Talk:Ben Stein/Archives/2013

Major revisions suggested
Is it just me or is this article full of conjecture and controversy? This is not up to par and needs to be rewritten, in the meantime it should be locked. The talk page could do with a bit of choppy-choppy as well.--24.197.252.128 (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.249.17 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the tone of most of this article is not neutral, but hostile.71.155.241.119 (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"According to the Associated Press, in 2007, Stein crossed party lines and donated $2,000 to the U.S. Senate campaign of liberal Al Franken. He has also made comments against the management of the Iraq war. [8]"

I have yet to see any reference of Ben Stein crossing party lines and contributing to Al Franken's campaign in the provided source. The statement referenced a YouTube video of an interview between Neil Cavuto and Stein. No mention of crossing party lines or financial contributions. --65.89.243.81 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Article Ignores How Stein Dealt With the Draft
Had I not been drafted in 1968, I also would have graduated from law school in 1970. The conscription pressure was intense. Any biographical article on somebody Stein's age MUST deal with military service -- or lack thereof. Failure to do so is tantamount to ignoring the elephant in the room. I say this not as any enemy of Stein's; to the contrary, I like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.158 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

most white republicans avoided the draft, this is not news. guys like stein (and cheney) are delighted to watch YOUR kids go off to war and die for their country, but don't expect them to serve. but this is not news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Various statistics indicate that the majority of ground troops INSIDE Vietnam were actually volunteers BUT, the upper-crust AND the spawn of the elite class do seem to have had more viable options of avoiding/evading the draft than the sons of the "mere commoners."69.152.64.223 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Locking this page to unregistered user edits
For some reason, this page is a vandal magnet. Will someone please lock it, so that only registered users can edit it?


 * Please define "vandal" for us. Are they truly vandals or are they users who provide comments and references that are contrary to your own beliefs? --70.129.134.24 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's because Stein is an irrational moron on a few subjects. Here is some that I found:
 * Stein began his political career as a speechwriter and lawyer for United States President Richard Nixon, and was in charge of licking Nixon's balls. Stein was one of many public figures speculated to have been Deep Throat. As far back as May 3, 1976, Time magazine had speculated on the possibility of Stein being Deep Throat, though he did like to give Nixon blow jobs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.121.67 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Not with Stein deepthroating Nixon, but with semi-protecting this article. No sense in reverting every single time. Especially the quote at the end of the "Views on Science" section. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He just made a movie that basically made him look like an uneducated jackass and deserves many of the things being said about him. 'However, this is an encyclopedia and must remain neutral.' This article should be trimmed of the controversy and locked.24.197.252.128 (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image
The image of Ben Stein is 404-compatible. Is this a Wikipedia bug or an image bug or an article bug?


 * There must have been a problem with the image. I have commented it out from the article for now, thanks for the notice. Dori | Talk 00:29, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's one of the "January gap" images that were lost outright. I've removed it completely. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's not a good picture that's on there now. We can do better than that. I'm going to write to Ben's agent and get a real press photo of him and the permission to use it. Unless, of course, anyone has any objection. I've already done it for Dana Reeve and Red Skelton. And I'm trying to do it for Tara Strong. I think every celebrity deserves a decent picture in Wikipedia to go along with their article. Joe 03:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a Creative Commons (CC) licensed photo on Flickr but it's a non-commercial version of CC so it can't go on Commons. Does anyone know if that licence is allowed on en:Wikipedia directly... or someone can contact the Flickr user to see if he will relicence it? (would need to be cropped too). http://flickr.com/photos/racingmix/248617071/ --Georgeryp 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most famous role
I came to this article, and I noticed that 63.134.129.166 had added a reference to Ben Stein's role in Richie Rich which made it seem as if Ben Stein were famous for playing an economics teacher in that movie. Since this wasn't the case, I looked to edit the text. I then asked myself why Richie Rich was being mentioned. Ferris Bueller is an obvious mention: it is the role that launched Ben Stein's film career. (I will address how this is a fairly objective statement in a moment.) But there is nothing special about Richie Rich; why not note Stein's roles in, say, The Mask or The Wonder Years instead? We could just note all of Stein's roles, but if we do that, this article just becomes a recapitulation of the IMDb filmography. So I decided to just cut the whole clause out and revert 63.134.129.166's changes.

Unfortunately, The stuart came along and pushed Richie Rich back in. Worse, he removed the statement about Stein being famous for Ferris Bueller. Thus, I come here to justify the change.

Now let's look at my claim that Ben Stein is famous for Ferris Bueller. Consider:
 * Ben Stein's own website refers to the scene in which Stein utters the quote "Bueller? ... Bueller?" as being ranked one of the fifty most memorable scenes in American movies.
 * Try google: a search on "bueller? bueller?" ben stein will get you a list of web sites with comments such as:
 * Stein achieved his cinematic milestone with a single word droned over and over: "Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller."
 * I got recognized often and was occasionally asked for an autograph. And every once in a while, someone standing next to me at a urinal would lean over in my direction and bark, "Bueller? Bueller?"
 * His droning roll call -- "Bueller?…Bueller?...Bueller?…" -- is now a rhetorical catch phrase for asking a question that no one will answer.
 * "Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?" More than 350 Ben Stein fans heard this immortalized line in person on Thursday, Oct. 28, as the Renaissance man who coined the phrase visited UM-St. Louis for the evening.
 * By the way, just for comparison with Richie Rich, let's look at google hits again: "ben stein" "richie rich" gets you 117 hits compared to 889 hits for "ben stein" "ferris bueller's day off" &mdash; and the longer title for Ferris Bueller should actually serve to depress its number of hits.

&mdash; DLJessup 06:18, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Order of article?
Shouldn't the "Writing" section be placed before the "Work" section, to keep the article's chronological perspective? He worked for Nixon before starring in Ferris Bueller, after all. ekedolphin 08:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is this worth noting?
I believe that Ben Stein suffers from bipolar disorder, but I'm not sure if it really matters. Opinions? --Marco Passarani 17:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's true and you can source it, I think it's noteworthy. — DLJessup 18:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I could have sworn that I read that he had it...but can't find a source. And my memory has been known to be entirely inaccurate.  My mistake! --Marco Passarani 21:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you might have been think of Ben Stiller --Wildcatgrad (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another "Is it worth noting?": Ben Stein spoke to young republicans at something like the young republicans convention a few years ago. Sorry to have so few details, but it did happen. He made plenty of knee-jerk comments to the effect that liberals are all unhappy whiners, whereas conservatives are confident, successful and content citizens, then cited some Hollywood liberals, not as counterexamples, but as hypocritical abominations. If anyone has more information on this ignominious speech might be worth noting. MotherFunctor 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish I had been there because I'm sure it was a great speech! As far as I'm concerned it is worth noting. We just need a verifiable source for it.  Lawyer2b 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! okay, well I'll try to track it down. MotherFunctor 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459141/posts this] is the speech you are referring to; it's not the speech itself, just a write up about it. Hardly seems like a "great" speech, just some more hysteria and partisan propaganda that is the hall mark of every major political party in the USA. However, it must make Mark Foley a bit happier to know there are people out there who see conservatives as 'confident, successful and content citizens.'

Fiction vs. Non-fiction
Can someone please specify which titles Stein authored are fiction and which are non-fiction? I could probably guess, but best if someone else could lay it out for us. Thanks.

Opening Paragraph
''Benjamin Jeremy Stein (born November 25, 1944, in Washington, D.C.) is a fervently conservative (with strong libertarian economic impulses) pro-life former White House speechwriter (for the late Republican President Richard Nixon); he is/was also an attorney, (former) game show host, actor, commercial personality, screenwriter, law professor, economist, author, and columnist. He is the son of noted economist and writer Herbert Stein, and his wife, Mildred. Ben Stein has a sister, Rachel, a writer.''

Wow...a little cumbersome, don't you think? &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  18:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization
In my reorganization of the article, I've removed:


 * His efforts at film and television screenwriting have largely been for naught, aside from paying him an excellent wage for many years, though he ...

By "for naught" did the editor mean that the writing was not admired by critics? It's quite a mysterious statement. Joshuardavis 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Drug Addictions?
Nowhere is it mentioned in the article that from 1966-1988 Mr. Stein was addicted to drugs, specifically dilaudin, demerol, marijuana, dexamil, and cocaine. One of his books does focus on this addiction. I think this should be noted, either as a description of his book "The Gift of Peace" or as a separate section about his life. For all his successes and accomplishments, it shows he's still a mortal figure. --Lovelinelistener 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should be added. A direct citation of Ben Stein talking about his addictions is on Loveline, 10-07-2003 (Loveline. Adam Carolla, Drew Pinskey, Prod. Ann Wilkins. KROQ-FM, Los Angeles. 7 Oct. 2003). "I used to be a really, really heavy drug-user, and I changed largely from going to twelve-step meetings." He then goes on to admit, as Lovelinelistener already mentioned, to using dilaudid, Demerol, marijuana, cocaine, and several other pill-based drugs. It's an interesting aspect of his life that never seems to get mentioned, and to many people may seem to clash with his personality and nature. As such, it's an important, well-documented part of his life that should be added to his article. --Phlag December 12, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland?
I'm suspicious of the references to Stein teaching in Newfoundland. They are not sourced. No offense intended to Newfies, but it seems like an odd place for a California resident to accept a teaching position. Patke@sluh.org 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am not surprised if it is true. Despite a horde of available PhD USA citizens available the University of Nebraska Omaha hired a Canadian citizen PhD for their middle-east studies program. The Canadian hired was a female absolutely enamored with the middle-east; constantly praising the cultures there and dressing in garb akin to what SOME mid-eastern females wear (not a burkha but with head covered and behaving in a subservient manner towards males, at times). After sitting through a semester of her class (to meet a disgusting BS "diversity" requirement.... wasn't my two trips via the military to southeast Asia in the 1970s enough exposure to diversity? How about my many years in California's Central Valley where I was frequently a minority by being an Anglo and, at times, a definite minority merely by being a USA citizen?!!!!). I believe that Canadian was hired to meet "political correctness" requirements/standards/desires and to heck with unemployed USA citizens. I still despise Univ. Nebraska Omaha for this and many other reasons. Such a lame institutio unworthy of ANY tax or tuition dollars, in my Disgruntled Old Coot opinion.69.152.64.223 (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ear surgery
I removed the following uncited section from the article. If it can be sourced, it could be worked back in, although hopefully in a less prominent way.--Srleffler 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"A very little known fact about Ben Stein is that he had a surgery in his early years to reduce the outward appearance of his ears. Ben Stein adminitingly speaks about the experience, and also defends it saying that there is nothing wrong with fixing an imperfection. He goes on to say that he once had a Jewish friend who asked him if he should have his nose reduced and Ben advised against it, as it would be hiding a heritage.  Stein says that one should not hide traits or features relevant to their race, but outward portruding ears is not one of them and should be corrected."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

What a Dumbo69.152.64.223 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Where he currently lives
I go to school in DC, and have seen him around the Watergate and in the Georgetown area 3 or 4 times over the past year. Does he live there also? Also, the entire paragraph is uncited, which is a no-no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstingily (talk • contribs) 00:46, August 2, 2007

Since when is a 1573 out of 1600 perfect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.19.177 (talk) 20:41, August 7, 2007

"Expelled" movie
I took out the last sentence claiming that the company that made the film lied about what film they were making. The link listed provides no evidence of that, and the source itself isn't in any manner objective on the subject matter. The other part I removed read "Although not yet released, the movie has been criticized for misrepresentation of science". The link to back this up is from someone who hasn't seen the film and has no idea what's in the film. The linked post makes it clear that the writer hasn't seen the film and doesn't know the content. An encyclopedia shouldn't include claims of criticism from those who admit to having no knowledge of the content of the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs). 7


 * I reverted the part about the producers misrepresenting themselves to PZ Myers. The link provided substantiates this allegation quite well. The letter from Mark Mathis clearly mentions "Crossroads", while saying nothing about "Expelled"; Mathis appears as Assistant Producer on the poster for "Expelled"; and the promo for "Expelled" claims that the movie "confronts" Myers, Dawkins and others. I agree that statements as to whether the movie itself misrepresents either Myers or Science should await its actual release. --Stagyar 09:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The link provided, in no way, substaniates the claim that the

producers acted in a dishonest manner. PZ claims that, because the film had a differen't title when he was interviewed that he was lied to. Nearly ALL films go through title changes from conception to finished product.

You changed the text to read that the film misrepresents. 1 VERY harsh critic (who has a clear vendetta against anyone

who proposes study into the subject) should not be given undue weight. At best, you can claim that ONE single person claimed the producers were dishonest with him.:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that PZ Myers does not have "a clear vendetta against anyone who proposes study into the subject", but rather against those who misrepresent this subject as having been rigorously proven, studied, or even defined. Hrafn42 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From looking at the trailer and reading through the Expelled main website, it is inaccurate to state that this documentary is "arguing in favor of Intelligent Design". Rather, it seems to be an investigation on how the scientific community shows disdain towards scientists who propose Intelligent Design. I have tried to edit the synopsis of the movie to reflect this but it keeps being changed back. Why? It almost seems like the editors are doing the very thing the movie is trying to expose. Maybe someone can explain to me what is really going on here?


 * Your edits were in gross violation of WP:NPOV. I don't particularly agree with the current characterisation of the movie, but yours were far worse. Hrafn42 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the current edit? I believe it is an accurate unbiased representantion of what the movie is about. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.13.247 (talk) 16:28, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who made the "current edit" at the time you posted your comment, so of course I "believe it is an accurate unbiased representantion[sic] of what the movie is about." If you are talking about this edit then, no, I don't "believe it is an accurate unbiased representantion[sic] of what the movie is about." Hrafn42 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yours is the better edit. I would onlly make one slight modification, instead of stating "discriminated against in universities", it would be more accurate to put "discriminated against by the scientific community". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsadiel (talk • contribs) 20:16, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make the previously suggested edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsadiel (talk • contribs) 20:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The press release makes a number of distortions of the controversies Expelled is covering, and one outright falsehood. The paper that Sternberg published was not a "research paper" but a review paper, by a Creationist Philosopher of Science/Theologian with no scientific credentials no research degree in science, and no research background in the field of palaeontology (the paper's subject was the Cambrian Explosion). Details of this particular controversy can be found at Sternberg peer review controversy‎. Hrafn42 05:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Corrected. Hrafn42 07:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Information on Gonzalez's denial of tenure, which the press release also mentions, can be found at Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer). Hrafn42 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is utter nonsense. Meyer (whom Hrafn, I suspect is referring to) does INDEED have a scientific background.  His PhD disertation was on "history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences."  If that isn't a background in science, then nothing is.  That's not a Ph. D in science, but to say he has no scientific credentials is ludicrous.  Also, Meyer has degrees in physics in geology and has spent time as a working scientist.  Finally, to claim he has no research into the background of pelaeontology is bogus, as he did his Ph. D disertation on the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs) 07:11, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that Hrafn is talking about Sternberg's baraminology. Adam Cuerden talk 05:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, sorry: i thought you were talking about PZ Myers. Hrafn's right about Meyer. Adam Cuerden talk 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way- I have once again taken out the inaccuracies in the Expelled section of the article. The link provided is ONE claim by ONE professor who has, over the years, been shown to be a very vulgar critic of the subject. In the link, he refers to the producer as "ass-prod" and provides no evidence to suggest he was lied to. As I said before, he simply says that the film changed names and went through an evolution of sorts on the subject matter. ALL films do that, whether they be documentaries, dramas, whatever. The fact is- Myers is a very hostile critic who has stated his goal is to be as militant as possible in attacking ANYONE or ANYTHING that even looks like it's supporting the idea of intelligent design. The "evidence" just does not fit the standards here at Wikipedia. If someone wants to change the text to mention that ONE ID critic claims he was duped because the film changed names, then go ahead, but the text that the film has been criticized for being dishonest isn't accurate. At best, the film is being criticized by a single individual who CLAIMS the producer wasn't totally honest. There is absolutely no reason to distort Stein's article with propaganda like this.


 * As I explicitly stated, Meyer is a Philosopher of Science, not a research scientist. He did not do his PhD in palaeontology, his thesis was entitled "Of clues and causes : a methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." According to Google Scholar, it is only cited by Meyer, Dembski & other creationists, not by any palaeontologists. He worked as a geophysicist for an oil company, not as a research scientist. As I stated before, he has 'no research background in the field of palaeontology. Hrafn42 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, what you actually said was that he has no scientific credentials. He has undergraduate degrees in 2 fields of science, which means your assertion was inaccurate. His thesis was in the field of paleaontology. You said that he has no research background in the field. If a Ph. D thesis doesn't qualify as research, then what, in your view, does? The fact remains- he did research, in the general sense of the word, in the field, so he has knowledge of the subject matter. He also has scientific credentials to bolster that thesis research.


 * No. Only in one field of science, geology. He does not have a degree in physics. I misspoke earlier when I said he has no scientific credentials, but he has no advanced degree in any science. His thesis was in the field of Philosophy of Science, not palaeontology. He has no "research background" in the latter field. Hrafn42 07:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * According to his bio (if you search his name via google, it's the first entry) at the DI website, he has "degrees" (plural) in geology and physics.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs) 08:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the NPOV section just now, the text I took out doesn't meet the criteria. It wasn't stated as an opinion by one person (Myers), it was stated as a 'fact' that the producer's were dishonest. Like I said- if someone wants to note that one ID-critic claims A, B, and C, then fine. But, even then, it doesn't look like his post is supported by anything but the fact that the film changed names and slightly went through a change in overall content. That is what every production company does to nearly every film. That doesn't equal, 'I was lied to'. It certainly isn't supported to the point where it should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs) 07:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that Myers didn't merely offer an "opinion", he presented evidence that the dishonesty was a factual matter:


 * Myers also exhibited Rampant Films' website's description of this proposed film. Neither the description come close to matching that of Expelled. Hrafn42 07:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence there to suggest dishonesty. As I have said about ten times so far, nearly ALL movies go through numerous title changes and content changes. The letter here clearly states:

"We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement."

The title change is evidence of nothing other than the producers thought the new title would be a better title and might sell to the public better. The content change doesn't even seem that different. He clearly states it concerns the controversy over evolution, creationism, ID, and religion. From watching the trailer, it seems that's precisely what the film is about, the controversy and those involved in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs) 07:53, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * The content has diametrically changed from an apparently neutral film about "The Intersection of Science and Religion" to a blatantly partisan film bashing the scientific community. Hrafn42 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, no one has seen the film, so we can't say what the content is exactly. The Crossroads synopsis clearly says that it's a film that discusses the controversy, and that millions of people worldwide take a literal view of religious stories. Again, films often change contents. According to the film's site, it's been in production for two years. Someone came along and decided to change some of the content. That happens everyday for many reasons, and it doesn't equal dishonesty or false pretenses. Myers was asked to discuss the controversy, and from his post he seems to have done that. His main complaint in the post seems to be that he thinks the film is a pro-creationist movie, and he wants no part of any such thing. Also, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest the film is in any manner "partisan" or that it spends any time "bashing the scientific community." To discuss professors and scientists who the producers think were silenced for discussing ID in public doesn't equate with any sort of bashing of the scientific community, especially considering that all scientists would be included in the "scientific community," including those interviewed in the film (Behe, Crocker, Sternberg, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs) 08:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * From the press release, we get a very strong impression of what the movie is about. It is a credulous repetition of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign theme presenting (faux-)persecution of ID proponents. Myers is perfectly correct in "think[ing] the film is a pro-creationist movie" and did not say or imply that "he wants no part of any such thing." Hrafn42 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Faux-persecution of ID proponents"?? I'd say that comment alone is enough to suggest you probably shouldn't be editing this particular article, as it seems nothing that results from it will be anywhere near NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindankatz (talk • contribs) 08:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Faux-persecution. As far as I know, not one of these purported "persecutions" have ever been proven by any competent authority (court, congressional hearing or government agency that actually had jurisdiction). Additionally, the only purported "persecution" I know of to ever get reversed was that of Francis J. Beckwith, who is not a scientist by any stretch, and whose initial denial of tenure is generally thought to have had more to do with internal politics of Baylor University than with any wider conflict between ID & science. Hrafn42 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If this film is correct (that the scientific community looks down on with disdain and attempts to discredit anything to do with ID) then I expect to see this documentary itself be slandered and looked upon with contempt by the scientific community. Oh wait, in this very discussion we are already seeing that happen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsadiel (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * It could likewise be said that "If this film is incorrect (that the scientific community is doing nothing illegitimate against ID) then I expect to see this documentary itself be ripped to shreds for misrepresenting the science community and looked upon with contempt by the scientific community." Hrafn42 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and could Benjamindankatz & Itsadiel please sign their contributions! Hrafn42 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have to ask this: Is this article really the place to talk about the different viewpoints on the movie? Can't we just limit ourselves to saying he's in the movie, then describe the movie as having a "Pro-ID viewpoint" or something? We can discuss the controversies on the movie in its own article, once that's created. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Infophile here... why is this the place for this discussion? Three times as much space if given in criticism of the movie as is given in explanation of what the movie is.  If anything, the movie should have it's own page with a "Criticisms" section. BeboGuitar 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

PZ "claims" that he was interviewd under false pretenses. The supposed "evidence" is open to interpretation, I personally believe that the email was pretty straightforward when it said that the film would be about the disconnect/controversey between Darwinianism/ID/and what God's Word says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsadiel (talk • contribs) 19:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * "Claim" is a WP:WTA. Expelled is not about "the disconnect/controversey between Darwinianism/ID/and what God's Word says", it is about publicising the Discovery Institutes' faux-persecution media campaign. And incidentally, the disconnect isn't with "what God's Word" says, it is with what a narrow, sectarian bunch say that "God's Word says". Hrafn42 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Let's just neutrally quote what Myers says, without comment. Adam Cuerden talk 09:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the subject of the movie - I think we have to use "claim", because the assertion is defamatory, and we cannot state it as fact. "Claim" is needed to balance out words like "documentary" and "discriminate". Adam Cuerden talk 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, it is exactly what God's Word says. Check it out, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." As far as whether the Christian way is narrow, I'll give you that. But just know that this "narrowness" wasnt something we made up, it was Jesus Himself who said it! He said, "Enter by the narrow gate". How narrow? But through one Person -> Jesus Christ. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." Itsadiel 16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Christianity has been interpreting parts of Genesis non-literally at least since the time of St Augustine, and Judaism has been doing likewise for a comparative length of time. Even most fundamentalists interpret at least some bits of the Bible non-literally (e.g. ignoring the geocentricism implicit in a literal reading of Joshua -- a literal interpretation which Martin Luther strenuously defended). Hrafn42 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait. So you are saying that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" does not mean that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? Yowza!


 * It might, it might not. Have you read this document in its Ancient Hebrew? Have you even read a commentary on its translation? If not, you probably cannot say with any certainty if, taken in isolation, this single sentence means what you thought it did. Was it even a "sentence" back in the original Hebrew? My impression is that there was little punctuation back then, so it probably wasn't. Hrafn42 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure it was written in Ancient Hebrew. It could have been Sumerian, Egyptian, or even Ancient Hebrew.  But it was all lost in the great flood.  And some dinosaurs on the ark ate the paper, got gastritis and died.  Hence fossils.  I've got it all figured out.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. I mean, I'm no expert or anything but I think the Bible is pretty clear about this. For example, it also says: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17 Itsadiel 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're not an expert: in either theology, ancient languages (and thus of the difficulties of translation thereof), anthropology (and thus the limitations of ancient cultures' worldviews, the differences to modern worldviews, and how this might affect interpreting statements made) or anything else relevent. The Epistle to the Colossians does not say what you quoted, it said something in Koine Greek (the original of which is long since lost). What you are quoting is a single translation of a (quite possibly imperfect) copy (quite possibly a copy of a copy...) of this epistle. But by all means continue lecturing me on "God's Word". I always like to be lectured by people who know less about their own religious tradition than I do. Hrafn42 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How does your expertise interpret Luke 13:3? "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Itsadiel 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That it is a phrase most probably spoken in Aramaic, passed down as an oral tradition for a number of years before being translated and written down in Koine Greek (the original written translation of which is likewise long since lost). That the phrase is from one of the Synoptic Gospels, raising the synoptic problem of which of these gospels is the original, and whether the additional material contained in the other two come from legitimate parallel traditions or were later interpolations (such interpolations having been documented in the New Testament, the most famous being the Comma Johanneum, the main basis for the central Christian doctrine of the Trinity). Hrafn42 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also note that the act of translation tends to paper over and homogenise (but not always entirely) many shifts and schisms in the Old Testament that can more clearly be seen in the original Hebrew, e.g. from El to Yahweh and from polytheism to monotheism, and the revisions that these shifts entailed. What you view as a single monolithic whole is in fact a patchwork of progressive, occasionally conflicting, viewpoints. Hrafn42 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Hrafn42, where is the interpretation of Luke 13:3? He didn't ask you what language the original phrase was spoken in. Nor did he ask, where is the phrase from? Nor, what is the main basis for the central Christian doctrine of the Trinity? Even if the original version of the verse was lost as you suggest, he asked you to interpret Luke 13:3. New99 13:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)new99


 * My "interpretation" is that the sentence that Itsadiel provided, even if it is original and not an later interpolation, is a translation of a game of chinese whispers (aka 'telephone') of a translation of another game of chinese whispers. The meaning of final version is thus unlikely to have more than a passing resemblance to the meaning of the original, so any further "interpretation" would be futile. It is entirely possible that the original said something like "but I tell you, if you do not perish, then repent" or any of dozens of other ambiguous phrases, that could have become more definitive and more theologically charged as they were passed on. Hrafn42 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrafn, your patience is incredible. I'll make your life much easier.  The bible is a bunch of misinterpreted bullshit.  And in 32CE, nothing happened in Jerusalem, except maybe some contentious rabbi was executed by a bunch of cranky Romans.  See how simple I make it.  Hrafn, you'd feel so much better about the world if you just ignored the Creationist, revert their POV, and help out on all of the various evolution articles that these christians don't even bother touching.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, even the "executed by a bunch of cranky Romans" bit is largely discredited -- the Jewish authorities at the time had a strong policy of not handing anybody over to the Romans for judgement. Plus, there is no contemporary record of the Romans having done any such thing. And it doesn't take "patience" nor makes me feel worse about the world to do this. I enjoy ferreting out the internal contradictions in such extrinsic dogmatic beliefs. The fact that I am engaging an essentially unarmed opponent in this instance does however make it feel a tad too easy. Hrafn42 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There hrafn goes with those pesky facts again: they really ruin a good story. :)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrafn is just too fact oriented. Creationists don't listen to facts?   BTW Hrafn, I know that Jesus did not exist in any way shape or form, but I hate to think that millions of my brethren died because of a false religion.  I've got to believe that the Inquisition, pogroms, and other hate-filled murders of my people at least were the result of this false messiah actually being alive?  OK, probably not.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop arguing over the existance of God, religion's ideas, etc., this is a Ben Stein article, and the section being discussed is the movie "Expelled." Also, the movie is satire in many areas, so I don't see what people are aruging about in terms of the interviews being misused and such. I'm completely neutral to this, so if you wish, I can make the appropriate edits. I wont make them unless if anyone objects. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Expelled" controversy
I have removed the part of the section which detailed the claims of misconduct levelled against the producers of this movie in response to. This was because the criticisms did not relate to Ben Stein's role as the host of the movie, and instead appeared to be allegations levelled against the movie's executive producer. The movie now has its own article, and that article outlines the criticisms in substantial detail. I guess Ben Stein's article could make passing mention of the fact that the movie has been criticised, but it should not make the leap of suggesting that Ben Stein is the target of any of this criticism. - Mark 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what went on here previously but Expelled has hit the theaters and Ben Stein is now the target of scathing reviews by mainstream movie critics and much of the scientific community. He's being called a "liar" and "propagandist" just to name a few.  You can read 32 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.  On an upbeat note 3 of the 32 review there are positive.  Also the National Center For Science Education has devoted an entire website to debunking the ideas (every single claim) Ben Stein is promoting in the movie.  See more at expelledexposed.com.  Ben Stein is now very much a magnet for criticism.  The production company and distributor are also being sued by Yoko Ono for using the Lennon song Imagine without permission and also for how they are using the song in the film (think images of Joseph Stalin and also the Red Chinese Army marching as John Lennon sings "and no religion too...").  Stein was not named in the lawsuit though.  I'm not sure what belongs in the article but I thought I'd update the talk page on how this thing is unfolding for Stein. Angry Christian (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This movie is (by definition) controversial since it does challenge some current mainstream science community ideas and practices. The lawsuit was apparently settled.

This article (in this paragraph and elsewhere) sometimes substitutes argument against the movie for neutral reporting of data. (Specifically, the National Center for Science Education is criticized in this movie. Thus, they have a rebuttal website. They are not - as implied - a neutral advisor or source.)Dna dances (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New section: Stein's intelligent design and science views
I've added a new section that others will want to edit, describing his beliefs on science and religion. Based on his work for the "Expelled" documentary and various columns that as near as I can tell are from "Ben Stein's Diary" in the American Spectator, Stein advocates "Intelligent Design" as a true belief, advocates teaching alternatives to evolution in schools as science, and believes that evolution is responsible for Nazism and other ills. A stray comment of his about evolution having supposedly taken place "in record time" suggests that he advocates young-Earth creationism, but that's too little to go on. -Kris Schnee (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the recent change changing "theory of evolution" to "theory of evolution by natural selection." Is this hair-splitting, or is there some new theory of evolution out there? -Kris Schnee (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the meaning of footnote 18: 'National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." This echoes the views that were widely taught in communist countries and that the US later adopted.'

What are these views widely taught in communist countries later adopted in the US? Which communist countries? And what is the relevance to either the footnote or the body text? There is a link that is dead; if it explained anything, perhaps it can be replaced. But in any case an explanation of the relevance of views taught in communist countries to the evaluation of Intelligent Design as a pseudo-science seems needed. Jdorchen (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've grown up in a communist country, and evolution was taught. Along with Chemistry, Physics, Matematics. Because, you know, not everybody treats science as politics. (The US is pretty curious phenomenon in the developed world.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.137 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The link seems to be working now, and unsurprisingly it says nothing about communist countries. I will edit accordingly. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Ah, spotted it. Vandalism by anonymous user 70.128.83.15: . --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the movie content is being argued here. What would be good is to have Stein (or a suitable Intelligent Design representative) articulate their side also. A brief "Pro and Con" section would be more valuable than arguing against Stein's premise in the guise of official reporting.Dna dances (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Due weight has to be given to majority expert opinion, and ID coverage must reflect policies on pseudocience as well as guidance on describing fringe views. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I have heard or read---a large percentage of US citizens believe in a Deity...Probably some have never thought out details of the intelligent design discussion, but if one believes there is a Deity, it would imply that they think the Deity created the world and perhaps runs it day to day. The universities in the US tend to be more agnostic in their views...but as they are numerically smaller, are probably actually holding --not the "majority" view but a minority opinion. It might be good, therefore, for Wikipedia to at least let the various groups that do not generally conform to the viewpoints of Wikipedia editors (which tend to run to the university viewpoints) and give the other ideas fair representation.Yet again, Wikipedia's ultimate editors seem to slant towards the university formed viewpoint (which tends to be farther left and more agnostic or atheistic or materialist than the general US population). They should ALLOW for the fact that significant groups of other persons hold other viewpointsDna dances (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Using Pakistan atrocities to damn Nixon
Nixon had enough warts of his own, most would agree, without piling on the atrocities of nations around the world. After all, is the US the world's police force? Didn't this attitude compound Vietnam? Saying, "This is in spite of the fact that Nixon had willfully ignored the atrocities of the Pakistan Army in Bangladesh in 1971" is over the top. Whoever added this needs to visit the sites of each president - Clinton included - so as to add the "guilt" of each genocide that he "ignored." And that is a vague term - ignored. Denouncing genocide - is that enough, or still ignoring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.134.220 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the US is the world's police force. It's not a glamorous job but somebody has to do it, and it's more efficient if one country does it for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Vandalism
Several places in this article have had vandalism added.I just wanted to bring this to attention so that someone with more skill than I can combat it. Thanks! "bow before his image and lick his b***S like Stein did!" "Stein was incidently in the stall next to Craig, licking someone's b****s! [8]

Views on evolution
In reference to the phrase "Ironically, PZ Myers, a scientist interviewed in Expelled and acknowledged in the film's credits was rejected from a pre-screening of the film on March 20th, 2008, and not allowed to view the movie." This is patently unfair because it has nothing to do with any personal action Ben Stein himself took. From what I read from the referenced article, this decision was made by one of the producers in charge of pre-screening at that location--not Ben Stein. Furthermore, this unfortunate incident has nothing to do with Ben Stein's Views on evolution and its appearance in this section suggests an attempt to misdirect the readers from what is relevant in order to sully a new political enemy to a lot of people right now. This quote belongs inside of the 'Criticism' section of the Expelled movie article, but not here. DavidPesta (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In this sentence: "He co-wrote and stars in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a film that aims to persuade viewers that the theory of evolution was instrumental to the rise of the eugenics movement, Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust, and portrays advocates of intelligent design as victims of intellectual discrimination by the scientific community, which has rejected intelligent design as creationist pseudoscience.[34][35][36]" I feel that the last clause of the last sentence "which has rejected intelligent design as creationist pseudoscience" violates the neutral point of view concept and tried to edit. But somebody apparently disagrees with me because my edit was rejected, using the same "neutral pov" as the reason.

But I disagree with this view. The clause in question is not directly related to the paragraph but is instead yet another example of wikipedia's recurrent portrayal of ID in a negative light. It seems there are no references on wikipedia to ID that are not accompanied by some extraneous comment about how few scientists accept it - in the present example, it is called "creationist pseudoscience" as if this very statement has a neutral pov. I hold that this statement is itself indicative of strong bias and should be removed.apparent strong bias against intelligent design. In my opinion wikipedia deliberately slams the idea every time it appears in almost any context. How can this be justified? Even if the majority of wikipedia authors disagree with the idea it should be mentioned in a neutral context unless the article topic addresses the controversy.

I would like to add that I am not a supporter of ID but I do support free speech and thought - ID deserves its place as a popular idea. It is not the place of wikipedia to declare displeasure every time ID is mentioned - wikipedia should simply state the facts, not impose its own bias - is this not its stated goal?

The other edit that was rejected was that (in the same article) I changed Richard Dawkins from "respected evolutionary biologist" to "noted author" because I believe that is how most people know him, and his credentials in this mater come from his books not his research. But it seems his name is too reverend for me to have made this change. At least I didn't call him a pig-headed fool, which is also valid.

I don't know how to put my name in properly (sorry) - Comments are appreciated, especially if you can offer a reasonable argument opposing mine. Thtownse (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"views on evolution" section title
Maybe I am missing something here but it seems like the issue is Ben's advocacy of intelligent design/creationism and his belief that science is some Nazi lovin' enterprise that hates god is what is notable, and not his views on evolution. Probably most all celebrities (just like us commoners) have views on evolution that are by themselves not noteworthy at all. Ben has just hitched his ride to the intelligent design movement, publicly claims they have more projects in the works, and he has possibly make the very worst film of the 21st century, yet the article mentions his "views on evolution". Seems like we're missing the point, or at least what is truly noteworthy. Opinions? Angry Christian (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have an issue with the content of the section, or just the title? I have been working on the NPOV issues that come up there, haven't even thought about the title of it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The title, it seems too narrow to me that it misses the point. Content looks good.  Thanks for asking me to clarify. Angry Christian (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * True, Stein has issues with science beyond evolution. Well, how about your synopsis for a title: "Advocacy of ID/Creationism"? And before anyone complains about the "c" word, Stein does use the word "creator" when referring to his beliefs.Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would argue that 'Views on Science' would be a more appropriate title. He was recently quoted in an interview on TBN saying that science (IE materialism) leads you to killing people, in general. It's in this interview here - http://www.tbn.org/watch/files/index.php?file=2008_4_21_300k.wmv&show=92 - I figured I'd just mention it here, don't care to edit it myself as I wouldn't really know how to enter my sources properly. I'll leave it to all the regular editors.
 * The quote is, "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." Yeahchris (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Seeing as this has gone a week without dissent, I'm going to be bold and change it. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead seems backwards
New change to the lead seems to emphasize what Stein's career was thirty years ago, and not what he's known for today, as an actor. Seriously, when was the last time he practiced law?Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with you and if you read all the reviews of his latest movie what he's mostly known for is his role in the Ferris Beuller movie (still). He's also an author but first and foremost he's an actor (and some people think he's funny and the call him a "comedian"). Angry Christian (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the lead call him an economist? He does not have any graduate training in economics, and has never worked as an economist. Having an economist for a father, and taking an interest in economic issues does not make him an economist. 61.18.170.148 (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe he has a column or something where he discusses finance. He is also sometimes interviewed on financial programs.  Not sure if that makes him an economist.  My limited knowledge of Ben Stein is he's supposed to be funny and is currently advocating intelligent design creationism while attacking mainstream science.  Angry Christian (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to the lead to accomodate his career change mentioned by Angry Christian. How is it now? Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice improvements sir. I don't really know enough about the guy to say what he's best known as.  To *me* he has always been Win Stein's Money (well at least when Jimmy Kimmel was there) and I knew he was a former WH speech writer.  So I might not be the best person to ask.  Angry Christian (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

class placment at Yale
I watched a few minutes of the glenn beck show. I was suprised to hear Ben Stein say that he was not valedictorian because of good grades but because of popularity. I wish to discusss how to make that apparent in the article Christopher ohio (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC) I approve of this message 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for Nader Presidential Candidacy, 2008
Does anyone have information to substantiate the claim that he supports Ralph Nader for president in 2008, as mentioned on the Ralpha Nader article? Thanks! --24.211.242.80 (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a C-Span Q&A where he indicated his intention to vote for Nader. I am not sure that this is necessarily an official endorsement though.  --Wildcatgrad (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

BIAS in the BIASED article is so obviously visible
If not for Ferris B, Stein would not have ever been anything. He'd be a loser. Ferris B put him on the map, then Win Ben Stein's Money gave him more noteriety. His financial "theories" are ridiculous, his speeches are just as idiotic. Yet the photo you use in the article has NOTHING to do with his noteriety. You use the one where he's pretending to be an economist or the one where he's boring poor Miami U students to death. You're trying to package Ben as if he's somehow intelligent or even respectable. Why not stop the 1984 whitewashing and use a phot from Ferris B for or even Win Ben's stupid money? Because Ben's pals are writing this article and trying to use it to change the way he's viewed. His ONLY noteriety has to do with Ferris and WBSM. Ben Stein is a villgae idiot yet you use photos in the article that make him look like he's known as an intellectual. How dishonest is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt "Ben's Pals" would criticize his movie so strongly in the guise of "information sharing" as done in this article. His movie is fair game for criticism, but key points on both sides of the controversy (not merely one side of it) should be summarized and reported. (Unlike a movie review, an encyclopedia might report key controversies (briefly) but should not engage in ad hominens or prejudicial terms to describe a person or issue.)Dna dances (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the overwhelming majority expert view of his recent movie is extremely critical, this article must reflect that to the extent that it's relevant to his biography. Both the movie and his various interviews about the movie have certainly displayed Stein's own views, and these aspects are relevant. . . dave souza, talk 09:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda" aside for Evolution movie
I happen to think that Ben Stein is a class-A douche—but I don't see why a parenthetical editorial aside that his film is "often referred to as propaganda" should be made—especially when the sentence below it says the exact same thing AND cites it with sources. You don't have to be a very perceptive reader to infer bias from it. I am going to remove it. Please discuss before re-inserting it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment above does not need to name call Ben Stein. He could say "I profoundly disagree with Ben Stein" or "I think he is immoral" and make the point depending on his type of disagreement--in a more genteel way.

Also, Wikipedia - yet again - needs to come up with a more fair way to write articles for "hot topics" i.e. topics on which there is strong feeling and disagreement. The two main sides in the EXPELLED video/DVD are those who think that "intelligent design" is a fair topic for discussion in the academic setting and those who dismiss "intelligent design" as solely a religious issue which they say has no place in scientific discussion. A short presentation of the two main sides is better than pretending neutrality but slanting well towards one side or the other. Wikipedia---figure out how to objectively present controversy in a short article!Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Stein an economist?
In my area Stein has been appearing in Comcast commercials claiming to be an economist. I understand he is some sort of commentator and has done so on financial topics, but that doesn't make one an economist. I would expect an economist to have a degree or to have submitted articles to peer reviewed econ journals. This article does not seem to indicate he's an economist (like his father was) and I'm wondering if anyone can explain if it's a misrepresentation. Fletcher (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He does have an economics degree, and the article does so indicate (Stein "major[ed] in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College ... [before going] to Yale Law School"). You'd expect that background, too, in an FTC lawyer and securities law professor - his time doing both is also mentioned in the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Twice Married to same woman?
Because that how it currently reads. Someone want to fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.63.170 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they were divorced and then remarried. As I am not absolutely sure, I just mention it here.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Though that's probably what it means, since nobody knows and most citations I can find online are verbatim copies of this article I'm going to remove the "twice" part. If someone can find a source for that, do put it back. --49.132.192.154 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Financial Advice Prior to 2008 Stock Market Crash
This section seems a bit large compared to the rest of the article. So he got it spectacularly wrong. Lots of pundits have done the same. This section reads like someone has a personal beef against him. Is there a way this can be trimmed back to a sentence or two?DavidRF (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I agree. Ben Stein joins many in our government, and certainly many private investors in vastly misreading our economy. It's a fact, but seems to be overstated in a vindictive way. As Ben Stein is somewhat controversial (particularly to some on the left) his article reflects some measure of praise and some vindictiveness...as well as some bits which seem to be fairly impartial. WIKIPEDIA - yet again - needs to develop a better policy for covering persons/topics who are controversial.Dna dances (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Ben Stein was not just spectacularly wrong - he deliberately lied about the obvious problems facing the USA economy, especially the housing market, and thus the poor prospects for financials. In 2007 he kept on urging investors to buy USA banks - no doubt while he was selling or going short - and has never has acknowledged that his advice was utterly bad. He continues to publish moronically stupid advice, without a legal warning on how bad his past advice was. This section thus needs to indicate in large bold print that he is a crook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekud26 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What source to use
Recently I edit this: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a film that aims to persuade viewers that the theory of evolution was instrumental to the rise of the eugenics movement, Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust, ...". I changed the last words into "... the rise of 'walls' in scientists' thought patterns, comparable to the Berlin Wall, ...". It was turned back, with the comment "the issues are those noted by the source". Well, sure, we have to respect sources highly. But which one to use here? I watched the documentary twice, and I can't remember having seen an explicit mentioning of eugenics, the Nazis and all that. Oh yes, there is a clear comparison with a totalitarian regime in Expelled, but that concerns a later episode, known as the GDR, or the Berlin Wall. Even if there happen to be displayed some suggestive images taken in the Nazi era, then they don't appear recognisable in the film. But what is more important: persuasive language is always explicit in its goals. If someone wants to persuade the world that trees are always green, he wouldn't do enough if he just talked about nature, and display a slideshow of several trees, all happening to be green. Words must do the core work there. "Trees are green. I spoke to many people, and all agree that there are no yellow or red trees, only green ones", and so on, either in written or spoken full sentences. No such thing in Expelled. Why consult a secondary source to get mentioned what a film mentions, when the film itself is easily to be consulted? Apdency (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We use secondary sources rather than primary sources because that's our policy. See WP:PRIMARY for details. Auntie E. (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think two principles are being confused here. Apdency (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, forget this. I didn't know there were more versions of the film than the one I saw. Apdency (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Life Prostitute
Surely that's mentionable, could we add a section for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.138.201 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC) This is hardly an unbiased, neutral title.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

MARK FELT - "DEEP THROAT" POV ???
Check the facts: even the liberal Boston Globe: ...with the section about Ben Stein's comments about Deep Throat"......... Terminated FBI Executive, Mark Felt, never discussed his role as the secret source of Woodward and Bernstein's book on Nixon's mis-doings when he was lucid.  Felt vehemently denied it in an article published 1974 (Washingtonian Magazine).  His 'admission' comments about being the 'All The Presidents Men' source, DEEP THROAT, came from an article in "Vanity Fair" Magazine, Published in 2005; coauthored by his daughter, AFTER was in the later stages of ALZHEIMER'S Disease, when he could no longer speak coherently.  The magazine said at the time that it "paid" his family for the story although it is not known how much.  Mark Felt was also a convicted felon...  Read it all here -- http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2008/12/20/w_mark_felt_sr_deep_throat_in_watergate_case_at_95/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.158.234 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Party
Conservative is not a political party. Should that be replaced by Republican for instance? I will change it to Republican and if it's not appropriate please feel free to change it-- An d Re w 01:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Economist?
Receiving a bachelor's degree in economics does not make you an economist. A PhD in economics will, but he only has a bachelor's. Just because he goes on CNN and his resume describes him as an economist does not mean he actually is one; ask any true economist. People that receive a bachelor's degree in psychology are not called psychologists. For this reason I believe it to be justified that his occupation describe him as a "purported economist" because he does go on CNN and other TV networks and classify himself as such.

Can you back that up? You can get a PhD in economics and not work in that field. Where is that definition of "true economist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.30.23 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a legal restriction on working in a certain field without a particular certification, anyone who works in that field belongs to the profession. Even if there is such a restriction, that merely makes the person an unlicensed practitioner. By your criteria, John Maynard Keynes wasn't an economist. He had a bachelors degree in mathematics and while he did some postgraduate study of economics he had no higher degree in it. The emphasis on academic credentials rather than intellectual achievement is very recent, and serves mainly to protect the vested interests of mediocre academics and professionals. Luwilt (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorializing in section on tax views
The section on tax views begins with, "Though often labeled as a political and economic conservative, Stein has criticized the U.S. tax code for being too lenient on the wealthy." I know that some people would like to oversimplify US politics, but it's far from clear to me that claiming the US tax code "too lenient on the wealthy" would run counter to US conservative views.

I am aware of several efforts by conservatives to include wealthy tax payers in any group that gets a tax cut (e.g., George W. Bush's across the board tax cuts), but I'm not aware of any recent efforts to provide tax cuts **only** for the wealthy. Likewise, there is much conservative commentary that raising taxes on the wealthy leads to higher unemployment, but that hasn't led to calls for lowering taxes for the wealthy and no one else.

Is this kind of editorializing part and parcel with Wikipedia's style guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.21.163 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)