly broad; I was prepared to make the same argument in the event someone used that definition to justify the category. I think it can often be quite difficult to tell what is propaganda and what isn't. Hindsight certainly helps, which is why I'm not so opposed to the WWII category. The "is it made for message or profit?" question is difficult. Proponents of a film like An Inconvenient Truth will likely argue that it was not made primarily to line Al Gore's pockets, but to spread the word about climate change and caring for the environment. Assuming this is true, labeling it therefore as propaganda seems to place a negative connotation on what many would believe to be a noble effort. I think, in cases such as these, the best we can do is say what has been referred to as propaganda by notable sources, as this article does. Placing such articles in the category of propaganda, and thus defining it as such, is just too subjective, and is bound to come down to people taking a "it's propaganda if I disagree with the message, but isn't if I like it" attitude, which is a fear what is happening here. -R. fiend (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see people are again adding the category. Anyone care to discuss it, or is "someone called it propaganda" realy going to be the sole factor here? Since when does WP take critics word as fact? -R. fiend (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a propoganda film because it seeks to propogate certain ideas. It is indeed a broad definition that also includes Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 911 to mention two recent examples (but last I looked, the wiki PC guardians had prevented them from being so labeled). Of course, many people are offended when a film with which they agree is classed as propoganda, but what is the alternative? The alternative definition of propoganda as "something that I disagree with" is too highly subjective to be a meaningful category. Plazak (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The alternative is not to put this, or just about any other movie, in the propaganda category, but leave the discussion of propaganda in the article itself, where it can be properly attributed without WP making a clear stand on what is or is not propaganda. Right now the alternative you cited is exactly what's happening, people are putting this in a propaganda category because they don't like it, but not A Inconvenient Truth because they do. Saying this movie needs to go in the category propaganda because it has a political agenda is to say that thousands of films should as well, because a large proportion of movies, both documentary and fiction, make some sort of political point, often subtle, but still there. Right now such categorizations are decided based on who can muster the most troops to get categories added and removed without violating 3RR, which is exactly NOT the way to do these things. -R. fiend (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Somebody" R. fiend? Just NYT, USA Today, Chicago Reader, TV and FILM - NJ.com, Mountain Xpress, FlickFilosopher.com, Slant Magazine, village voice, & OrlandoSentinel. Additionally, the parent article Propaganda film defines "A propaganda film is a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content." As Expelled promotes the political agenda of the intelligent design movement and makes near-ubiquitously misleading claims, it is hard to see why it does not meet this definition. HrafnTalkStalk 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
So a "propaganda film" is defined as a "film" that contains "propagandistic material"? Wow. That is a useful definition! Thanks! You've just defined every movie from Expelled to Sicko to Dr. Strangelove to Charlie Wilson's War to just about everything except There's Something About Mary and Beerfest. They all support promote a political agenda, some more obviously than others. Certainly documentaries do, including An Inconvenient Truth, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, Jesus Camp, Supersize Me ad nauseam. I wouldn't mind this category if there was the semblance of it being used equitably, but it isn't. Nightscream, below, makes the point exactly. The article should (and does) state quite clearly that many critics have called it or compared it to propaganda. But putting it in that category endorses the critics' views, which WP is not supposed to do. -R. fiend (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"deliberately misleading, propagandistic content" -- take the quote in context! Have you any evidence that Sicko, Dr. Strangelove or Charlie Wilson's War contains substantial amounts of deliberately misleading material? Because the article already contains a ton of evidence that Expelled does. Objecting to including this film (which is a fairly extreme example of blatant and dishonest propaganda), in the category, because other films are arguably (but far less obviously) 'propaganda' has the strong smell of WP:POINT. HrafnTalkStalk 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, who's to say what's deliberate? I haven't seen this film, but I'm not prepared to try to differentiate between the dishonest and the incompetent; I imagine there's plenty of both. But certainly errors have been cited in An Inconvenient Truth (hardly surprising, Al Gore isn't a scientist), while Sicko, which I have seen, is at least misleading in that it completely (and, I'm quite sure, intentionally) ignores the negative side of of socialized medicine. I can't say if the former was intentional, but Moore's omissions, I'm certain, were deliberate (not that I blame him exactly, when arguing for something you usually don't try to make your opponent's case for you). (As for fictional film, whenever a studio makes a movie based on a real event, they do make many deliberate changes, but fiction isn't what we're addressing here so much.) Besides, the less than entirely useful Wikiepdia definition of propaganda only says that it "often" misleading, the real defining element is its efforts "to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people" and Moore does that in spades.
By no means am I saying we should remove all references to propaganda from the article (I'd be very opposed to that), nor am I denying that it is propaganda (I'm sure it fits at least some definition of that), only remove it from the category. Its inclusion has serious POV issues, its exclusion does not. -R. fiend (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't accidentally leave out more than half of what Darwin said (particularly when it's the part that clearly indicates that he meant the exact opposite of what you're claiming he meant). You do not accidentally represent your film to interviewees as being Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", when you already have bought the domain-name for 'Expelled'. You do not accidentally drop in Stalinist imagery. To try and draw a parallel between a few "errors" in An Inconvenient Truth with Expelled's blatant, ubiquitous and egregious misrepresentation is tendentious in the extreme. HrafnTalkStalk 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that the difference between this film and many others is a matter of degree. Both Expelled, and, say, Fahrenheit 9/11 push a political agenda (which appears to be the real litmus test for propaganda, by the definition we're using), neither are terribly even-handed, and both at least use some misrepresentation, but Expelled is 100% certain propaganda and must be in category:American propaganda films, while Fahrenheit is not really so much because it not as misleading and not as deliberate, therefore it certainly cannot go in that category. And do you really want to take the "they misrepresented themselves to their interviewees" road? They could've taken that straight out of the Michael Moore playbook (besides, Inteliigent Design is at the intersection of science and religion; that doesn't necessarily mean good science). Do you really not see any POV issues with this category? If it's cut and dry, why doesn't the opening say "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 independent documentary propaganda film..."? Would that pass NPOV muster? How is the use of the category that much different? -R. fiend (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"The difference between this film and many others is a matter of degree" only in the same way that "the difference between" day and night is that of "degree" of light. Expelled is not merely not "terribly even-handed" -- it is blatantly and egregiously dishonest. I do not have a high opinion of Mike Moore, and (having thoroughly disliked Bowling for Columbine) have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11. But, based on reports of it, I strongly doubt if its "misrepresentation" delves the depths that Expelled does. If you think that F-9/11 rises to the level of 'propaganda', then find reliable citations for this and try to get it so categorised. It's failure to be so categorised is no reason to not categorise this far more blatant and more dishonest piece of propaganda. I chose "they misrepresented themselves to their interviewees" because it was one of the most obvious cases where the dishonesty was clearly deliberate (your previous point), not as one of their most egregious pieces of dishonesty. To pretend that this is (1) the only dishonesty I mentioned and (2) that I wasn't specifically only citing examples where the dishonesty clearly wasn't accidental, rather than all dishonesty exhibited by the movie, is sufficiently tendentious that I believe you have forfeited WP:AGF on this point. HrafnTalkStalk 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of "matters of degree", I notice that you attempted to get An Inconvenient Truth into this category on the basis of "if Expelled is going to be in this category, this should be to, reliable sources confirm it", where the only source cited in that article was that of William M. Gray (a prominent and vocal global warming skeptic). HrafnTalkStalk 17:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The category doesn't belong. Placing it there gives the appearance that Wikipedia is itself taking a position on the film, because categorizing something as such carries with it a factual connotation. Sources such as critics' opinions belong only in sections related to criticism, not categories. The only articles that should be categorized as such would be those for whom it would be non-controversial to do so, such as the works of Joseph Goebbels or Leni Riefenstahl, or articles that discuss the nature of propaganda. Anything else is a potential POV powder keg. Nightscream (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Film critics are experts on the "the analysis and evaluation of films". That makes their opinion that a movie is 'propaganda' an expert opinion and thus a reasonable basis for inclusion in a category. It is "criticism" not in the general meaning of 'disapproval', but in the more specialised meaning of 'analysis' (as in Art critic & Higher criticism). HrafnTalkStalk 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmmm. You're kind of making a decent point there, but the problem still remains in that not all critics use the word "propaganda", and some refute it. How many have to describe it as propaganda for it to be a "fact"? One? A dozen? Most? Nearly all? Also, a critic is not a licensed trade, so how mainstream does one have to be to be a reliable film critic? It's not like calling the film propaganda is like calling it a "documentary" or anything, it is pretty clearly a POV term, and we should be very cautious about using it without attributing it to others. -R. fiend (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an argument from silence -- and thus a very weak argument. That they did not all call it "propaganda" does not mean that any of them (let alone a sufficiently significant minority to overturn the legitimacy of the categorisation) disagree with this characterisation. Can you cite any prominent film critic, who presented a positive view of the film's neutrality, accuracy, etc? While smaller papers may employ 'inexpert' critics, it is unlikely that the likes of the NYT would. HrafnTalkStalk 14:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth : WP:CAT Midnight Gardener ([[User talk:Midnight Garde

Good point. I notice this in particular: 7. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.
Does that not seem to apply here? -R. fiend (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
R. fiend, for the record I am not fond of Wiki categories and share some of your concerns about how it paints a subject. Yet I think the evidence that Expelled is propaganda is convincing, and by evidence I mean the reliable sources that perceive/describe it as such, so I can see where it could/should be in that cat. It's not one or two people who have concluded Expelled is propaganda. It's a ton of people and folks keep comparing it to a Moore or Gore film, both of those have been criticized yet both also won numerous prestigeous film awards and neither stooped to the bottom of the ideological garbage pail to the depth Stein has. I don't want to get involved in the debate of whether it belongs in the cat or not but thought the link to the guidelines might be helpful. It appears you are not going to convince Hrafn nor is he going to convince you (I could be totally wrong on both points). So I think at some point you might consider getting a neutral, 3rd point of view. Sorry I don't have anything more useful to add to the conversation. Midnight Gardener (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that this categorisation is (1) "self evident" (as we have WP:RSs that verify it) and (2) you have not "shown through reliable sources [that it is] controversial" to so categorise it. HrafnTalkStalk 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the fact the makers call it a documentary is pretty strong, and we have reliable sources that call it a documentary. If something is a documentary it is hard for it to be a propaganda film. I'm thus very uncomfortable with including the category. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the conflict -- propaganda film defines one as "a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay" (my emphasis). It is therefore entirely reasonable that the maker of a "documentary-style" propaganda film would portray their production as a (legitimate) documentary. HrafnTalkStalk 18:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well that might work if the only ones calling it a documentary were the makers and no one else. But many of the reliable sources use the word "documentary" in an essentially uncritical fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Some confusion here – a propaganda film can be a documentary, early classics being Night Mail and Triumph of the Will, it can be a high quality fictional film such as Mrs. Miniver, and it need not present lies or misinformation – these films are reasonably truthful though presented and spun to convey a message. If suitable sources are presented to show that Moore's films are propaganda films, that would be in order. .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave, you forgot the American response to Triumph des Willens, Why We Fight. And yes, a documentary can be a propaganda film, as Expelled clearly is. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points. First of all, its status as a documentary is irrelevant to its status as a propaganda piece, the two are not mutually exclusive nor inclusive, so let's not dwell on that. That much, at least, hardly matters. Now, Hrafn argues that the propaganda category is correct because it is self-evident that it is so, and because no reliable sources indicate its classification as such is controversial. Well, it isn't self-evident that it is propaganda; one needs to look at multiple sources to see that it is. Whether or not it is evident that it's propaganda is not the issue. It's self-evident that it is a film, that is, by definition, was it is. Whatever evidence there may be for it being propaganda, it is not self-evidence, any more than it self-evident that the movie is terrible. As for the non-controversial bit, does this mean if I find a reliable source stating that it is not propaganda, then such controversy as been established and the category goes? I think I can probably do this, unless people take the approach that any source that defends this movie isn't reliable.

Midnight Gardener wants a neutral party to look at this. Several users think the film is obviously propaganda and belongs in the category, myself and others aren't entirely convinced, and think its inclusion is POV. What is a neutral party in this case? Someone who doesn't care what category it belongs in? Someone who think it kinda belongs, but only a little? I don't see how that's supposed to help. -R. fiend (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD

I see that R. fiend has just nominated Category:American propaganda films for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 2#Category:American propaganda films. HrafnTalkStalk 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow Ben Stein said this?

""In my opinion, this is just my 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." Does anyone have a source for this quote? Angry Christian (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I can't even see where you found it... Mackan79 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
a) Where'd you find that?
b) If you're not pretty sure of this, it's inappropriate to post it here. --RenniePet (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the buzz of the internet fellas, look at PZ's blog, the Ben Stein talk page to name a few. Looks like it comes from a TBN interview. Angry Christian (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard Ben Stein say it in an interview as well. Not sure it was a TBN interview. It was discussed here on the talk page a while back.--Filll (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If properly verified/sourced I think something that profound is highly notable. Angry Christian (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
One would think so, but I find no evidence of this from sources. Remember something is only highly notable when other sources say it is, regardless of what we may think Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Google my friends, Google. From Google to Digg [12] which doesn't work. But if you search Youtube directly you get [13]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was in his Focus on the Family interview with Dobson? I am not sure however.--Filll (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the entire TBN interview Look for Paul Crouch Jr Hosts Ben Stein here. Angry Christian (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
April 21st BTW Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, the episode from the 21st. I'll try and watch the entire interview again tonight and note at what minute marker the discussion on this begins (unless someone beats me to it). From the short blip on Youtube it sounds like Paul Crouch Jr is agreeing with Stein. Angry Christian (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote you reference begins at 28:30 in that clip. -R. fiend (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a more complete blip of the interview here, if anyone would like to take a look. (at about 1 minute into the video) InfoNation101 | talk | 16:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooops. I was considering uploading it myself but no point now I guess. In any case, I downloaded the whole thing but didn't really watch it (just looked for the science leads you bit). BTW he also appears to directly compare scientists to communist leaders earlier on saying something like 'they're afraid for their jobs like communist leaders were' and implies scientists want to abuse others. He also said a secular journalist from the Orlando Sentinel 'snuck in' and 'pretended to be a faith based person' and also says 'we are not trying to tell people what to teach' and 'teach what the evidence takes you to' Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
He does compare them to communist leaders, but not quite in the manner you mention. He basically says like communist leaders have a vested interest in maintaining communist dominance, "Darwinists" have a vested interest in maintaining Darwinist dominance in the realm of biology; should either falter, either group would have its position threatened, which is one reason he postulates that scientists are so afraid of ID. He doesn't mention anything about wanting to abuse others, exactly. Of course, he could have chosen any one of numerous groups to illustrate this point, and I doubt it is coincidence that he chose communists. I guess the Nazis were busy. -R. fiend (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
About communists, wasn't that what I said? About abusing people, the interviewer asked
"What do you think is the root of this is, if you trace it back?" (referring to the scientists or followers of Darwin he keeps attacking)
Stein replies
"I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist but I think a lot of people are very uneasy with the idea of a god who is charge and who has moral standards; and I think a lot of people find it freeing in a way, to think there's no god, we can do whatever we please, whatever we want, abuse ourselves, abuse others. And if we say that there is a god and he has got certain standards of moral conduct it makes them uneasy. And then there's something more basic. These people got their jobs, because they're in the Darwinist camp. They get their pay and their perks and their prestige from that. If we say that framework doesn't work they suddenly lose everything. They're like in a way, in that way like communist party officials once communism vanishes."
It seems to me therefore that he was effectively implying that scientists or these 'godless' 'followers' of Darwin want to believe in evolution because, amongst other things, it allows them to abuse other people.
Nil Einne (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the Nazis were busy studying cell biology while contemplating their world view. I could be wrong. Angry Christian (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being posted here? It seems like it should be included on the ben stein talk page, but it really carries no weight for this article. Joe3472 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Ben Stein is featured in a movie called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed He made a profoundly shocking comment during an taped interview on the subject of the movie Expelled: No Intelligentce Allowed", the same movie that he's featured in. Based on this I think what Ben say during the interview that was about the movie meets the critieria for inclusion in this article about the movie. Make sense? Angry Christian (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to go and get all pissy then go ahead. 1. There is no real source for the quote other than the video you posted which is incredibly bias, and heavily edited. The other links in this topic no longer work, and google isnt giving me much luck. 2. Im sure the quote was not taken out of context or meant to mean something else. 3. If we are going to post it, before I agree we should find a response from Ben Stein asking what he meant and how he meant to say it. As we do for alot of the other non-id scientists on this wiki. 4. Where exactly were you thinking on adding it? I don't see a criticism section, or a quotes listing, where would it fit in that benefited the article. Joe3472 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you interpreted my comments as being "pissy", Joe. Um, the youtube video is taken from the TBN interview. The TBN interview would be the source/cite and not a youtube clip. I need to watch the entire TBN interview again before I can answer your other questions. Angry Christian (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe, as you can see I posted a link to the entire TBN interview, you have watched that in it's entirety by now, yes? Angry Christian (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it belongs in this article. Let's face it, it's already overflowing with stuff not directly related to the movie; it doesn't really need any more. The quote also hasn't exactly received a lot of attention, as far as I can tell. If it does, it still is probably more relevant to his article than this one. The quote does, however, appear valid and not taken out of context. I have a feeling he really meant to say "Darwinism" in place of "science" as a whole, but that isn't what he said. There's a clip of the full half hour interview above, which is not hevily edited, and makes his statement quite clear. -R. fiend (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not convinced it belongs in this article" neither am I. That's why I want to watch the entire interview again and get a better feel for it. Angry Christian (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(fourth edit conflict) You know, I came here when this popped up on my pharyngula rss feed because I knew you lot would be like a kicked anthill about it. Face it, people: until an independent reliable secondary source tells us this is important and relevant, introducing a quote from one of several hundred promo interviews just because we think its shocking is precisely the kind of thing our policies on primary sources tell us to avoid. Don't lets do it. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no problem with WP:OR with quoting these primary sources. However, I think that the article is pretty large already, and I am not sure there is room for this. And I am not sure it is much different than the material that is already in the article.--Filll (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:PSTS discourages the quoting of primary sources without secondary sources indicating their importance and relevance. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I largely agree. Until we have secondary sources, picking this up, it probably has to be left out, no matter what stupid things he may have said Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From a brief listen I'm not sure about including it, although it does give some insight into Stein's perspective. The statement seems legitimate, though, like he really wanted to say this. The real question seems to be what it says about the movie. Stein stresses that this is just an opinion, and just his opinion; I tend to doubt it's the same opinion of all those who made the movie (or that this was the message of the movie), but I suppose it's certainly something that will end up in the Stein article if nowhere else. On the other hand, if we worked it into an actual paragraph or couple sentence about pro-film views, it could have a place possibly in reduced form. I don't know what others think, but it could even be put in one of the blue floating boxes... if the point of those is to have provocative sound-bytes, this would certainly fit the bill. Although in that case it probably shouldn't be the only pro-movie quote. Mackan79 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI we're not the only ones who noticed this. This guy provides a brief transcript of what was actualy said - Ben Stein Misses His Own Point I have a feeling this could end up taking a life of it's own. We'll see. Angry Christian (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It could. In terms of the section on science and atheism, we still have an issue though, that in a way may be put in some perspecive by this. The point remains that the movie doesn't openly argue this, whether or not it's Stein's opinion. What the quote tends to confirm is the misdirection that a lot of editors have been talking about, the problem for us being that we're portraying this as their argument all along when it really hasn't been. E.g., when the main problem with an argument is that it's dishonest, as many here seem to agree that many aspects of the ID argument is, the answer isn't to reframe it into something we think is more candid. I don't care so much about it if Stein says this, but the heading still looks like we've missed the point. Mackan79 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Sorry, this argument is just silly. We will not know what the film "claims" until the film is released on DVD and transcripts are available. And even then, there will be disagreement. Even then, we will have to rely on reviews and other second party sources, since primary sources are to be used sparingly and never alone.

In addition, the article is not "just about the film", but the entire event; the interviews, the promotional efforts, the reactions, the controversies etc. And in several of these, this statement is made clearly by those promoting the film, by those who made the film, and by those reviewing the film.

Furthermore, the idea that "science is inherently atheistic" is completely consistent with the position of the Discovery Institute and the intelligent design movement. Because they define methodological naturalism and materialism as equivalent to atheism, all of science for the last several hundred years is equivalent to atheism by the Discovery Institute definition. Similar sorts of statements are made by all manner of other creationists and intelligent design supporters. Some who realize that this makes creationists and intelligent design supporters look like morons and fools do try to backtrack on this and play wordgames, but read the Wedge Document and similar pronouncements of these groups, or listen to their statements when they are talking to their "base" and trying to raise money from assorted religious rubes.

These groups are fundamentally anti-science, and are essentially a Christian version of the Taliban. The reason the Muslim world is so backward technologically and scientifically is that they bought into similar reasoning pushed by the Sufi cleric al-Ghazali about 1000 years ago in his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers. We have been here before, and the reasoning pushed in the Wedge Document and in The Incoherence of the Philosophers is similar. In particular, The Incoherence of the Philosophers lead directly to the most advanced society on earth in mathematics, medicine, architecture, navigation, astronomy, engineering, and science to regressing backwards to the Bronze Age for a thousand years.

So you can try to tap dance around this issue all you want, but that does not hide the fundamental truth, which many even in the mainstream media recognize.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognize most of that, and was actually wondering how Stein would differentiate himself from the Taliban. My point is I think you're missing something if you say they generally argue this directly, by leaving out the extent of a.) the wordgames, b.) the strategy, c.) the just not thinking about it, and d.) the disagrement amongst them. If you say the movie portrays science as atheistic, then we're not just assuming this was the point of the movie, but giving them credit for being straight-forward about it as well, which doesn't seem to me quite right. Mackan79 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As a source for the quote, Science Equals Murder by John Derbyshire cites, discusses and compares the whole thing to Rousseau's ideas as dissed by Voltaire. .. dave souza, talk 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the guys at CBS News has picked up on the story as seen here. Angry Christian (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This source has quotes apparently from earlier in the interview –

Crouch: What can people of faith do? What do you hope comes from this film?
Stein: Well, we hope that people who have children in schools will tell their children that if the teacher says Darwinism created everything and that there is no explanation for anything in the scientific world except Darwinism, that the student will say, well, Ms. Smith — or whatever the teacher’s name is — how did life begin? What keeps the planets in their orbits? Is there any proof of a separate species ever being seen to evolve? . . . .
Stein: We’re saying teach what is… what the evidence takes you to. I mean, the evidence does not take you to Darwinism about, uh, about, uh, as to the foundations of life. Darwin just had nothing to say about that. The evidence doesn’t take you to Darwinism about astronomy or about the laws of physics or of thermodynamics.

Have we covered his bizarre ideas of "Darwinism" before? . . dave souza, talk 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But he means well. ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what Darwin said about astronomy is quite interesting:[14] "the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide." Guess Stein would be horrified :-/ ... dave souza, talk 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

John Derbyshire's A Blood Libel on Our Civilization

I was just reading through the reaction section again when I came onto this:

Not all conservative reaction has been positive; conservative National Review columnist John Derbyshire described the movie as "creationist porn" and "propaganda for ignorance and obscurantism.

So I followed the reference and read this

So what’s going on here with this stupid Expelled movie? No, I haven’t seen the dang thing. I’ve been reading about it steadily for weeks now though, both pro (including the pieces by David Klinghoffer and Dave Berg on National Review Online) and con, and I can’t believe it would yield up many surprises on an actual viewing. It’s pretty plain that the thing is creationist porn, propaganda for ignorance and obscurantism. How could a guy like this do a thing like that?

I have no qualms about putting this review/article under the newly added external links section, because I to agree that it shows some of the underlying issues. But a statement like "the thing is creationist porn, propaganda for ignorance and obscurantism" carries alot of weight behind it, and on top of that he has not even seen the movie he is supposedly reviewing. All if the other referenced reviewers have actually seen the movie. Joe3472 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe, Derbyshire does not suggest he's reviewing the film. If we say that in the article then we should fine tune it so it indicates he's commenting on the issues brought forth in the movie as well as the ID/creationism movement behind the movie. I've read his column a few times and I never got the impression he was reviewing the film. He's criticizing the message and the messenger's tactics. Also, you don't have to bite into a rotten apple to know it's rotten nor do you have to drink sour milk to know it's sour. Angry Christian (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that the way we reference it, deceptively creates the illusion that he has seen the movie, and thats his opinion. change the article to read that he is giving opinion on underlying issues, and not the movie. I still believe it just needs to be removed, and added to the see also or external links section. Joe3472 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Joe if you can lend some precision to the article feel free to improve it. Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

'Promotional interviews with producers' section

This section consists of lengthy recitals of producers' mainly self-serving statements made in relatively obscure news outlets. While we had relatively little to go on, it may have made sense to include it. Given the wealth of information we have now, it appears to be in violation of WP:UNDUE. Per Template:primarysources, wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary sources over primary ones -- to have a whole section devoted to obscure primary sources seems more than a little bizarre. Unless anybody can come up with a strong reason for retaining this material, I intend to remove it wholesale. HrafnTalkStalk 09:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and also recognize a significant amount of information was included in the article back in the days when we had very little to go on. Now we have the mother load so it makes sense to remove/move some what in contrast is not very notable in view of current details and developments. Midnight Gardener (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I knocked it down to a sentence and moved it into the general Promotion overview section. A better sentence could be written, or an additional sentence could be added if need be. I tried to keep all the refs in place. Hopefully this works. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

POV fork

The recent spin off article has created a POV fork. The majority of the reactions to the film are negative, splitting them out has the net effect of removing the mainstream views of the film to a subarticle, creating a POV fork. I'll be taking steps to reintegrate this content and AFD'ing the POV fork. Odd nature (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not positive that it is a point of view fork. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking#What content/POV forking is not under the Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles subsection. While I may not agree completely with the daughter article, to call it a point of view fork is not wholly accurate. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I just read that section and it appears to still voice the mainstream's view of the film. Do you have any specific objections, Odd Nature? Saying it's POV doesn't really tell us anything, threatening to have the daughter article AFD'd prior to any discussion whatsoever seems a bit odd. Angry Christian (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the positive/negative balance is approximately the same in both the summary section & the spun-out article. HrafnTalkStalk 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody put a link to the spin off article so I can find it? Or has it already been removed. Saksjn (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed Joe3472 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The link is in the article in the section that has been forked. Angry Christian (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll look again, I don't know which section was forked. Saksjn (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Found it. Saksjn (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a POV fork, just a necessary content fork. The new article was essentially copy/pasted from here before this section was trimmed. It contains (at least initially) all of the original content and nothing else, hence no POV fork . Please don't consider "reintegrating", there is an ongoing effort to reduce the overall size of this article which is why that material was spun off in the first place. Doc Tropics 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it looks like a POV fork. If people were going to split something off they could have split off the copyright issues first which would have avoided the POV fork issue. I support rolling the content back in and suggest splitting off sections that do not repesent particular viewpoints first. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

the split was not "necessary". There is no obligation to mention every opinion voiced on the web on Wikipedia. Just consider the trimmed-down section a necessary pruning, and redirect the merged article back here. dab (𒁳) 16:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started it on the basis that the lead in to that section gave a reasonably balanced overall summary of the various viewpoints, and while basic details of the Box offic was needed and the AAAS statement is significant enough, all the quotations provide an excessive mass of detail for this main article but are useful for readers wanting to see what's been summarised. If the summary in this article can be improved that's welcome, but the length is about right and it should pick out the main points across the reviews rather than treating them as a sequence of isolated views. The article's still well oversize, and my suggestion for the next action is merging #Florida legislators into the #Academic Freedom Statute section, with the detail moved to Academic Freedom bills. If someone can work on a summary of #Legal issues, that could then be split. However, these legal issues are a significant part of the controversy around the film and need to be adequately explained in the summary. .. dave souza, talk 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Artist Formerly Known As Angry Christian

Hey guys just an FYI that I changed my nic. And yeah I know this has nothing to do with improving the article but I've been such a chatter head here that I figured the head's up would be a pre-emptive strike against any confusion :-) Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Ben Stien's Liver idea was cool. Thanks for letting us know. Saksjn (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

<best John Cleese-manic-NCO-voice>Wot? You're an artist now? La de da. Better than us mere editors are you? Talk about putting on airs and graces.</best John Cleese-manic-NCO-voice> HrafnTalkStalk 09:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

<best John Lovitz voice> well yeah, I'm an artist...A performance artist...Yeah that's what I am...And I'm the president of performance artist's guild...Yeah...The president...That's what I am... Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm going to be all confused. pblllgh. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazis burned Darwin's work?

Although claimed here, the link provided says that philosophical texts relating to "primitive Darwinism" and Monism were listed. This does not who that any of the works condemned were actually by Darwin; rather it suggests that certain philosophical interpretations of Darwinism were condemned. Does anyone have a source saying that "works by Darwin"--Descent of Man, Origin of Species, Voyage of the Beagle, etc.--were actually burned? If not, I'll be revising or removing that claim. Dolewhite (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's... kind of quibbling. The aactual quote is "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." Ernst Haeckel was the primary proponent of Darwin in Germany. In short, Darwin and Haeckel were certasinly banned, proof positive that anything specific was burned is difficult to demonstrate - burnings were not exactly precisely documented affairs. We could reasonably changed "burned" to "banned", if you like; deletion would be inappropriate Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Its Primitive Darwinism as the Nazis thought the theories of Darwin were primitive compared to their theories of "Racial Purity". Also the Prof at Arizona Uni says these were the orders for the books which were taken out of the libraries to be burned. So this is more than well enough sourced. (Hypnosadist) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

People spin-off

I created the spin-off on the "people" section at People presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Here I'm asking for comments and suggestions on how to trim/chop the original section here. Please share your ideas following this talk thread. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. The essential thing is to summarise the main points of any section that's spun off, not just say "there are people presented in the film". Each person is presented by Stein as "persecuted", and it's essential both to show Stein's claims and show other significant views about the claims from reliable sources. The information was already being reviewed to keep it concise, but since the main subject of the film is the allegation of persecution, this is a central issue that shouldn't be moved to a sub-article in my opinion. . . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So that the section should not be split off from the article, in your opinion? Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit that Dave is probably technically correct regarding this being a central issue. However, thinking back to how much of the original material we simply deleted, I can't help but wonder if a spin-off of this topic is justified. It would allow us to trim a bit more from this article, while at the same time, restoring useful content that had been previously deleted, reinserting it into the new article. We had already cut enough material from this section that I don't think we need to go too much further, but frankly there was a lot of relevant and well cited text that had to deleted along the way. I'd be willing to help restore that text to the new article, if we can achieve a consesus to keep the spin-off. Doc Tropics 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We already have detailed articles on most of these people, so we can try to keep each person's section concise and focussed on the claims in the film, but there doesn't seem to me to be a useful spin-off here, and any deleted detail could go in the articles on the individuals.
Sections 1 – 4 cover the film itself, including the arguments it presents and other views on those arguments. # 5 Legal issues has already been split, and in my opinion a better summary is needed there. # 6 Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution could usefully have * 9.2 Florida legislators merged into it, focussing on the uses of the film with Academic Freedom bills taking the details.
Section # 7 Reaction has been split, the summary is there but there's a request for merging more from the split article into the summary and deleting the split. # 8 Promotion can be examined for summarising and possible split, as can the remaining parts of # 9 Pre-release screenings. .. dave souza, talk 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a joke from Wikipedia's tired routine.

This is a terrible article

NPOV

Adding NPOV tag to article. The article violates NPOV by excessively citing negative reviews and opinion pieces as well as red herring arguments (related to ID's merit as verifiable science as opposed to the positions directly raised in the film). --Davidp (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you, this is not a very good idea. Please do not get yourself in trouble. This is a very bad move.--Filll (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is that? Is there not significant disagreement shown here on this Talk page to establish that the neutrality of this article is in dispute? --Davidp (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Its wikipedia's fault that movie reviewers are critical of a movie that argues in favor of pseudoscience? Should we ignore the negative reviews and expell them because you simply don't agree with the consensus? Paper45tee (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
From what I read, the film is garbage. Credible reviewers are saying, "this film is garbage". What should Wikipedia do, other than to say that credible people are saying the film is garbage? --RenniePet (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It probably should say that, yes. But, it should also provide encyclopedic information that is absent POV. It is currently a hatchet piece written with no understanding of the primary source.--32.167.139.91 (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as the sources are reliable and verifiable, it does not matter whether it's a secondary or primary source. --BirdKr (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's neutrality is obviously disputed, so it needs the {{POV}} tag. NCdave (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually secondary sources are generally preferred by far on wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been disputing this for months now! Why do you continue to insist that it is not disputed?Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the requirement for an article to be labeled as violating NPOV is higher than someone simply saying that the article is violating NPOV. A hundred people could say it, but if none of them can justify it then it doesn't really apply, does it? One needs to include valid reasons for labeling the article as violating NPOV, especially when that label is disputed, so that people can try to fix the problem and can determine when the article is properly NPOV.
In this case, saying that there are "excessive negative reviews" in the article, when they are actually given in approximate proportion to the ratio of negative reviews out there, is incorrect because that is NPOV (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight), and as such that reason is invalid. The "red herring arguments" mentioned are not named, so I have no idea what they refer to since the arguments given in the article seem relevant to me. If a good, specific argument can be given and the problem is not or cannot corrected quickly, then I don't have a problem with adding the tag, but at this point I don't see sufficient evidence that such a tag is valid here. -- HiEv 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this article. Not knowing anything about this film nor have I ever heard of it, I had a read out of interest. Out of all the hundreds of articles I have read from Wiki, this is by far the worst case of Bias I have ever read so far. The general wording has a very obvious negative slant. Put this article through the shredder and start again! 121.45.184.144 (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, and since you know nothing about the film, have a look at the reviews linked from Rotten Tomatoes, 90% of which say it's rotten. .. dave souza, talk 08:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, because an outside source says its rotten, wikipedia needs to abandon its NPOV guideline and underline the fact that its rotten as well? You are forgetting that you are writing an encyclopedia. I also fail to see the reason for this huge article. This reads more like one of those websites that picks apart a movie bit by bit and microanalyzes each piece and then negativly reports about each piece. A good example would be all the sites that came out when Fahrenheit 9/11 was released, with the xxx reasons that its junk or whatever they were called. This is, as quite aptly discribed above, a hatchet piece. I am well aware that nothing will change as it is the "Fill & Co." that rule with their iron fist over articles like this, retaining their POV with viciousness.195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Fahrenheit article for a FAIR way to review a controversial film, that was done well. This, however, is typical.195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been intemperate too, but I think it's high time to refrain from calling users "vicious" or implying a cabal.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh? 1st answer from fill in this section? That can only be interpreted as a threat.Jacina (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a mediocre / bad (depending on your political position) film, fairly well-made and somewhat amusing. This film is a disgusting and obnoxious pile of shit, if you'll excuse my French. Blaming the Holocaust on evolution is so perverse an idea that one cringes. Seeing that bit of an interview with Ben Stein (see item 35 near the end of this page - "science makes people kill people") makes me wonder about how sick in the head these people are. Trying to compare Fahrenheit 9/11 with this film is not comparing apples with oranges, it's comparing apples with garbage. --RenniePet (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, saying that there are "excessive negative reviews" in the article, when they are actually given in approximate proportion to the ratio of negative reviews out there, is incorrect... The problem isn't excessive negative reviews. The problem is the amount of space devoted to them, and to other things, both negative and positive. Sections 1.1 through 4 are entirely about the film's fallacious or false arguments, Sections 9.3-9.4 are about the other mendacious things the filmmakers have done, and Section 7 is entirely about the reaction, which in turn is composed of four subsections, one for a different faction of the media. Do we really need that? That General Media subsection alone is gigantic! And even aside from criticism or negativity over the filmmakers duplicitousness, do we really need a section composed of four subsections merely on the film's Promotion??? Hell, most movie articles don't even have one! Geez. I mean, really, the article was at one point 140K. Then 150K. Then 151K. I figured it would stop, and editors would eventually start paring it down. But it's still growing. It's now at 157K. So yes, the NPOV is justified. That all this material is proportionately accurate is not the point. It may be proportionate in terms of reaction, but it's not proportionate in terms of what a good article looks like, and putting the amount of detail in it that people have clearly looks like POV. Really, guys, this thing needs to be pared down.

The difference is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a mediocre / bad (depending on your political position) film, fairly well-made and somewhat amusing. This film is a disgusting and obnoxious pile of shit.. Which has nothing to do with the point 195.216.82.210 was making about how to properly write an article about a controversial film. Are you saying that how to write such an article is determined by the aesthetic reaction to it on the part of the editors writing it??? Nightscream (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How you you figure that the NPOV flag is justified by the size of the article? Some other tag, maybe: but why NPOV? This is not intended to be a "make the article smaller" tag! And if other articles about films give less detail than this one: it could just as easily be argued that we're doing a better job here than there. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Related to this I had placed the "longish" tag once and it was almost immediately removed as "we haven't discussed that." I've put it back because
1-We now have discussed it plenty.
2-It is on articles, like Paul Wolfowitz, that are shorter than this one.
3-It remains factually accurate. This article is over 100KB long.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


... What does NPOV stand for? NEUTRAL point of view. Nowhere does it say "Average point of view when taking all the media reactions and then calculating the mean". Neutral means just that NEUTRAL. I'll admit its challenging to write a NEUTRAL article when everyone and their uncle is bashing it. Thats just one of the challenges Wikipedia needs to meet, and regularly does well. This article is in NO WAY NPOV. Does that mean you can't criticize it? No, you can even heavily criticize it, however that SHOULD be balanced by including some positive reactions to the film. This article focuses on the negative to VERY high extremes. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A complete misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, but you know, whatever. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate, what part of:

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

is being misunderstood? The part where undue weight is being given to a view because it happens to be the popular one, and therefore 90% of the article portrays this view? I did expect you to show up though ;) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniell Dennett

Doesn't Daniel Dennett appear in Expelled? If so, doesn't that mean our list of people is incomplete? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at the Expelled website, I saw that we had missed many many people that appear in the film. It really would be unreasonable to describe them all in any detail. And even a list is maybe a bit much; let IMDB and the official website do that, perhaps. --Filll (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
IMDB does NOT list them. I think we should at least have a sidebox giving the full list. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV II

This article postively exudes POV. It reads like an enormous, exquisitely detailed and interlinked refutation of the film...it's a white paper, not an encyclopedia entry. It doesn't present any material in the film except for the purpose of debunking it. A summation of the article is: "Exposed is a film featuring Ben Stein. The film is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Further illustration of this wrongness can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here." (But multiply this form out to 100K bytes.) I have arrived at the conclusion that the rabid attack editors who are maintaining it against any pinpricks of objectivity are doing nothing more than displaying the strength of their conviction in evolution -- much like the hoarse, red-faced preachers I used to avoid on my university campus. (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Battlefield Earth (film) article. It is an FA article Midnight Gardener (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You're saying the Expelled article maintainers are Scientologists, and that's where they get the motivation to sit at their keyboards day and night supporting their version of reality? That would explain it. keno (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that was interesting. According to that article- "The film's producer, Elie Samaha, declared that he welcomed the "free publicity", as "the more the critics hit Battlefield Earth, the more DVDs it sells. It is the kind of film that makes a movie legend and we feel we have enough staying power to last long after the critics have quieted down."" Yeah, that doesn't sound like anyone we know. (Incidentally, I knew that Battlefield Earth got panned I didn't realize how thoroughly panned). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Three comments about NPOV

The second paragraph in this article links to 5 specific and very negative reviews. However, no positive reviews are provided. Instead, readers are provided to the wiki entries for religious right, conservative and creationist. Since Rotten Tomatoes was used as a primary source for ratings, could this sentence be updated to include at least one link to a positive film critic review? As mentioned in Wikipedia:NPOV, even minority viewpoints cannot be completed ignored (and in this case, minority viewpoint should not be applied since the minority viewpoint is the thesis of the film).
There seems to be a large discrepancy between film critic/scientific community reception of this film and popular opinion (user reviews) of this film. Popular opinion votes on Internet websites are not considered a reliable source, but in this case, since Rotten Tomatoes was already used as a primary source for this portion of the article, could this section be updated to include a reference to popular reception to this film, with a link to the Rotten Tomatoes User Reviews? (368 reviews, 184 positive, 50% rating at the time of this edit). Google user reviews for this film (an aggregate, largely from epinions.com) show a similar 2.6/5 or 52% positive rating.
Why is this film being treated so much differently than Fahrenheit 9/11. In this entry, there is no reference to film critic opinion or popular opinion of the film even though the reception was [nearly as extreme] (except positive, not negative - 85% at Rotten Tomatoes) CalebBenefiel (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Popular opinion is difficult to measure with properly constructed opinion polls, which have to be treated with care, and internet polls simply invite fiddling. User reviews are in no way a reliable source, but published reviews by film critics provide verifiable expert reports as required by policies, and published scientific sources provide the views of the scientific community about the claims which are at the centre of this film. If you feel that Fahrenheit 9/11 should be improved, take it up on the talk page of that article. As you point out, that's a movie that film critics rate at 84% positive out of 219 reviews, while this movie is rated 9% positive out of 33 reviews, and WP:NPOV requires that we should not give undue weight to the minority view.. . . dave souza, talk 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the referenced sources (film critic aggregate sites), the (small) positive reception of this film is clearly not a "tiny minority" but merely a "minority." At least one positive film critic review from this source should be included in the introduction, possibly with a blurb (since there are already two negative blurbs in this paragraph). Instead, there are currently links to other wiki pages. Small changes like this will help incrementally reduce the non-NPOV issues with this article. CalebBenefiel (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


A website has been released which has thoroughly debunked the claims by the Expelled Exposed website. It's located here. It's only fair that it be added to the list of supportive web sites, as a means to (hopefully) get this unreasonably biased article back on track. Mista Kool (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "website", it's a single page on a web site belonging to Discovery Institute. It's all nut-case stuff. --RenniePet (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


"It's all nut-case stuff" - could you guys try not to make your prejudice so obvious? Remember, Wikipedia is unbiased, and articles are meant to remain neutral. As for the previously mentioned web page, I can't see how it can be considered "nut-case stuff" when it backs up it's claims via links to reputable sources. Sources such as: The Washington Post, Baylor, Harvard, and the U.S. Government, amongst others. It would clearly be a valid addition to the article, but of course the hostile moderators would never allow it. Ironically, they're helping to prove the thesis of Expelled to be totally accurate. I'd get quite the chuckle out of it if it weren't for the fact that this type of hatred and bigotry is costing people their livelihood.Mista Kool (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your failure to see obvious creationist quote-mining speaks volutmes. The DI fails to stand up in court, and is not a WP:RS for anything but its own statements which should be evaluated or analysed by a reliable secondary source for verification to avoid 'original research'. And please be careful not to accuse other editors of "hatred and bigotry" – it's obviously false and straight out of the Expelled lexicon, but still violates WP:CIVIL. Editing here is a privilege, not a civil right, and the people whose livelihood consists of getting funding to lobby for teaching of lies to schoolchildren are not a charity we need to support. As for providing a link to this particular page, we already have a link to the DI's Expelled Resources list, and this is an article about the film, not about the NCSE. .. dave souza, talk 10:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Every claim made on the website was backed up via links to very reliable sources. That you continue to ignore this fact and instead choose to spew hateful comments is further proof that Expelled is indeed accurate, and the negative reviews are nothing more than flimsy propoganda. Mista Kool (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all nut-case stuff. :-)
(See, now I've added a smiley. Is that better?) --RenniePet (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


We seem to have some deep misunderstanding of NPOV and Wikipedia here. Wikipedia is not unbiased. Whoever told you that it was? Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV. That means, the mainstream views in a relevant field get prominence.

What is the subject of this movie? Science and academia and persecutions in science and academia. What do you think the mainstream view of these "controversies" and "persecutions" is in science and academia? Pretty negative right? So by NPOV, the Wikipedia article must reflect this. And does it? Yes it does. So there is no NPOV problem here. None.

Now as to the question of tiny minority. In the relevant science of biology, way less than 1 percent of professional biologists support intelligent design. In history, the view that the Holocaust was caused by evolution is a crazy extreme discredited fringe belief. Among regular movie reviewers, over 90 percent panned the film. At the box office, the film probably will not even make back its costs, after the promotional and legal costs are factored in. Very few people chose to go see this film. The only group that was enthusiastic about this film was a small slice of the American public that has extremist religious views, favoring things like Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism. Depending on how you measure it, it might be about 10 percent of the US population at most. Tiny. Certainly not all of these 30 million people went to see the movie, however. Maybe 500,000 people saw the movie. --Filll (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

POV?

It seems to me that this artical is more about why ID is wrong, not about the movie. Shouldn't it just be about the movie, then all the criticisms can be held for that section, rather then making sections that are supposed to be about the actual movie into articals about why ID is wrong? (PS. Sorry if there is already a section on the talk page for this, I didn't really have time to look around and read much of it)--Passerby25 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We can move some of those sections to a "Criticism of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" article. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is discouraged. If the article is split, it must be in a different way.--Filll (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Hrafn mentioned a section or two up - there's no rush. This movie has been out for a few days. There's no way to tell that the significant elements of the story will be. The text could be more concise, but there's no point in cutting anything just yet. Guettarda (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the movie has been out there for about a week. BTW, I don't think they should be split at this time. RC-0722 247.5/1 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Any split has to follow WP:SUMMARY which means we have a concise agreed summary in this main article. It might be possible to do this with the reviews, are we agreed on Rotten Tomatoes' pithy summary? Perhaps best to try summarising the essential points first. . dave souza, talk 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually 12 days. Too many to call a week, too few to call two. Hence, "a few" days. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I do agree the article has alot of undue weight, a split probably would not be the wisest choice at the moment.Joe3472 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What undue weight? What prominent scientists, film reviewers or news outlets have said anything other than that this film is a crock of excrement? Vanishingly few, from information to date. I would say if anything the article is giving undue weight to the mostly fringe/inexpert/partisan sources that have anything good to say about it. HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Joe is talking about the overall length that has resulted from including so many of the negative reviews. The article only needs to say "it's a crock" once or twice, not over and over. It seems there are vanishingly few opposing voices that have NOT been given space in the main body of the article. Try looking at the number of words devoted to (a) what the movie says, (b) what its supporters say about it, and (c) what its detractors say about it. I think you'll find (c) at above 80% currently. Keno (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of controversial articles with a criticism of... sub article. Why are we deciding to suddenly enforce that policy all the sudden? Saksjn (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because other crap exists doesn't mean we should continue making more crap. If we can all just work on trimming the current article, we can get this down to a manageable size. Also, please see my comments in the other section above: #proposal to fork. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. "We" didn't decide not to enforce it elsewhere -- other editors did. You'll have to ask them why.
  2. Where there is a separable 'controversy' (which is not the case here, as every aspect of the film is controversial), it may be possible to have a separate article on it -- as long as WP:DUE is given to the majority viewpoint in both, to avoid a WP:POVFORK. But even if the film and the controversy were separable, the majority opinion expressed in both the film & the controversy article would therefore be the same -- highly negative towards it.

HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The challenge here is in trimming the article down, it will be extremely difficult to trim the article without removing negative criticism about the movie from the article (since the article is 90% negative criticism). There are many here who refuse to see this movie legitimized in any way, shape, manner or form and will fight this through consistent reversions. This is the challenge... coming to a consensus when so much bias is involved. --Novan Leon (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize this has been dealt with above, somewhat, but let me note that it is not standard in Wikipedia to include the reception of a film in the lead paragraphs, and I feel it's simply done here to demonize and defame the film. Note that Bowling for Columbine has the reception far deeper in the article. The Moore film also allows for a complete blow-by-blow analysis of the film's major points, unrefuted of course. This dives right into the controversial aspects and is overly negative. While I'm not an ID supporter, nor a fundamentalist nor a christian, I feel this is a clear case of POV, and a great example of a well-referenced hit piece. - Nhprman 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a very good comparison, try Battlefield Earth, another movie condemned by virtually every one who saw it and the lead states just that. Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry. That's not a documentary, so you're comparing apples and oranges here. The B.E. article actualy allows it to describe the plot in detail, and is short on critique other than that one opening paragraph and a few far below. This article reeks of the 'controversy' and does not do a blow-by-blow of the plot as BFC does. And the B.E. article doesn't include a category claiming it's a Scientology propaganda film, while this film (embarrassingly, for Wikipedia) makes the bold, POV and biased allegation that it's a "propaganda film" by including that category. - Nhprman 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Battlefield Earth did not have the sort of controversies associated with it this one did. There was no deception of interviewees in BE. There were no copyright lawsuits associated with BE. There were no screening controversies associated with BE. There was no massive publicity push with 4 publicity firms spending millions of dollars for BE. BE is not associated with efforts to pass legislation about public schools in the US; after all, is BE being shown to state legislatures in an attempt to encourage public school teachers to proselytize for Scientology with your tax money in secular science classrooms? Believe me, if that is what BE was being used for, that article would be much more like this one. Would you like your tax money used to try to convert children to Scientology? So the analogy is just a load of nonsense.--Filll (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Battlefield Earth was an entertainment film. This is a documentary, just like Bowling for Columbine. Your political bias is showing, and frankly, it's not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Period. NPOV. That's the rule. To ignore every issue you mentioned would be dead wrong, too. But frankly, everything you just said applies to Bowling for Columbine, which gets the "soft glove" treatment on Wikipedia. It also clearly has a legslative agenda, and is clearly controversial. People have poked a LOT of holes in Moore's film, too, and it uses deception and halftruths that are NOT, however, highlighted in extremely negative fashion in the LEAD of that article. This is an unbalanced portrayal of this film. Period. - Nhprman 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal political bias is not allowed in Wikipedia articles? How do you purport to know my personal political bias? I have not revealed it here. Do you know what my position is on teaching religion in public schools? I will give you a hint; it is the same as Richard Dawkins' position. I am in favor of religious instruction in US public schools. Just not in science class as science. And you do not seem to understand what WP:NPOV means. NPOV IS NOT UNBIASED. NPOV IS NOT NEUTRAL. Whoever told you it was? Did you read the policy? NPOV means that Wikipedia gives the most prominence to the mainstream view in the relevant field. And what do you think that is in this case? Bowling for Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth had positive reviews. And their "agendas" and associated controversies were nothing like the agenda and controversies associated with this film. Again, lousy analogies.--Filll (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Both films carried thick political agendas, and both of which, here on Wikipedia, have been given very sweet and tender treatment, despite loads of opposition and counter arguments - even at least one counter MOVIE. BTW, I sure hope citing "Rotten Tomatoes" reviews isn't the guide here as to what is a "bad reception." It is not. There's more to life than the Internet. And if you think "gang editing" a conservative movie article by loading it up with negativity and slander like "American Propaganda Film" means "Neutral point of view" you and/or Wikipedia's "admins" who are interpreting it that way are simply incorrect in their analysis of what "neutral" means. - Nhprman 20:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, I'd like to see parity as to how this film is handled compared with, say, An Inconvenient Truth. For instance, in the Gore film's article, every criticism of it is followed by a rebuttal from Gore or others who defend the film's exaggerations. This of course minimizes the crititique (which comprises a very small percentage of the article, I must say.) This is a common technique of the Left here on Wikipedia, and it makes it seem as if the entire world favors their view, which is, actually, the very definition of propaganda. Allowing that technique here, I imagine, would gain HOWLS of protest from the hundreds who are here to defame the film and its subjects. I also would love the "Reception" section to be in the same place it is in the Moore films. That's not to say I want this article cleansed of all negativity. The critical reception by liberal newspapers DEFINITELY should be included. But let's be fair about presenting it.
As for your comment about your bias, you say your not an ID supporter and neither am I. I just don't like slanted, biased and grossly unfair articles to be here on Wikipedia. - Nhprman 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
AIT's facts were, broadly speaking, accurate. The misrepresentation is thick here. And, as far as I know, they haven't been answered. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
While this isn't the place to outline the MANY myths and exaggerations of AIT (i.e. completely false "hockey stick" charts created with grossly inaccurate computer models, the 4 drowned polar bears that became an oft-repeated lie of mass extinction, increasingly exaggerated claims of sea level rises) this film on ID is no more misleading, although honest coverage of it's "misses" (mention of which is completely reasonable) is a far cry from what is happening here, which is a rather disgusting and transparent smear-job of those who HOLD the views expressed in the film, rather than a rational, encyclopedic article that allows for a run-down of the film's main points, an honest summary of the opposition to the film, and reasonable links and citations. I think anyone can plainly see that this article bears no relation to other. documentary. films. here. - Nhprman 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I never addressed the OUTRAGEOUS claim, by User:Filll, above (May 8 15:33), that NPOV does not mean "neutral." He takes me to task for uncovering and discerning his bias, then states that he believes as Richard Dawkins does, that ID doesn't belong in a classroom being taught as science (clearly a bias, and an opinion, to which he is more than welcome to - and one with which I probably agree, BTW.) Then he boldly claims that he has NO bias. Um, okay. For the record, WP's policy on NPOV states:

"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." (my bolding)

This article has obvious editorial bias, and is almost giddy with its eagerness to give opponents of the film (and, in an unencyclopedic way, opponents of the IDEA of ID) a platform to blast it's alleged inconsistencies and errors. I'll admit that it's well cited, but cited to back up editorial opinion, which is not allowed here. This article is not the place for a debate on ID, but that's just what it is. - Nhprman 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


NPOV means reporting views in proportion to their prominence. And what view do you think is most prominent in mainstream film reviews? What view do you think is most prominent in biological science? That is not neutral and frankly it is not unbiased, whatever that quote you have quote mined says. If you continue to use this as a soapbox, you will get userfied.--Filll (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the Worst Wikipedia Entries Every/Terrible Article Proposal to Re-Write from Scratch

I know that this has probably been said adnauseum but this is a ridiculously POV article. Okay, now that I've gotten the most obvious point of contention that has rattled the discussion pages and created endless amounts of fustration let's point out the obvious facts that people seem just to want to ignore:

-There are just too many sections that people can point to and make a good case that it is POV. Whether through context quoting or through endless repetitions of various movie reviews; this article does appear to lean heavily against the movie.

-This article is so ridiculously referenced it would be unreadable to most people. Those who try to argue that this helps to make the article better and more encyclopedic are fooling themselves. Let me give you a realife example of why I say this. I just finished a final paper for one of my college classes, and if had turned in anything that looked even vaguely like this article I would have been lucky to get a C.

-The discussion pages are riddled with what appears to be little more that petty arguing and chat room ettiquette. This is not the place for people to vent their personal opinions on how much one side or the other 'sucks'. Shouldn't this be a place where some one notes 'Oh, hey there are lots of minor punctuation errors that need to be fixed.' Or something like, "The link for reference 20 is broken or no longer working, the point needs a new reference."

-There are section where the little blue footnote numbers that appear take up several word lengths on their own. Do any of you who have done this realize just how laughable that this make the article look? I know that people probably cry use the "POV" cry many times on wikipedia when they read something that they don't like, but a quick scan with my scroll bar and I can guess without having read any of the discussion section that this article has exploded because people are letting their personal beliefs (And I am talking solely to those of you who are atheist) get in the way of writing a good article.

Do I sound like I am soap boxing? Does it seem apparent to you who have read this that I am Christian? Yes I am Christian, and not only do I have every right to soapbox about this article, but I also will soon have the English Major college degree to prove that I have the authority to speak as I do about the way that this article was written. I was trying to find a little information about this movie and when I came to wikipedia instead of a well maintained article that I am used to finding, I discover this. This steaming pile that claims to be encylopedic is what I got. This whole thing should be re-written from scratch. Before any of you get your pants in a bunch and vomit all your pathetic attempts to make it sound like I mean that nothing but praise for the film should be included, take a second to think about this as an option: An article about a controversial subject should include both the criticisms, and the praise. If it was universally hated, there really wouldn't be controversy would there.

Last note, I may have touted the fact that I am soon to hold a degree, but I do not mean to say that I have any notion of how this article needs to be re-written. I am in no way capable of writing this article over. I do not know all the various little rules that wikipedia runs on and I wouldn't want to oafishly and arrogantly break those rules through my own sheer ignorance. I hope that this article gets what it needs Rocdahut (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just write the text, use Harvard referencing or whatever you choose (i.e., don't worry about formatting. Once you get the basic article written, people will help you clean it up and format it. Here's a subpage for you to use for your draft: User:Merzul/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/rewrite. Guettarda (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a great idea. Go ahead and produce something you feel is superior and let others look at it and decide if they agree that your new version is superior.--Filll (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a rewrite is a great idea for this horrifically POV article, using other documentaries here as a template. I haven't edited Word One on this article, but would help with another, giving fair treatment to the critical reception as well as to the film's content. - Nhprman 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Click on the red link above and start writing. It's that easy. Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out (not literally, as that would hurt). 99.135.11.26 (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot more progress can be made by just writing instead of fighting. Please feel free to take Guettarda up on his offer.--Filll (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that IP was me again. My ADD keeps kicking in and I forget to log in. RC-0722 247.5/1 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to train yourself to look at the top of the box every time you hit edit. There's a warning there that's easy to miss in general, but hard to miss if you glance at the top of the edit box. Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

has it occurred to you that the article may be reflecting a real-world consensus that the movie is, in fact, bad? "Neutrality" means "reflect real world opinion" it doesn't mean "blind relativism". dab (𒁳) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This may very well be a horrible movie. The article surely will state that the reviews were bad and response was negative. But the article should NOT be a chat room for anti-Intelligent Design scientists, rebuttals of the film's contentions, or other ax-grinding exercises. See the difference? - Nhprman 17:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, a lot of axe-grinding can safely be cut. No rewrite is necessary, just tighten the current discussion. It is better to say "everyone thinks the movie is crap" than to cite a tedious list of 50 reviews that each say "it is crap" in slightly different phrasing. Credit the readers with some intelligence and trust they will get the gist of the case. dab (𒁳) 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A re-write is in orderFree onyx (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The biggest impediment to fixing major problems in the article is that too few interested in it (supporting it or criticizing it) are sufficiently detached from the topic to be objective about what's wrong with it. The Birth of a Nation (not a perfect article but a suitable comparison) has much more of the encyclopedic "tone"; it has benefited from the kind of emotional detachment this article needs. It reports on the controversies without re-enacting them or taking a position. It doesn't catalog or quote every last comment ever made about the film, doesn't overly digress to a background history lesson, and doesn't clutter the narrative by stacking up six or seven footnotes when one should suffice. (Why does a sentence about a movie need 9 or 10 footnotes? This article has sentences with even more than 10 footnotes.) The changes won't come easy; the article is a battleground. And this is unfortunate because now is probably when the WP article will be drawing its peak readership. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason that we have to have multiple footnotes here (or at least multiple sources for each point) is that even one or two sources are disputed, as we see here on this page repeatedly. And we did have them in collapsed form, but this was all removed by people who did not know what they were doing. So they do not have to be ugly, but experience teaches us that we do need more than one source for each point, and sometimes a good solid 5 or 10. That is how it is with a contentious article. If you think you can make an article that will survive with less, you are living in a fantasy world. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen any objection to criticism of the film. I've objected and others have objected to criticism taking the form of accurate portrayal of the film's content. I can, for example, write an article about Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech on race, describing what he said, by hitting his major themes. As a critic, I can then point out the many flaws in his reasoning and even talk about how he avoided the issue he needed to address altogether. In this forum the former is required, the latter is optional but it can be exhaustive with no demand to be based in fact.Free onyx (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever that means. Go ahead and stop complaining and start writing.--Filll (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why I suggested a re-write in a subpage. That avoids any warring, it allows someone to start from scratch and create a better article. If nothing else, this article is the product of how its development - there are artefacts in there from earlier versions which probably don't make sense in this version. So someone who has a different take should re-write it from scratch. My reply to Rocdahut was serious - and if not him, then someone who thinks this article is just terrible. Someone, show me something different. Please. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I doubt that a collaboration would be any more fruitful in drafting the re-write than it has been here. I've been focused on some of the other w-projects lately because there's less drama than in the 'pedia to deal with to get something done. So I'll put together a draft of what I think the article should be more like, maybe by next week, and throw it up to see what other editors think of it. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really the right person to re-write this article. Although part of my mind is still in final paper mode and is tantalized by the idea of doing this as a personal project, I just do not want to go through the personal grief that I would get when I would edit. I am Christian, and I would be displaying pride and hypocrisy if I were to say that I think that I could do a better job of re-doing this article myself. However, this doesn't mean I'm not right as a Christian, an English major, and a person who was just trying to get a couple of quick facts about the movie--when I say that this article is a sprawling mess. I almost wish that it existed as it did prior to the film's release. I like the idea of a sub-page, and would be happy to help contribute to that. Please visit my talk page when this gets set up. This discussion page is so long that I almost didn't find this post to respond, and would appreciate just a simple direct link where I could easily find the future subpage. Rocdahut (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen! Free onyx (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)