Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 13

Is the film primarily a satire of other ideologically-driven documentaries?
IMHO (but then who am I?) the film isn't primarily a satire of other ideologically-driven documentaries, but reviewers have compared it to Gore's ("It really felt like they were trying to emulate Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.") and Moore's films. The reverted quote should somehow be included, or a reason given why it shouldn't be, since the sources are here. --Yopienso (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Who Are You? (don't answer that question!) In my opinion, it's not a satire of these films at all, as the sources say it's trying to emulate them rather than attacking them, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. The Moore imitation is already covered in the Reception section, third paragraph. We could add in Josh Timonen's comments on the An Inconvenient Truth ripoff, with a suitable summary of "It also made me think that Mathis was really trying to emulate Michael Moore, who does similar "ridicule" cuts to old black and white footage for laughs. I can just imagine Mathis and his group sitting around saying "what we need to do is rip off as much of An Inconvenient Truth and Michael Moore documentaries as we can, so that we look like a real documentary." I know that is just blind speculation, but that's the feeling I had while watching the film. I just thought I'd share." However, I don't think this is really significant enough for the lead section. . dave souza, talk 08:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a satire of them at all, but an emulation along their lines, and it's not primarily a satire. I agree with all your suggestions but don't care to go to the trouble of editing the article for something of dubious importance.  --Yopienso (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased view on the attack on freedom
I think the section "Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted" should include some mention on how biased the film's view is on this subject. He keeps bringing up how freedom is now under attack, and everytime he does, it is very one-sided. The film tries to make it sound like science was once free, and now evolutionists are destroying a freedom of inquiry that used to exist. Here are some examples:

"Imagine if these freedoms were taken away, where would we be, what will we lose? Well, unfortunetly I no longer need to imagine. It's happening, we are loosing our freedom"

He no longer has to imagine? We already know what happens, because it has already happened. It happened to the theory of evolution. It used to be illegal to teach it.

"I've always assumed that scientists were free to ask any question, to persue any line of inquiry, without fear of reprisal. But recently I've been alarmed to discovery this is not the case."

If you consider not only American history, but also his age, why would he assume "scientists were free to ask any question"? How could he possibly have been "recently alarmed to discover that this is not the case"? It was not all that long ago, that the theory of evolution was illegal to teach. The people that taught it were persecuted. The freedom of science has been continually attacked over and over again for centuries. This is nothing new. To believe this, you would have to be extremely ignorant of American history.

"But Darwin challenged the consenus view, that is how we got Darwinism. If Darwin wanted to challenge the consenus today, how would he do it?"

What does he mean how would Darwin do it today? Does he actually believe that scientists were more free to question the scientific establishment back in the 1800's? Not only was Darwinian evolution under attack because of religious belief, but so was heliocentrism, and even the theory of gravity, to name a couple. Such persecution has existed in human history for a long time, including American history.

"America didn't become the great nation that it is by suppressing ideas, it progressed by allowing freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry."

Again, he makes it sound like the issue is new. America suppressed the theory of evolution for at least half a century. To quote Wikipedia, "Propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis". He completes ignores the other side of the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.189.123 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A good point, the claims seemed ludicrous enough to be plainly absurd, but for clarity I've referred to one of the cited sources to add a note that "Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education stated that these allegations exploited Americans’ sense of fairness in an attempt to sell religious views, and that the depiction of the scientific community was simply wrong." Hope that meets your concern, we can look for further sources if need be. Your description of the conflict thesis is a bit oversimplified, but it's certainly true that teaching of evolution was banned in U.S. state schools from 1925 to around 1960 and it took a series of court battles to reintroduce the teaching of this science. Interestingly, Charles Darwin became a naturalist at Cambridge University with the firm understanding that science was a way of revealing and supporting religious truth, and T. H. Huxley was much more combative in 1860 in portraying religion as being opposed to the emerging science, at a time when most religious scientists were moving to various forms of theistic evolution. dave souza, talk 09:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Lacks Neutrality?
I'm a firm believer in Darwinism, I've been described as a liberal, and I hated the film, but it kind of feels like most of this article is devoted to tearing the documentary down. Shouldn't the article itself be devoted to the subject matter, and a separate article devoted to any lies/misrepresentations/controversies surrounding it? Just seems like the article as a whole lacks neutrality is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.38.220 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, but care has been taken to meet neutrality policy in its entirety, and articles are here to explain the various notable issues with a subject. Proposals for changes really have to be more specific, as shown in the talk page guideline. By the way, don't believe in Darwinism! Check the evidence for evolution and see if you accept the modern theory of evolution. . dave souza, talk 08:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checking the edit history, it looks like the neutrality policy has been sidestepped several times through the use of several sympathetic editors defending the critical tone of the article. 208.38.198.234 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What is Darwinism? Does it have anything to do with Human evolution or the List of transitional fossils? Perhaps you can be clearer and actually quote a few lines you think are problematic. I think the article is fine insofar as it doesn't fail NPOV--NPOV means using WP:RS and avoiding WP:UNDUE when related to science. May56candoit (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My big problem is that more time is given to critiquing the bias/accuracy of the movie than to the content of the movie itself. An article that takes a firm negative view of the subject(which this one clearly does) seems very un-encyclopedic to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.224.35 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to see more about the content of the movie which you thnk is underrepresented, please propose improvements with verification from independent reliable sources which show the analysis that you propose. Thanks, dave souza, talk 06:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * well you are a firm believer in Darwinism, of course you hated the film. but don't let that get in the way of neutrally editing the article.::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.68.75 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Portrayal of science as atheistic
I'm inserting the word "evolutionary" into this heading because the film's thrust is against evolution, not science in general. Stein does not attack the scientific method nor any field he doesn't directly tie to evolution. It's quite impossible that he would argue that all science leads to atheism. When he says "scientist" and "science" he means "evolutionist" and "evolutionary science." Although as properly footnoted the NCSE does state, "Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism," John Rennie in Scientific American more accurately said, "Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief." [My bolding.]

I've just noticed there has been a small edit war on this between "evolution" and "science." I hope "evolutionary science" may be agreeable to both parties. I will not revert any good-faith change subsequently made.

Also, I don't doubt for a moment the Waco Herald-Tribune quoted in the last paragraph in that section really did have such an article, but the footnote currently leads to a "Page not found" notice.

I see there's also been an edit war at "People presented in the film" in reverting back and forth from "Darwinism" to "Evolution." The film, along with the ID movement in general, uses, "Darwinism" as a code word for "Evolution." I suggest sticking with what the film calls it, though an explanation that the word stands in for "evolution" may help the general reader. --Yopienso (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Darwinian" evolution
Plazak, what's the point of this? --Yopienso (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, at least some proponents of intelligent design do not object to evolution per se, but insist that mutation and natural selection (Darwinism) is an insufficient mechanism to drive it forward, and that the intervention of an intelligent designer is the only way that evolution could have produced the present range of species. This is not something I'm all that familiar with, so let me see if I can find a source for this.  Plazak (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This linked Google Book: contains what I assume is a representative argument for evolution directed by intelligent design, which the author also calls "progressive creation".  This is why I consider that there is a need to be more precise as to what is being attacked and defended in the movie.  Plazak (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Darwinism article covers some of this – it's a deliberately vague code word, implying an ideology like communism, possibly meaning evolution in the widest sense or for those open to some degree of evolution, meaning strictly natural selection. Part of the "big tent" strategy is to accommodate all sorts of creationist views. If we've a source being more precise about the meanings used in the film, preferably a secondary analysis, then we can reflect that. Thanks, dave souza, talk 02:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's not just evolutionary science that's attacked by the film – Stein says something on the lines of "this is what science leads to", as I recall, and the whole point behind ID is to replace the scientific method by "theistic realism" which discards science as we know it. Something to take into account. . dave souza, talk 02:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben Stein said that during an interview after the film came out, not on the film, so it doesn't apply to this article. It's properly documented on the article about him.


 * As I pointed out in the previous section of this page, "Darwinism" is indeed a code word. Why do we need to insert it into this article?  It's ambiguous and unnecessary.  This film is about evolution as taught and understood in the 21st century, notwithstanding the usage of the words "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" and the tracing of today's version back to Charles.  --Yopienso (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about the film, so if you can cite from the film itself that evolution per se is attacked, rather than Darwinian evolution, then the distinction has no place here. Otherwise, Darwinian evolution is the most accurate plain-language description of what the film attacks, unless you can think of some better wording to describe it; "non-theistic evolution" seems like too much of a circumlocution to me.  Just because creationists are trying to turn Darwinism into some bad code-word is no excuse to flee from the word, as if they were right in their criticism.  Plazak (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The film attacks both Darwin and evolution.
 * "...Expelled insults the science of evolution and the scientists who study it..." from the NCSE.
 * "Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin", "...Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film..." from the Scientific American.
 * Common sense tells me the creators of this film didn't go to all the trouble of making it if it was to attack a 150-yr-old theory. They are concerned with what's being taught today.  But I've no real objection to inserting "Darwinian,"  I just wondered what your point was.  I still don't know.  --Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruling against Ono
Amaultic, it seems to me the ruling was indeed against Ono, not against both plaintiff and defendant. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/06/ben-stein-1-yoko-ono-0-in-expelled-copyright-spat.ars --Yopienso (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Portrayal of evolutionary science as atheistic
An IP user has just changed "inconsistent" to "consistent" in this passage: The film alleges that scientists and the scientific enterprise are dogmatically committed to atheism,[24][25] and that a commitment to materialism in the scientific establishment is behind the claimed suppression of intelligent design,[19] but fails to say why religious explanations should be consistent with the scientific method which only deals with explanations that can be tested or empirically validated.[25]

I confess I find the sentence after the "but" so garbled I can't tell if that was a good move or not. HELP! (Please.) --Yopienso (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've looked at the source and tried to explain it more clearly. . dave souza, talk 08:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nelson "defines" evolution
Dave, here's what Nelson said in the movie about evolution: "Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. ~ Paul Nelson 22.44" http://bevets.com/expelled.htm I realize that is NOT a RS, but it's something to think about in light of your latest reversion. Even RSs can be mistaken, as they seem to be in this case. Jim Emerson's blog repeats the last half of that quote. (Who's Jim Emerson? A professional movie critic with the Chicago Sun-Times--a quite RS.) --Yopienso (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the above is a direct quote from the movie and should be considered a RS in regards to an article about itself. BTW - Wikipedia sucks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.28.127 (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence that said there was no definition given for evolution, since there was. See my edit summary. --Yopienso (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if they actually give a definition, but using my impression of what they did or didn't would be original research anyway. There are two sources stating that they don't define evolution, so according to WP:V it's OK for the article to say that. Dead links, by the way, aren't a reason to delete material (and also it's only one of the two sources). Most of the time they can be easily fixed thanks to tools like the Wayback Machine. If you don't want to look for archived versions, instead of deleting the link you should use the dead link template so some other editor (or even a bot) can search for an archive.--Six words (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Six words. I wish I knew how to use that template!
 * Please read this source which I provided above and in the article. (It's a blog, but of a respected, professional critic who seems to be several notches above the Dan Whipple you cite. WP accepts such blogs from Newsweek and Scientific American, among others, as opposed to personal opinion blogs of unknown individuals.) I quote:
 * One spokesman comes close to articulating a thought about Intelligent Design:


 * "If you define evolution precisely, though, to mean the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection -- that's a textbook definition of neo-Darwinism -- biologists of the first rank have real questions...


 * "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence."


 * Our necessary and proper rule that recognizes verifiability over truth does not mean that we accept a misstatement from a RS (Dan Whipple, whoever he may be) when we know it's wrong. I've provided a good, solid source, and another one that is true if not good enough to use as a footnote in the article. The reference to a review by Justin Chang was no doubt provided in good faith, but the poster misunderstood: Chang says there's no definition of ID, not of evolution. Read closely, and note that the antecedent to "the term" is intelligent design, not evolution:


 * But it's easier to critique evolution (oddly, the gaps in the fossil record, which even biologists concede, are never addressed) than to mount evidence for intelligent design, and the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of the term leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science.

Of course the bottom line here, as far as I'm concerned, is that the false claim, "Similarly, it critiques evolution without defining it or giving a basic explanation of evolutionary theory" must go. --Yopienso (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've deleted it as unsourced and untrue. Please do not restore without discussion. --Yopienso (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So maybe evolution was defined but that is not an explanation. I am restoring it without the word "define".--Charles (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't. What's the point? Just negative clutter, so far as I can tell. I'm opening to hearing a good reason why stating that it doesn't fully explain the extremely complicated and controversial theory of evolution will help the article or help the casual reader to better understand the gist of the film. It makes sense to say it doesn't really explain ID, since it's a pro-ID movie. --Yopienso (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please revert while we discuss this. --Yopienso (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few problems with the above statement. Firstly it contains the usual creationist lie that evolution is "(only) a theory", which it is not; it is observed fact supported by all of the evidence drawn from various scientific disciplines. It then says that the theory is "extremely complicated" which is untrue. It is elegently simple, which is why it can proceed without being micro-managed by some divine intelligence. As for being controversial it is not so at all in the educated scientific community. Any controversy is generated by a noisy bone headed minority of religious nutters who refuse to accept reality. I would think that "helping the casual reader to better understand the gist of the film" is just what it does do.--Charles (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Yopienso here. How is it relevant if it doesn't define evolution? Evolution is pretty well defined without Ben Stein having to explain it (unlike ID, which is quite vague). Besides, the movie isn't really about the science of evolution, and doesn't attempt to say "evolution is wrong"; the entire premise is that there is an alleged conspiracy against anyone in the field of science who questions some basic tenants of evolutionary theory. (I have a feeling if Stein did come out and say "evolution is wrong; God created man" he knew the film would be dismissed as more creationist BS and not be seen as the shocking exposé he intended.) It doesn't need to define evolution any more than a movie about the Red Scare needs to define communism. It's irrelevant. -R. fiend (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Charles, it seems you protest too much here, even putting words in Yopienso's mouth. He simply referred to what is widely known as the theory of evolution as "the theory of evolution"; he didn't call it "only" a theory, as you indicate. Additionally, while the basics of evolution are pretty straight forward, it is complicated, which is why thousands upon thousands of pages have been written on it, it is widely studied, and new discoveries about it are constantly being made. And it is controversial, not within the field of natural science, but certainly in the field of social science. There's no getting around that. You seem to be going down the road of making this about evolution vs. ID, when this is an article about a film. -R. fiend (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted after edit conflict; sorry for any redundancy, and thank you, R. fiend. And Charles, I'm hoping we can work together productively. I see R. fiend meanwhile has deleted the sentence in question.
 * You have wildly misinterpreted my comment and revealed the personal prejudice that hampers your ability to collaborate on articles like this one. You inserted the word "only" which I did not include, imply, or intend. I have a sound understanding of the meanings of the word "theory" and used it advisedly. Please strike your assertion that I presented a lie.
 * I don't think the controversy generated between Gould and Dawkins indicates they are (or were) a noisy bone-headed minority of religious nutters... Even if they were, your gratuitous casting of aspersions is unseemly. Were you calling me that? As for complicated, granted I'm no genius and a mere layperson, but I've been unable to grasp the role of Hox gene expression in the development of limbs.
 * Mindsets like yours and the habit of railing against imaginary or actual philosophical foes greatly hinders the work here. We're supposed to respect each other and cooperate for the good of the encyclopedia. For some reason you felt you did not need to engage in discussion but could cavalierly make a unilateral edit. I can only assume that's because since I'm a lying bone-headed creationist my requests and edits are worthless. Have I misunderstood you?
 * Changing gears here, assuming in good faith that you will retreat from your excesses, let's have a reasoned discussion on the sentence in question. First, sometimes RSs are wrong, which doesn't mean they aren't RSs, but that they made a mistake. This has happened quite a bit in the CRU article. Colorado Confidential (present footnote #6) claims, "You won't hear a coherent definition of evolution in the 'Expelled,' either, even though it bashes this scientific theory incessantly." Yet I find this direct quote from the film,
 * Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions,
 * perfectly coherent. Is that source good enough to stand in the article? Probably not, but it should be good enough to keep the sentence in question out of the article, since it's true. How do I know? I saw the movie! If you watched it, you would find it's true. I know you (the broad you--WP) can't take my word for it and going to the source is OR, but I firmly oppose using a source we know is wrong to try to prove something that isn't true. --Yopienso (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read my comments again you will see that my comments were directed at those in the wider world who create the spurious controversy, not at Yopienso, and certainly not at Dawkins whose formidable logic exposes those who wish to keep our young people mired in medieval superstition by teaching lies and nonsense. I accept that the sentence is not that important in the overall scheme of things.--Charles (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Abortion?
I have seen this movie multiple times, and own it, but I can't recall any references to abortion in it, as the opening paragraph states. When is this topic discussed in the movie? 164.116.235.2 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times movie review cited in that sentence says that the film links evolution to abortion. It's probably just a single quick mention in the film. ~Amatulic (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * David Berlinski says "There's a good German expression '[I didn't understand the German]'—'it always begins in the same way'—something to remember in the context of United States discussions of euthenasia and abortion...", and Steve Fuller says, "First of all, if you take seriously that evolution has to do with the transition of life forms, and that life and death are just natural processes, then one gets to be liberal about abortion and euthenasia. All of those kinds of ideas seem to me to follow very naturally from a Darwinian perspective."
 * I can't be certain that they are the only mentions of abortion, but I haven't noticed any others. So the mention by the New York Time has some foundation.  But they are just brief mentions by interviewees, and abortion is not something focussed on by the film nor raised by Stein.  As such, I don't believe that it's relevant to mention it, much less to put it in the introduction which is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Berlinkski's comments and much more can be read here. That page seems to support the claim that the film took aim at abortion. Yopienso (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That page only has abortion being mentioned (by name) by Berlinski and Fuller, as I cite above. The part I overlooked, I guess, being Australian, is how much Planned Parenthood is associated with abortion in the U.S.  Even so, it is one very small part in the film, and barely deserves the prominence of being in the introduction to the article, especially given the lack of any mention in the body of the article.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, within the film itself. But the World Magazine interview quotes Stein as saying they felt it was important to show how closely related the abortion and eugenics movements were. Stein very specifically interprets the movie as related to pro-life (translate: anti-abortion) beliefs and ties Darwinism into the loop. And then that page reproduces and links to another Christian review that more emphatically makes the connection: "The implication in the film is that Darwinism leads to eugenics which leads to abortion and euthanasia." You may of course edit boldly as long as you extend that privilege to other editors. One technicality is that anything in the lede should be developed in the body, and that point isn't. Yopienso (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that all that your link shows is that it was deliberate and considered relevant, not that it was meant to play a big part. It is, after all, incidental to the main theme of the film of academic freedom.  As for being bold, there's no point in an article like this unless there is agreement on this talk page, as those that protect the POV here will just revert it to the way they want it.  I've been through that too many times to waste my time on this one.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, given the complete lack of further comment here and of any comment in the section below, I might just prod the sleeping bear by making some changes. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Stein and NCSE quotes on Sternberg
The article includes the following:
 * While Stein says it was the "most egregious" case and "he lost his job",[48] the NCSE stated, "the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as 'life ruining'."

The quote from Stein is not from the film, but from an interview he gave, so I fail to see why it should be in this article. The quote from the NCSE is an opinion about Sternberg's treatment from a group that helped orchestrate the treatment he received, so can hardly be considered an unbiased— and therefore reliable—source on this issue. It should also be removed.

Just before that the article says:
 * Sternberg, contrary to the film's claims, was not an employee, but an unpaid "Research Associate" at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. Also contrary to the film's claims, Sternberg still retained this position until 2007,[46] and continued to have full access to research facilities at the museum as of April 2008.[47]

The references support that Sternberg retained his position until 2007 and that he continued to have access, but not that the film claimed otherwise. The film, in the section explaining what happened to Sternberg, does seem to imply that he lost his job, but the main clear statement of what happened to him is "...Dr. Sternberg lost his office, his political and religious beliefs were investigated, and he was pressured to resign". Soon after, in the interview with Michael Shermer, Stein asks Shermer a "hypothetical" about someone who worked for the Smithsonian and who lost his job. Perhaps instead of saying that the film claims those things about Sternberg it should say that it implies them.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll note I toned that passage down a month ago but did not catch the fact that the quote from Stein was not from the movie. Please go ahead and fix that. There's no reason to include Stein's later comments in that section. As you'll see in my comments above on Dec. 18, there was confusion as to whether or not Sternberg was employed by the Smithsonian. There's no need for NCSE's opinion, either. Yopienso (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed those sentences. That leaves the other matter, of the article making claims about what the film alleges, which are unreferenced, still unresolved.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this is something that came from the "toning down", but the NCSE makes no reference to the "egregious" quote. In the case in question, it was responding to presentation in the film of the claim that Sternberg’s “life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party line while serving as editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.” (Expelled). Philip, from your account the film has the clearly false claim that Stermberg "was pressured to resign", when he'd already given up the unpaid position at the end of its usual term. Having said that, I don't think the sectences removed are a great loss, it tightens up the section while still covering the basics. The NCSE remains a sound third party expert source giving the majority view of the scientific and educational aspects of the film and responses to the film. Its view of the impression put over by the film is backed up by the brief analysis of this section in Scientific American. As for what the film alleges, you should remember that the film isn't just words, but the impression conveyed by the context they are placed in by the movie. I've rephrased the points to make it clear that they are how the film depicts issues, as shown by reliable secondary sources, rather than claims. The format isn't terribly clear in that claims appear in one paragraph, divorced from majority views of the claims, so will look again at that. . . dave souza, talk 16:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the NCSE quote was not responding to Stein's "egregious" quote, but was their opinion of what Sternberg suffered (or did not suffer.) Both are unnecessary. We have to make clear if we're talking about Sternberg being pressured to resign from the editorship or from the Smithsonian, two very different things. Certainly he wasn't from the journal, but it's unclear how much pressure was exerted to get him out of the Smithsonian. (Yes, yes, where he worked for the NIH.) Very good point that a film isn't just words. May I suggest as a good reference and fact-checker Jeffrey Schloss's review of the movie and its implications? Heartily endorsed by the Panda's Thumb. It's too long for WP, but written much more objectively. I may do some stylistic tweaking on the last edit if I get around to it. Yopienso (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * dave souza, as Yopienso touches on, Sternberg had already resigned as editor of the journal, but still worked at the Smithsonian as a research assistant, and it was this he was pressured to resign from. So the film did not make a "clearly false claim" as you allege.  The claim is quite correct.  And although it's incidental, he didn't give up the role as editor at the end of its usual term; rather, he had already put in his resignation of that role some time before, but had agreed to stay on longer until a replacement could be found.
 * It's false and improper to say that the NCSE remains a sound third party for two reasons. One, they were not a third party", but one of the principal parties.  Two, to call one of the protagonists of the controversy "sound" is to take sides in the dispute.  Similarly, you say that the NCSE's view is backed by Scientific American, but as part of the scientific establishment that the film is criticising, they are not an independent third party either.  Given that, I would have to wonder about your reference to "reliable secondary sources".
 * Yopienso, that review by Jeffrey Schloss does look to be quite good, from the bits I've read so far.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, Schloss's review is a useful source which I'd not seen previously. It gives his own take on the film from a particular Christian psrspective, as published by the American Scientific Affiliation. Like the NCSE, it looks to be a reliable secondary source, and is a third party view in relation to the film. Philip, your attempt to paint the NCSE as a protagonist on the basis of unsourced allegations is dubious, at best. As for Sternberg having "worked at the Smithsonian", Schloss confirms the situation as described by our other secondary sources. "He was not fired or asked to resign at the Smithsonian. In fact, he didn’t even have a job at the Smithsonian to begin with (he is an employee of the National Institutes of Health). His was a courtesy appointment as a researcher, which was not rescinded." Schloss continues in more detail, starting with "But after the term ran out, it was commuted to a lower prestige designation." This seems a bit vague, as the affair happened in 2004, but according to his own bio Sternberg was a Research Associate until 2007, and even after that he continued to enjoy full access to research facilities at the museum" According to SciAm "his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator." Is there other confirmation that this is "a lower prestige designation"? Anyway, Schloss qualifies his comments carefully so care needs to be taken with summarising this. Yopienso, good point about clarifying the structure of this. We should also probably mention the business about Sternberg "losing his office" as part of a general reorganisation affecting others with courtesy or other appointments, as well as himself. . . dave souza, talk 18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My comments about the NCSE are not unsourced. The investigation by the Office of Special Council said that the "members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have [Sternberg] investigated and discredited within the SI. Members of NCSE, furthermore, e-mailed detailed statements of repudiation of the Meyer article to high level NMNH officials. In turn they sent them to the Society. There are e-mails that are several pages in length that map out their strategy. NCSE recommendations were circulated within the SI and eventually became part of the official public response of the SI to the Meyer article."
 * Nobody claims that Sternberg was "asked" (formally) to resign, nor that he was fired, so Schloss is correct there. But that is a different matter to being pressured to resign.  Because Sternberg didn't break any SI rules, they were unable to get rid of him before his term ran out, but the evidence shows clearly that there were people who wanted him gone.
 * Regarding your question about "research collaborator", an e-mail dated 30th April 2004 (page 59) says, "We have 'Research Collaborators' for academically less qualified associates". An e-mail dated 28th November 2006 (two pages later in that link) comparing Research Associate with Research Collaborator says that "The titles reflect differences in the level of involvement of the researcher with the museum and its mission.  A Research Associate works more closely with NMNH staff, often on joint projects such as joint grant proposals or publications.  A Research Collaborator is less closely involved with the NMNH staff and generally works on his own projects using NMNH resources..."
 * As for Sternberg "losing his office", the e-mails in that link talk a bit about that. I didn't try getting my head around it all, but I did form some impressions.  On one hand, there was a general reorganisation affecting others, but on the other hand, the office relocation was not coincidental, as discussion on Sternberg being relocated was closely tied up with discussion of his "crime".
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is biased beyond any taste
Article needs to be rewritten. While factual the article has an obvious bias toward one side. It should be summarized as any other film and not commented on (however slyly) by the author of the article.67.49.64.68 (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not an article, this is sick fanatic rant. It is so hopelessly one sided, it should be written from the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.154.3 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing specific proposals for improvements to the article, per WP:TALK, and is not a forum. Please make specific and detailed proposals, presenting the sources you propose to use. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. There is lot work to be done, also you are reverting everything done. The warning should stay until there is a reasonable concensus. You are very bullying with your attitude, POV warning indicates that article has problems. You try to hide this acting aggressively and arrogantly. The language is so one sided, and presentation should be neutral, which it is not. I do not have to do the work instantly and you should not remove warnings just because you like the present version of the article! You do not own it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.154.3 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with this article is that the side presented in the film is consistently cited as "claiming" or "alleging", while the other side is presented as stating things factually. This is high POV. If there WERE truth in Stein's thesis, it would be nowhere no more clearly revealed than in a one-sided approach to his claims. We must then insert the word "alleged" before any statement made by any side to show falsehood in such claims of bias. "He says, she says" is fair. "Stein (or whoever) alleges" while the NCSE simply states facts" is not at all neutral towards the claims. The complaint about the article is reasonable. I began work on one section, but it's a lot of work. I'm equally fine with inserting or removing the one-sided use of "allegations" and claims", as long as it is across the board. Either ALL POVs must be stated as presenting their side factually from their perspective, or we place ALL speakers' claims under doubt via prefacing verbs. Otherwise, Stein's claims will be clearly true, at last regarding Wikipedia. Rusmeister (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP:LEAD requires the paragraphs before the table of contents to summarise the article, which the consensus paragraphs do in a balanced way so I've restored them. I've also undone the sprinkling of "alleged" you've added to well established information; WP:NPOV requires that we don't give "equal validity" to fringe views, we show minority views while giving due weight to majority expert views on the topic. Sometimes there may be a case for using "says" rather than "claims", but we have to be careful with unreliable fringe allegations. . . dave souza, talk 07:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of POV bias that masquerades as "majority expert opinion". You don't like the films claims. Fine. I don't like or agree with all of them myself. But to write all of Stein's claims as "alleged" and all of his opponents as fact is POV. Who gave Mr Souza the authority to determine what is "fringe" and what is whistle-blowing and to cast dissenting views as the former and ensure that anything Mr Stein says is only "alleged" is beyond me. Rusmeister (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V requires us to consider the reliability of various sources, and your change of well supported statements to "alleged" statements clearly goes against verifiability and WP:WEIGHT policies, so I've undone your excessive and unsupportable change. If there are specific instances where you we should say "Stein said" rather than "Stein alleged", please discuss them here and we can review them. . . dave souza, talk 12:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rusmeister, you are of course correct that this article is biased; it follows the WP bias against anything that would counter evolution or cast Charles Darwin in a bad light. Step one wrt your participation here is to realize that's the stance. It's as inappropriate to combat it as it would be, for example, to interrupt a Lutheran church service with cries that it has a Christian bias.


 * Also, Dave souza does exert a proprietary-like power on this kind of article. However, he's a fine chap and very knowledgeable and possesses the rare quality of politeness. Step two is to work collegially with him.


 * On the specific reverts, these are the facts as I understand them:
 * He allegedly circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process to include the controversial paper,
 * The word allegedly is necessary here because he adamantly denies circumvention and has a statement from his immediate superior that supports his claim. I've spent hours on this in the past, and am convinced he followed the reviewing process that was in place at the time, which was changed after the fact, and precisely because of the fact.
 * Sternberg, in claims contrary to the film's claims, was not an employee, but an unpaid "Research Associate". . .
 * Although this is technically true, a better wording would omit "in claims." This is a fuzzy area because Nick Matze (See quote below.) said he was able to convince the Smithsonian not to fire him. Sternberg worked at there but was not on the Smithsonian payroll. NPR makes this clear.


 * NCSE spokesman Nicholas Matzke said his group was not part of an effort to dismiss Sternberg. "A lot of people at the Smithsonian were mad because their journal was dragged into a political issue. We wanted them to focus on the science and not persecute or discriminate against Sternberg on religious grounds," Matzke told The Scientist. "We advised them not to fire Sternberg," he said, "and they eventually followed our advice."
 * Sternberg is alleged to still have retained this position until 2007,
 * Get rid of alleged; he himself says he stayed until 2007.
 * claims that "the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about. . ."
 * This statement is utterly true--this is strictly a value judgement, an opinion, not a fact. "Notes" is too affirmative. But I suggest tempering "claims," which suggests falseness, to "According to the NCSE. . ." or simply changing it to "says" or "stated" or "believes." Yopienso (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "...cast Charles Darwin in a bad light" What an odd turn of phrase. What did the man ever do in his life of painstaking observation and scholarship that would cast him in a bad light?--Charles (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing that I know of. There is, however, an overweening care to insure his name is untarnished by the extrapolations of others. Every saint can be cast in a bad light, regardless of his personal integrity. Your comment substantiates my claim which, in fact, is nothing more than my take on my editing experience at WP.
 * What interests me is cleaning up this "alleging" bit--any comments from anyone? Yopienso (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, there are some aspects... for example, in Inception of Darwin's theory we reveal that he privately thought of a wife as an "object to be beloved and played with, better than a dog anyhow". I realise that some will find this shocking, but we show the unvarnished truth as set out by the most reliable sources. But we digress. Without checking them out in detail, these seem to be the sort of improvements that can usefully be made to the current version, preferably one section at a time rather than a massive edit that's hard to check. Thanks for looking at this, dave souza, talk 22:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that example, Dave. My daughter is consternated that I am not the feminist she is :-) but we have to judge Darwin by his times, not ours. At this juncture I don't think you'll be shocked that I call Darwin a hero rather than a villain.
 * So, how about my editing the article per my suggestions above? No one has pointed out any flaws in my reasoning or sourcing. Since I have time right now, maybe I'll just go ahead. Anyone can revert, or if they prefer, ask me to self-revert. Yopienso (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Wikipedia's Verifiability policy says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (my emphasis). As this article says, 'Stein says, "It's not just the scientists who are in on it. The media is in on it, the courts, the educational system, everyone is after them." ', and this is correct; the film criticises not just "big science", but also the mainstream media and other groups, including the NCSE. "Third party" means someone other than the principal people involved, which in this case is the movie and the pro-ID people on one hand and "big science", the media, the NCSE, etc. on the other hand. Yet, contrary to the Verifiability policy, a large number of the references are to people or groups that are not third party, but one of those principals. In commenting on the film, rather than reliable third party sources being used, many of the sources are the parties involved. Am I wrong? Philip J. Rayment (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you are correct. Yopienso (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The film is made by Stein et al and closely sponsored by the ever unreliable ID movement, those they accuse don't become "principal people involved" because they're accused by these fringe proponents. We can use first party primary sources with care, and look to good quality secondary sources for the basis of the article. "Big science" and the NCSE have a good record for fact checking and accuracy, as required. . . dave souza, talk 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing "principal people involved" as those who are directly involved in any of the alleged incidents or in the film. My understanding of our policy and practice is that their opinions and reports are reliable regarding their own parts in the incidents or film, but not wrt other incidents or the film in general. To wit, Eugenie Scott is a RS for what she said or meant or how she was approached or tricked or whatever for the interview in the film, but precisely because she is one of the principals, could not be a RS for the motives or actions of Sternberg or the Smithsonian or Stein, etc. That would wipe out some of the sources from Dawkins, PZ, and NCSE, but still leave a gracious plenty of RSs. Yopienso (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be injecting your personal views here, Dave, declaring that the movie is incorrect because you've already decided that their opponents are correct. And I have to wonder what does make one a party to the disagreement if not this sort of situation.  Also, you seem to agree that "big science" and the NCSE are secondary sources, despite me pointing out that the Verifiability policy required third-party sources.  I'm not suggesting that primary and secondary sources can't be used with care, but when one party is accusing other parties of not playing fair, to simply accept the word of those other parties is hardly a case of being neutral.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, I had an edit conflict with you on my previous post. In this sort of case, movie takes aim at "big science", or the scientific establishment generally, as well as the mainstream media, someone doesn't have to be specifically named to be a party.  So that means that we've got to be careful how we use not just Dawkins, Myers, and the NCSE, but Scientific American, the AAAS, and news organisations.  I admit that this will leave a relatively small number of third-party sources available, but unfortunately that's the nature of this issue.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but don't know how we could possibly leave out the MS media. In that case we'd have to leave out World magazine, which is biased in the other direction. And this is exactly why this article has been so tendentious--the film takes on the whole establishment, so what RSs can be used under your rationale? Yet we must have some. Surely you don't propose using the ID movement's publications as 3rd-party sources. Taking on the whole establishment is what makes this an issue from the fringe. We cannot determine who's right and to what extent; WP is fundamentally about reflecting what the MS says. Yopienso (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with "World" magazine, but if they don't follow the mainstream view, they are not part of what the film was criticising. There may be other reasons to exclude it, but simply being able to classify it in the mainstream media would not be a reason.
 * I'm not actually proposing any sources. The first thing I wanted to do was get agreement that there was a problem, before I went too much further.  As both Dave and I said above, primary and secondary sources can be used, if done carefully.  The problem is when a primary or secondary source is used as though it was an unbiased third-party source, as is currently the case.
 * I don't really agree that taking on the whole establishment makes this an issue from the fringe, although it does depend on the definition of "fringe". The point is that ID supporters comprise much more than a "fringe", if that indicates a very small group.  Many Wikipedians give greater weight to scientific opinon than the views of the general population, but even accepting that, when a very significant proportion of the general population support something, I don't think it's right to call it a fringe view, at least without qualification.  But even limiting it to scientists, the proportion is not insignificant.  Sure, it's undoubtedly a minority view, but not a tiny minority.  None of that helps much with sources, though.  I could suggest the article you linked to, but even though that might really be a relatively unbiased third-party source, it probably counts as an unreliable source on the grounds of being self-published or something.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you go for WP:FRINGE. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." Note that as I said above this means nothing about how true or false the idea may be, but is all about whether or not it is accepted by the MS. WP has limited its scope to that which is accepted by the MS. We cannot refuse to use the MS since it's our second pillar. It's an affront to WP editors to even suggest abandoning a founding principle. Yopienso (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But what is the "mainstream"? Mainstream media?  Mainstream science?  Or mainstream population?  That was partly my point.  Another part was how small the "fringe" view is.  The sentence you quote could be read to say that if 51% of scientists support a particular view (i.e. it is the "prevailing" view), the other 49% is considered a "fringe" view.  Is that really what it's trying to say?
 * The Second Pillar is neutrality, not mainstream. The way that neutrality is implemented without giving too much weight to fringe views is by giving greater weight to the mainstream view, but that makes "mainstream" the means to the end, where the end is "neutrality".  So what if, as in this case, going for the mainstream means undermining neutrality?  Which one is more important?  Surely neutrality is, not going for the mainstream.  And keep in mind the fifth pillar: "the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule".
 * As for how we approach this, we could try doing what the last poster to this page before this post said: just treat it like any other film: "It should be summarized as any other film and not commented on". This article isn't just about the film, but tries to show it in a bad light.  That is not neutrality.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "mainstream" is what is reported in mainstream media. With a 51/49% split, there wouldn't be a prevailing view, but conflicting views. Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels, which therefore represent what the majority of media consumers are likely to encounter. The term also denotes those media generally reflective of the prevailing currents of thought, influence, or activity. We are in Wikipedia-land now, and regardless of how we personally may define "neutrality," as editors we are bound to uphold the Second Pillar of Neutrality with reliable sources. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Not only that, the reliable sources must be what Wikipedia calls reliable sources, not necessarily what we personally may regard as reliable sources. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Yopienso (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The "mainstream" is what is reported in mainstream media.": By decree?
 * "With a 51/49% split, there wouldn't be a prevailing view, but conflicting views.": Okay.  But what about a 60/40 split? Or a 75/25 split?  When does it cease to be "prevailing" and become "fringe"?
 * "The term also denotes those media generally reflective of the prevailing currents of thought, influence, or activity.": Yeah?  Since when did the mainstream media reflect the prevailing views?  Journalists have been shown to sometimes have more liberal views than the general population.  This is part of my point: By defining "mainstream" as the "mainstream media", it's actually calling something that's not mainstream, "mainstream"!
 * "Not only that, the reliable sources must be what Wikipedia calls reliable sources, not necessarily what we personally may regard as reliable sources.": I've addressed this point in my reply to you on my talk page.  Wikipedia's Verifiability policy applies to articles, not to its policies.  So it doesn't have to verify that what it calls reliable or not reliable really is reliable (or not).
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why American editors tend to be fuzzy on this
I'm American, and this recent article in Science may help some of our more secular European cousins appreciate why we come across as boneheads. (It's because we are! LOL) What's settled for you is debatable for us--even for many science teachers. Here's the abstract; you can't read the article without a subscription. And here's a report on it from LiveScience. Yopienso (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is supposed to be about the article, not the topic, but given that you've made the comment, I trust that nobody will object to a reply. The debate is not settled in Europe either, even if it doesn't have as high a profile.  But as the film in question points out, in Europe the evolutionists have not resorted to the courts to stifle the opposition, so even though the culture is more evolutionary, there are not the same restrictions on questioning evolution in schools.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted those links with the specific aim of improving this article by helping explain why American editors may seem so tendentious or ignorant. This is an appeal for civility by means of explaining where we're coming from and hoping that will render the Europeans more patient with what they may logically see as only astounding impertinence or stupidity. Anything that cuts acrimony helps the editing process and thereby the article itself. I'm aware you're Australian! :) Regards, Yopienso (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that you made the post in good faith, but it does presume things that are not necessarily so, such as the debate being settled in Europe and that people who are on the other side of the debate than the secular side are somehow lacking in intelligence and/or wisdom, knowledge, and patience. I fail to see how denigrating people with a particular view will cut acrimony.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for assuming good faith. I was including myself as a bone-headed American. This may be better wording: Here is an article that will show the evolution/creation debate is far from settled in the USA. Please note that even public school science teachers avoid coming down strongly on the side of evolution. That may help explain why we find so much controversy at WP on these articles--it's not because we are just stubbornly contentious, but because many reasonable Americans believe scientists overstate the case. Let's work together on this article with respect for all and absolute adherence to the most rigorous science as reported by the most highly reliable sources. Yopienso (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that wording, except for the remaining unstated assumption that it's largely settled outside the U.S. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay! On the remaining assumption, I asserted it's largely settled in Europe, not everywhere outside the US. The Muslim nations do not generally accept it. The popular LiveScience, in rehashing an article from the scholarly Science, claims, "A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower." An Ipsos MORI poll cited by the British Council found ". . .that people polled in the USA, South Africa and India are the most likely to believe that life on Earth, including human life, was created by a God and has always existed in its current form (all at 43%)." Two years ago the Gallup Poll put that figure at 39% and drew direct correlation between rejection of evolution and both educational levels and religious persuasion. I speculate Europeans haven't "resorted to the courts to stifle the opposition" because Europe doesn't face the activist opposition the US does. Are you aware of a European think tank that is trying to wedge creationism into their schools? This is probably enough for this page unless you have one last word. We could go to our own talk pages. Yopienso (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no separation of church and state in the UK and for historical reasons the official Church of England runs large numbers of state funded schools, especially primary schools. There are also many Roman Catholic schools and some Muslim, Quaker, non-conformist, etc. These schools are allowed to descriminate between children on the basis of religious observance. They often get very good acedemic results which endears them to politicians, but this is because they cherry pick bright middle class children whose parents take the trouble to take them to church regularly, even when the parents are not believers but see a way into an elite school for their children. While most of these schools follow the national science curriculum there is little doubt that some are teaching creationism and there is no law against this. Creationism gets almost no attention from the news media over here so it is difficult to know the size of the problem.--Charles (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is taking collateral damage.
You guys having your war about Evolution vs Creationism vs Intelligent Design are ruining this article. This article should just be a simple page about the film, based on direct reviews. Instead everyone from both sides of the war is using the opportunity to work in some propaganda that is rather tangential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage99 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Darwin's impact on Nazism
When I wasn't even looking, I finally found documentation of Darwin's deep impact on Nazism. Not that he's to blame for the twisting of his ideas! I've tried to add this to the article under that section, but can't get the footnote right. Here's the info:

Jackson J. Spielvogel writes, "The application of Darwin's principle of organic evolution to the social order came to be know as social Darwinism."

Except I have a funny idea when I save this it's going to link inexplicably (to me) to a Dawkins article. It's actually from a college textbook by Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization Volume II: Since 1500, 7th Edition, p. 829, p. 924. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2011. Here's a link to a Google book that doesn't quite do it. The quote about Mein Kampf is here. I have deleted these links to clean up the page. See better ones below. (Neither of those links actually cite the passage or give the page number. Please trust me on the hard copy.) Yopienso (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, since What I See is NOT What I Get, that looks better than I'd hoped, but missing some stuff. More:

"With regard to 'Mein Kampf', he says, "Extreme German nationalism, virulent anti-Semitism, and vicious anticommunism are linked together by a social Darwinian theory of struggle that stresses the right of superior nations to Lebensraum. . ."
 * Some time ago I my assertions of these facts were roundly denied, but at the very least this shows what is typically taught to U.S. undergraduates. Again, I am not alleging Darwin taught or believed any of this stuff, any more than Jesus Christ taught how to set up an Inquisition. His name, unfortunately, is attached to it. Yopienso (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a better link to an earlier edition of the book. And this partial quote with page number on Mein Kampf. You have to scroll down just a tad on both. I'm going to delete the links I inserted above just to keep the page from being such a mess. Yopienso (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You gents mean to tell me Darwin's ideas led to (the quite well-known philosophy of) Social Darwinism? Relevation (Relevant+Revelation)! I smell spaghetti topped with pesce, if you know what I mean. 68.14.88.194 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of Michael Shermer
I have undone this good faith addition because it is giving undue weight to Shermer. We would have to first have images of the more major players in the drama. Yopienso (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I put that picture there because a) Shermer was in the movie; b)there were nice pictures of him on wikipedia (contrary to, for example, Richard Sternberg or Caroline Crocker). What about this picture? It is quite a fuzzy picture of Ben Stein, but I would prefer that above the present sharp pictures of Stein, on occasions which were obviously NOT related with this film.

And of course, we can always dump generic pictures here of Dawkins, Darwin, Hitler, nazi camps, human cells and American university buildings. However, as, these pictures can already be found in most evolution vs intelligent design-articles, I do not believe that these pictures would improve the article a lot. Jeff5102 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your interest in improving the article. Wikipedia articles on movies don't generally show photos of everyone in them. For comparison, see the iconic To Kill a Mockingbird. More aptly, see these two documentaries--Fahrenheit 9/11 and Religulous. This article follows our standard format. Also, we don't use fuzzy photos. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth-article does show pictures in it. Having said this, I'll leave the insertion of pictures to you. I still believe that this large amount of text could use one or more pictures, and maybe a picture of cells could be fine after all. But again, I will leave the choices on this further up to you.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just one person, so can't begin to form a consensus. It would be helpful if some page-watchers would chime in. My guidelines would be: 1. All photos should be high quality and not copyrighted. 2. We should have photos of all or none of the scientists/teachers/speakers, and they should be small. I'm not at all sure Dawkins would want his photo in this article. Note that a hyperlink leads to three photos of Shermer. 3. Photos of the animation or of scenes from the movie might be more appropriate. Yopienso (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This article should be "expelled"; WIKI needs a new way to present a current, controversial topic!!!
NOTE: WIKIPEDIA is becoming a byword for "Secondrate". Some of my daughter's teachers & now professors do NOT accept Wikipedia because they are so uneven in quality. I heard someone on TV refer to Wiki's dubious reputation just recently...So how should WIKI handle the hot, controversial - still evolving (so to speak) TOPICS???

This article on "EXPELLED" with its obvious biases as noted by others above - is a case in point.

So HOW should Wiki handle hot topics? Here's a starting idea: Mark the Wiki article "Hot Topic". Invite a high level person from each of the major viewpoints. Ask that person to write their side. Present the major sides - side by side...Let the READER decide! In the case of EXPELLED---there are essentially two main viewpoints: 1. EXPELLED - YES  The film makes a good case that many in academia and science are NOT free to discuss, explore, question classic evolutionary theory (which some call "Darwinism). Some persons of faith believe this; other persons with no declared faith believe this. (See the movie itself for some examples!)

2. OR---EXPELLED - NO The film does NOT make a good case that academia and others in the science field are being censored from free exploration of intelligent design options (which some call "creationism").

So...will WIKI make itself better? Will WIKI admit that there are hot topics? Will Wiki find a better way to handle hot topics? Or will Wiki evolve into Celebrity Bio Center or General Info Lite? Stay tuned, folks!Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion, but unfortunately this sort of presentation would violate Wikipedia's policies. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed Lindisfarne. I have advised my students that Wikipedia is at best a mediocre starting point for research, and that reports and term papers citing Wikipedia will be returned to them with the grade Wikipedia so richly deserves - Failing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 May 2011
 * Oh dear. If you do have students, you should really know by now that all enclopedias are unsuitable sources for detailed research, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source as its guidelines and policies make clear. That also goes for its mirrors. Also, do please learn to sign your posts. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you're a teacher why are you using Honeywell's network? You really should get a user account for better anonymity. . . dave souza, talk 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This article - as it stands - is a hallmark of how NOT to write a neutral POV article. Wiki could have called on 1-2 scholars from the intelligent design camp---and some from the NCSE which is militantly in the darwinian style evolution camp. With a bit of editorial refereeing, Wiki could have produced a quality article!Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have specific complaints about the article, please discuss them here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to make a few remarks: one, that your idea of Wikipedia asking for personal write-ups from lead experts is a noble-sounding one, but unfortunately not in line with established policy, which only allows third-party, already-published sources. Second, we do not necessarily give "equal time" to one side of a debate when that side is a very small minority, as is the case with Intelligent Design (see WP:WEIGHT.)  For example, a theoretical article on a Holocaust revisionist film may appear to be "un-neutral" because it would spend most of its time reporting on the scholarly consensus on the film, which would doubtless be negative.  It is similar with this film; I believe the public, especially in America, believes evolution to be a controversy when in the biological establishment it really isn't.  Hope this helps.   WordyGirl90  02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Premise Media bankrupt?
There is a rumor floating around that Premise Media is bankrupt and that the movie "Expelled" is being auctioned off. (Never heard of such a thing before. Were Orion Picture's films auctioned?) The rumor seems to have originated from the non-RS NCSE, which has posted a PDF purporting to show the judge's order authorizing the auction of the movie. There are no reliable sources in the news to verify the bankruptcy and the auction. Does anyone know anything more? 67.233.244.224 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the NCSE is a reliable source for such things. They don't fabricate judicial orders. Rosen Systems is auctioning it off (list of their auctions). The auction information is here: http://www.rosensystems.com/auction.php?id=322&tab=info (there are various tabs to click on).


 * I can't really see how this is relevant to the article, but after the auction ends it may be worth a 1-line mention. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the auction is definitely worth mentioning, and the bankruptcy is worth mentioning. On a related note, I'd like to see more info about how much the film cost to make and how much the production company made or lost on it. (I did some quick googling and it looks like they might have just barely broken even - $3.5 million to make, $7.7 million gross of which the production company pockets about half) Raul654 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say NCSE fabricated the order, but they could've easily fallen for a prank. That being said, the link to the auction website pretty much verifies the story, though it would be nice to know what the source for the judge's order was. 67.233.244.224 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 For info, :Thanks for the heads-up, the NCSE has the story [http://ncse.com/news/2011/06/expelled-block-006695 Expelled on the block? | NCSE] providing a link to a pdf copy of a document filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on May 31, 2011. The trustee of the bankruptcy estate is seeking to auction "[t]hat certain feature-length motion picture ('Picture') 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' and all collateral, allied, ancillary, subsidiary and merchandising rights therein and thereto, and all properties and things of value pertaining thereto." The auction is scheduled to take place on-line from June 23 to June 28, 2011. It would be appropriate to add a concise mention of the bankruptcy and the sale of the film. . . dave souza, talk 14:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Related issue: The Premise Media Expelled website is apparently no longer functioning (someone just removed the dead links from the article), I think that it might make sense to keep them and note they aren't functioning? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do Viral Videos belong in the Promotions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Pretty much explains it self. Does this viral video belong in the Promotions section or not?--81.159.168.146 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversy
So while skimming through this article, I saw nothing of the controversy. There is a website ( http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth ) that debunks most of the arguments in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.174.225 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has plenty of negative content and discuss most of the arguments the film makes in a critical manner. There isn't a controversy section, but those are discouraged. The comments of someone who claims to have only skimmed the article aren't likely to gain much attention.  -- Daniel  16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicable
My edit to describe (in the lead) the movie as "creationist propaganda movie" has been inexplicably reverted. My rational for making the edit was that the body of the article demonstrates many times and quite explicitly that it is creationist propaganda and not simply a "documentary" ... a word that has implications of truth, fairness and balance. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the body of the article. I would appreciate other views. Abtract (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't state in the lead, especially in the first sentence, in the voice of Wikipedia as if it's an incontrovertible fact, something so strongly worded like "creationist propaganda movie." If you can show that straight news stories often refers to it that way, then maybe you would have a case for that wording. Heavily opinionated films like "Fahrenheit 9/11" do not use such loaded wording in the lead sentence of their articles. Drrll (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This article does not give objective information on the movie, rather than a exspressed opinion of the content with in the movie, and to claim that the movie is a peace of propaganda and offer no creditable data to support this claim is in deed propaganda in it's self.((standoff truth)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandoftruth (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing user comments
An anonymous IP address has twice now added the statement Despite negative reviews by critics, the film received was better received by the public, as evidenced by strong earnings and a 68% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. (diff)

Aside from the obvious NPOV violation in the edit summary, this is obviously also a violation of WP:RS (in particular WP:USERGENERATED), because the statement refers to user-generated content, as opposed to Rotten Tomatoes aggregation of recognized movie reviewers. That is why I have reverted it twice now, and invited the IP to comment here. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing standards
Regarding this paragraph, which I removed and which was subsequently reinserted:

The paragraph contains a series of claims about living people. I don't think that lifesitenews.com and prnewswire.com are suitable sources for WP:BLP material. If the quotes in question are notable and worth including, then we should be able to find reliable sources mentioning them. I don't think the current sourcing even meets WP:RS, much less the far stricter sourcing requirements in WP:BLP. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While LifeSiteNews say that "Accuracy in content is given high priority", no editorial staff is listed, which is a concern. PR Newswire appears to simply distribute press releases. So both of these are dubious sources. The link to the PR Newswire story doesn't work, so it's difficult to know what was there originally. Had the LifeSiteNews piece been authored by Mathis, one could argue it was "his own opinion" (although the fact that he is commenting on living people adds another layer to consider), but this is a third party piece. I'm inclined to agree with MastCell - there are RS concerns, and there are BLP concerns. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity
This entry seems to lack objectivity. The references are mostly from literature and people that strongly criticized the film. Most critic views are presented plainly as facts without mentioning the counter-claim of the film producers. SamuelN77 (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Poorly worded sentence
"These bills would permit educators in the public schools to independently introduce criticisms of or alternatives to evolution." Criticisms of evolution are regularly made in scientific settings and classrooms, no bills are needed to allow it. Evolutionary theory is being continually added to and studied. The current wording of the sentence implies that the theory of evolution is an unchanging scientific law that we fully understand. The sentence should read, "These bills would permit educators in the public schools to independently introduce alternatives to evolution." This is the crux of the issue and the proposed bills, teaching unsubstantiated creationism or intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.202.150 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamph : Evolution, mixing of the races and Vengance
added quotes from Adolf Hitler on the above. The quotes are in context and in sequence. It will be interesting to see how many people, if any, want to propose that Adolf Hitler's views on evolution have nothing to do with evolution and Nazism :-) (Also I put this addition below the existing text as I read somewhere that this is the way to do it on Wikipedia.)Timh2007 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The added text is about nazism and off topic for this page. The existing text should remain until consensus is reached on adding it to the page.--Charles (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The preceding topic is "Claims that the theory of evolution was necessary for the development of Nazism". Surely Adolf Hitler's views about evolution and Nazism are relevant. One would also think that given Adolf Hitlers role in the development of Nazism, his statements about evolution would have some, at least limited, authority. Adolf Hitler's comments on evolution should remain until consensus is reached that he is not an authoritative source on the development of Nazism. :-) Timh2007 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hitlers views deleted again at 14:16 . . (-1,140)‎ . . ‎George100 reason Unencyclopedic entry, not directly related to subject) only took about 45 mins. Hitlers views on evolution and nazism not related to subject of evolution and nazism, really ?.. Timh2007 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "really" - Yes. This subject of this article is the film, not commentary on subjects related to the film (Hitler's views on evolution, etc.).  The contents of the page should relate directly to the film itself.  --George100 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, no secondary sources cited. It's original research to include them. Remember that "sources are everything". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for the talk, Adolf Hitler is a primary source, quoting, without commentary, is not original research. Timh2007 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Cant help thinking the rapid response from people in general is more about how shocking Hitlers comments are and the contrast with what Hitler said and all the opinions quoted in the preceeding section. Timh2007 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tim, I wish WP required new editors to walk through a tutorial before participating. That would help avoid a difficult start. WP:NOR applies here. When we write for school or a newspaper or magazine or book, we are expected to research and synthesize that research into a cogent, documented narrative. WP, though, is an encyclopedia, not an online forum or magazine; it only reflects what other reliable, preferably secondary, sources say. The only information relevant to this article is what reliable sources (RSs) have said about the movie. If there is no RS about this movie that contains what you want included, it doesn't belong here. You will find lots of stuff on Hitler at Nazism and numerous other articles. Yopienso (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One more tip: If you read up on our policies and decide to continue editing in an appropriate manner, please be aware that we expect careful writing. Your title, Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamph : Evolution, mixing of the races and Vengance, contains multiple misspellings and typos. It should read, Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf: Evolution, mixing of the races, and vengeance. Did you catch the six corrections I made? Also, we don't hyperlink sources using the little chain icon, but reference them, using the little book icon (for people who use the little icons; most don't). Are you familiar with scholarly references?
 * Thanks for the link to WP:NOR to quote from the policy on the use of primary sources "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is exactly what was done. There seems to be 2 main objections to this primary material. Firstly, it raises issues about the accuracy of some of the assertions of the reliable secondary sources quoted in the previous section. Secondly, people who like the idea of evolution do not like the fact that Adolf Hilter also liked the idea of evolution. Timh2007 (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No... the main objections are (a) the material you added has no relevance to the topic of this article, which happens to be a movie, and (b) the inclusion of this material is an attempt to imply something in Wikipedia's voice, which contravenes WP:SYNTHESIS. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * re (a) approx 20 minutes of the movie concern Nazism and evolution. you propose that Hitlers views on nazism and evolution have "no relevance to the topic of this article". (b) synthesis, is described as A + B = C, C being the authors synthesis of a conclusion not found in the sources A or B. I simply quote Hitler, no conclusions from me. thanks for your input Timh2007 (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The way to apply the NOR policy here is to accept that editors are limited to describing this film, and must limit any claims they add to articles here to those cited to sources when describing this film . Wiki editors can't cite straight to Hitler here, under any circumstances.  Hitler did not comment on this film.  All wiki editors are allowed to use to cite claims here are claims made in the film itself or made by noteworthy and reliable sources writing about the film. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the issue is one of focus. In this section, is the focus on "film reviews" or is it on "nazism and evolution" If your focus is on film reviews, then the fact that "Hitler did not comment on this film" is relevant.  If your focus is on Nazism and evolution then Hitler is the primary source. I have previously discussed the use of primary sources. thanks for your inputTimh2007 (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The focus of the whole article is the film, not "nazism and evolution". We report on the movie, we don't participate in the discussion in the movie. But I can't fail to see the irony in the quotes ascribed to Hitler: The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged (emphasis mine). That looks much more Biblical than Darwinian to me. And, of course, much of the rest of the quotes is evidence of a very much pre-evolutionary world view - "vital sap" indeed! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hitler was quite happy to call on God and evolution in the same breath. That is certainly true.Timh2007 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Many responses seem to have a common theme that the article is all about the film. But is it really?. The section "Claims that the theory of evolution was necessary for the development of Nazism" ends with the fact that someone wrote a letter after they watched the film. And the guy who got the letter forwarded it to Dawkins. And then Dawkins wrote another letter. Called "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda". Now this is considered relevant, but what Hitler wrote, Ok not a letter but a book, discussing evolution and nazism. That is not relevant. Isn't this just bias? "Bens Stein's lying propaganda" = good. "Hitler approves of evolution" = bad. You might like to research bias in Wikipedia on google before commenting. (And for balance, I am aware of the case of the guy who did approx 65,000 edits revolving around Islam.)Timh2007 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll put it this way - if, for example, Stein had specifically quoted that passage from Mein Kampf in the film, it could be justification for including the citation. The Dawkins letter is not the same because it's specifically related to the film.  --George100 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unable to see how a chain of letters written after watching the film is relevant to the title "Claims that the theory of evolution was necessary for the development of Nazism". Applying your logic, if Stein had specifically referred to the possibility of people writing letters after the film, it could be justification for including the citation (on letter writing ) under a section about letters written after watching the film. The Hitler quotes are not the same, as they are specifically related to the film. Namely the issue of evolution and Nazism.


 * Thank you for your reply George100. I really am trying to get a handle on this. But as you can probably see, my perception of the issues seems to challenge what may be the accepted view.Timh2007 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shermer and Dawkins appeared in the film and Dawkins wrote and published the letter in response to a letter sent to Shermer that was prompted by watching the film. In other words, it's directly related to the film. To make up an example, let's suppose a documentary is made on the life of Bill Gates. A WP article on it would describe the film and reactions to the film. WP would not, however, permit an editor to insert information on the history of computers that s/he personally finds interesting if the general history of computers was not covered in the film. It would be irrelevant to the article, no matter how true it was, and despite the fact computing is relevant to Gates' life. The scope of each article must be defined, and what you want to include in this one is outside its scope. It could possibly belong in Hitler or Mein Kampf. Yopienso (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yopienso for keeping track of this and taking time to provide an example in your comment. Examples are always good as they clarify what is being said. To continue with your example, removing the "nots". "Information on general history of computers" could only be inserted and relevant if "the general history of computers was covered in the film". So in this case. To quote the article overview the film includes
 * Richard Weikart, who claims that Darwinism influenced the Nazis.[20] The film also associates Hitler's ambitions of a master race and the holocaust to Darwinian ideas of survival of the fittest
 * So Nazism and evolution are covered in the film. By way of your example, Hitler's comments on evolution are relevant to the article. The article as it stands includes peoples comments and outrage that the film links Nazism and evolution. As it stands it is a battle of opinions. What is lacking is, What did Hitler have to say on evolution. I suspect that If Hitler had ever said evolution was irrelevant to the Nazi ideal. A quote like that would have been included long ago. I forgot to mention that the film specifically claims that in Mein Kampf Hitler makes use of Evolution in his theories of the master race.Timh2007 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * just on the overview part i quoted, if a person has read Mein Kampf. to say the film "associates" Hitler,master race,Holocaust to Darwin is both true and misleading. Misleading because there is actually an association, and this fact is not clearly stated. It would be more accurate to say the film "brings to light the association between".Timh2007 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Hitler's comments on evolution are relevant to the article." No they aren't. Only if some commentator or reviewer brought them up. It has to be tied back into the film. Otherwise the article would start to go off track and become a series of essays covering topics far beyond the scope of this article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm they might be relevant to the section "Claims that the theory of evolution was necessary for the development of Nazism" if you can show they're used by an article about the film. That section has academics disagreeing with the contention about evolution and Nazism so it does relate to the film as well as bash the ID movement. If Tim or others can cite a credible source/film-critic defending the film's idea, by quoting Hitler on evolution, that would work. That's what you'd need though because quoting Hitler himself does not work as Hitler was not responding to the film. Although I think part of the purpose of having that section is to ridicule the ID people, indeed that's part of why the article is so long in the first place, those sources do at least have notability to the film's reception.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to come to the dance a bit late, but I'd like to point something out. Timh, you argue that if Hitler had ever said that evolution was irrelevant to the Nazi ideal, it would doubtless have been included in the article long ago.  The fact is that Hitler made numerous comments in which he espoused modern Creationist ideals almost word-for-word--the idea that the only variation we see is variation within a "kind," for instance, and that man was created in the image of God.  You'll notice that those quotes do not appear in the article, contrary to your prediction--because Hitler's views are not directly relevant to the article.  We don't include Hitler's quotes supporting a Creationist viewpoint; we don't include Hitler's "evolutionist" quotes (which really tend not to support evolution, but the much older idea of "bloodlines" and pure breeding.)  We don't include the fact that Origin of the Species was on the Nazi's lists of banned books, and if we found evidence that Hitler slept with a copy of Origin under his pillow, we wouldn't include that.  It's not relevant to the topic at hand.  --BRPierce (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was more a comment made in passing. And the list of what is not included is not actually compelling ,your list or mine :-). What does concern me is the massive inaccuracy in this article. I will continue this as a kind of new point. lest the columns become narrower and narrowerTimh2007 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can help clarify this. The film is the subject of the article. Content in the article must help the reader to a better understanding of the subject of the article. Claims made in the film can be in the article, as can information regarding those claims. Both will help to a better understanding of the subject of the article, which is the film. However, expanding on the views or topics mentioned in the film would be discussing those views, not discussing content of the film. They are going one step too far off topic for inclusion into this article. Post-film response is also allowable in the article, as are other responses, because those are about the film. Does this help make it a little clearer? KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes this does clarify things a lot. Since the film specifically denied the claim that Evolution caused Nazism. Then almost all of section 1.4 needs to be removed. It could perhaps be in a separate wikipedia article about "Misinformed Reaction to Expelled no Intelligence Allowed." Since almost all of it does not address the actual content of the film. However well intentioned it may be.

massive inaccuracy. The section "1.4 Claims that the theory of evolution was necessary for the development of Nazism". presents a false straw man as if it were true. In the movie it is actually stated that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it, certainly, a necessary one." ~ David Berlinski 1.06.19. The film then goes on to say ( but I dont remember the exact wording ) "In other words, evolution did not cause Nazism. And not everyone who read Darwin became a Nazi. However Evolution certainly helped Nazism, and this is clear if a person reads Mein Kamphh." ( I had to correct the quotes I put in, the irony is not lost on me :-) )

So the first four words of the section are false. These words. "The film portrays evolution as responsible" The film does not do that. The film specifically denies a direct cause and effect relationship. This section 1.4 then accurately quotes the false and inaccurate views of many sources. Including the outrage that the film would dare to say that evolution caused nazism. Yes they were outraged but the film never did what they are outraged about. This puts Wikipedia in the position of presenting a falsehood as truth. Sure lots of people believe this falsehood. So as it stands the contents reflect the spirit of the age in one sense. But it is still false. While the claims of the film, that Mein Kamphh shows that Hitler used Evolution to further his goals cannot be tested. Only shows of moral outrage are permitted eg "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda". One could say, that, as it stands, 1.4 is an accurately inaccurate piece of propaganda.Timh2007 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertions about the film lack a reliable published source: please show reliable third party sources for verification of any proposals you have for article wording, taking care to ensure that the sources discuss the film and are not products of your original research. . . dave souza, talk 15:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * is the film itself, considered a reliable published source for information on the contents of the film ? Timh2007 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source, and "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Your transcript hasn't been reliably published. There is the issue that film isn't just words, the context and film technique can convey an impression differing from a cold reading of the words. For these reasons, we go by secondary third party published sources, as cited in the article. . dave souza, talk 09:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You also seem to be getting misled by the convoluted prose in your transcript, "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it, certainly, a necessary one" used by David Berlinski. In plain English, he's saying that Darwinism was necessary before Nazism occurred, in other words it led to Nazism but was not the sole cause. As above, the words and the impression of the film can differ. Also, Darwinism is an ambiguous term. Unless you've got a reliable secondary source sharing your interpretation, it's original research and unacceptable. . dave souza, talk 09:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to write your reply Dave. Moving away from my assertions and back to the film. The film asserts that "However Evolution certainly helped Nazism, and this is clear if a person reads Mein Kamphh". Where is the issue in quoting Hitler.? Apart from the rather obvious conclusion that the films assertion is true. And the accurately quoted, outrage of "reliable" secondary sources is misplaced.Timh2007 (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Got a good secondary source for that "true" assertion? Your own opinion is irrelevant, and to be discussed in relation to this article the source has to specifically refer to the film. . dave souza, talk 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont want to include my views in the article, only Adolf Hitlers. If you read the disputed edit you will see it is 100% original source material with no comment. The Film asserts that if a person reads Mein Kampf, the use of evolution is obvious. The film says "especially in the original German" but I dont think quoting German in an English article is particularly helpful.Timh2007 (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a struggle! ;-) Can you provide a secondary source that cites this misinformation from the film, or shows that it is in any way significant? . dave souza, talk 13:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found a treasure chest of secondary sources in response to the film. (naturaly people who dont like what they say will respond ' these sources are not reliable' ) to digress for a moment. With respect, you seem to be missing the point Dave, the issue is quoting Hilters use of evolution. on to secondary sources, how about the london School of economics ? John Gray, political philosopher at the London School of Economics, wrote an essay in the Guardian. In passing, he noted how,


 * Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarized Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism.

reputable ? not reputable enough ? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/opening_up_mein_kampf005189.html Why the Darwin Hitler Link is so sensitive at http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/04/why-the-darwin-hitler-link-is-so-sensitive/ a host of articles on Hitler and Darwin in response to the film about halfway down this page. http://www.ncseexposed.org/#hitler perhaps the best secondary source of all, the curator at the Holocaust Museum. She is clear that Darwinism influenced Hitler. Has even a German curator of a Holocaust Museum in Germany got this wrong? The reliable secondary sources issue in response to the film, for the link between Hitler and Darwin is dead and buried. I have not included all of them but the links will lead to others.Timh2007 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You were right with your supposition, these don't look like reliable sources. Got a link to John Gray's alleged essay in the Guardian, and does it discuss the issue in relation to the film? . . dave souza, talk 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote is on p. 297 of his book, Gray's Anatomy, aimed specifically at Dawkins' defense of atheism. The essay comprises Chap. 23, from pp. 292-305 (incomplete online). I'm quite certain it does not discuss the issue in relation to the film. The book was reviewed by The Guardian. Yopienso (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Of the links I put up this one probably has the most secondary sources responding to the film on the issue of Darwin and Hitler. http://www.ncseexposed.org/#hitler to quote from the first link on that page of links,"Connecting Hitler and Darwin" at http://www.discovery.org/a/4739
 * to the question is there a link between Darwin and Hitler ?
 * "Yes obviously is the answer of the historical record and common sense."
 * and further on
 * "The view that we may consider the sources of Nazi ideology in every context except those most relevant to its formation is rich, fruity, stupid and preposterous. It is for this reason repeated with solemn incomprehension at the website 'Expelled Exposed'."

All I think that should be included in the article is a small quote from Hitler. I had no idea of the level of denial that was happening in the wider community when I proposed this.Timh2007 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim is being made by intelligent design creationist self-published websites! These are not reliable sources. Got a mainstream reliable secondary source commenting on these claims? . .  dave souza, talk 19:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Richards on Mein Kampf etc.

 * Robert J. Richards writes, "The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title [Was Hitler a Darwinian?] is a very loud and unequivocal No!" (He does see some tangles with Haeckel and "social Darwinism.") Yopienso (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yopienso, interesting reading. . dave souza, talk 19:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To get back to the point, I just want to quote Hitler. Not some secondary source, which anyone can dispute as reliable / not reliable. Depending on their bias. It occurs to me that no one has claimed that the quote of Hitler in no way links Evolution and Nazism. The reason for this is obvious. The assertion of the movie, that the link between Darwinism and Nazism is easily seen in Mein Kamph, is plainly true. To anyone who will read it.Timh2007 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOR – your proposals are against wikipedia policy, please find another place to publish your opinions. . dave souza, talk 19:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish to publish Hitler's Opinions, not mine. This is in accord with wikipedia policy. To quote from the actual policy WP:NOR "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. " The example that follows is direct quotation without commentary. Precisely what I propose.Timh2007 (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hitler didn't express any opinion about this movie, obviously. And quoting Hitler in this article if the movie didn't use the same quotation you propose, isn't appropriate either.
 * That said, I wouldn't object to a Hitler quote appearing in an explanatory footnote, but I cannot see how it would possibly belong in the body of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "I wish to publish Hitler's Opinions, not mine."
 * But it's your decision to quote him in the first place. You're the one who's determining that his quote is relevant, and deciding what exactly to quote. That's original research. WP is not about that. We don't write the articles. We let the sources, (secondary sources) write the articles and we act merely as middle men to facilitate that.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, an explanatory footnote may be a good idea, as long as it's clear it's not from the movie or any review of the movie. If there's consensus for that, I would suggest quoting Gray on "vulgarized Darwinism," since the vulgarization--unscientific appropriation by non-professionals--is the crux of the matter. Evolutionists are careful to protect Darwin's legacy from blame for later extrapolations. Mein Kampf twice mentions the "process of evolution" that demonstrates Hitler's synthesis of Darwin's theory, although he does not name Darwin. (See the 6th and 7th pages listed here.) Yopienso (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, the 7th example isn't really about Darwinism, but the 8th is based on it. Yopienso (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yopienso, the search is for "völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind" which seems to refer to the anti-evolutionary concept of primordialism. When I go to that link there's nothing about a "process of evolution", and p. 30 of the Richards piece says the book does not use any word that obviously refers to evolutionary theory. Richards notes that "Weikart has played a sly trick. He generally translates the common German term “Entwicklung” as “evolution,” though the usual meaning and ordinary translation would be “development.” . . . for example, when [Hitler wrote] about “industrial development” (industrielle Entwicklung)." Richards does mention Expelled briefly, so we can use that article as a source both for Berlinski's statement in the film and as an expert mainstream view that Berlinki's claim is wrong. We should not go beyond that into discussing the detail of Weikart's books. . . dave souza, talk 08:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. That link works fine for me, but try this one. Here's the quote from the 1939 translation, so there's no Weikart trick:The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all. I will defer to Richards, even if I think he may be mistaken. (Weikart and Berlinski are probably more proficient in German than he is. But I'm far more likely than Richards to be mistaken.)
 * The "völkisch concept" is here; if you go on to the next page, you'll find "folk concept."
 * Notice that Richards, on p. 2, concedes Gray and Hannah Arendt attribute some of Hitler's ideas to Darwinism. Footnote 5 cites to Gray's essay in the Guardian. Note 7 shows that many scholars see a connection between social Darwinism and fascism/national socialism. This is what constitutes much of the "vulgarization" sometimes taken as proof of the evil fruits of Darwinism.
 * Just between you and me, I think Hitler eclectically latched onto and developed (or degraded) any line of thought that caught his fancy, including both Darwinism and anti-Darwinism, oblivious to contradictions. I agree with tight parameters on discussion in the article and with citing to Richards. Yopienso (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue of the translation used by Weikart is given some detailed coverage in this essay, in which Hector Avalos comments on Expelled. He notes Weikart's translation of Hoeherentwicklung as "higher evolution", but that German term has also been used to describe the 18th century ideas of Johann Gottfried Herder which influenced Hitler, so obviously a concept introduced long before Darwin.
 * You're quoting from a paragraph which argues against race mixing, a concept which Gobineau influentially published a few years before Darwin first published about evolution. See Richards p. 17 onwards.
 * The trouble is that the term Darwinism has been used for a wide range of ideas, some of which contradicted Darwin's writings and concepts. Social Darwinism as a common term dates from 1944, so its relationship to the 1930s is retrospective. . dave souza, talk 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful comments. Yes, that's the trouble with the term "Darwinism." It doesn't matter that "Social Darwinism as a common term dates [only] from 1944," because the concept, and even the term, though not in common use, existed long before.
 * Back to the article, what do you think about the explanatory footnote Amatulić mentioned? Consensus, I'm sure, will be either to add nothing or to relegate a Hitler quote to such a note. I'm fine with either; we need a few more voices on this. Yopienso (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "social Darwinism" has [almost] always been used to denigrate views, and has also been applied to a wide range of concepts so isn't very meaningful.
 * More views will be good, the Richards and Avalos sources would be enough to add something in context. They show that simply quoting Hitler, especially in translation, is often misleading. . dave souza, talk 07:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Hitler, since WWII it's [almost] always been a pejorative, but social Darwinism was championed by Spencer and embraced by capitalists in the late 19th century. A couple of years ago I took a class using this textbook, which I actually have a low opinion of, but is nonetheless touted by the publisher as "balanced, mainstream, beautifully written, and totally up-to-date." (2006 edition by experts John Lie and Robert Brym. Page 12 briefly introduces social Darwinism. (Start on p. 11.) Page 12 gets into "theories," which I would call "hypotheses." Sociologists form theories first and then do research!
 * Calling all page-watchers! What should be added wrt Hitler and Darwinism? Yopienso (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A minor side issue, but as p. 12 says, Spencer's ideas were "later called social Darwinism" – it's a label applied post 1944. Spencer's publication of evolutionary ideas predated Darwin's, and had a Lamarckian concept of "struggle for existence" leading to self-improvement. American businessmen defending laissez-faire rarely if ever mentioned Darwin, and "much more commonly invoked religion, the common good, Horatio Alger mythology, the American republican tradition, and even, if less frequently, classical political economy." . . dave souza, talk 08:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see that a case has been made for adding anything to the page. Keep to the status quo.--Charles (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been concerned about apparent civil POV pushing. Fortunately, the latest posts seem to trend away from undue weight for the message of this movie, which I regard as a propaganda film. -- Overjive (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to Casey Luskin
This edit introduced assertions about the NCSE statements that ID is not science, taking Casey Luskin as a source for saying that "ntelligent Design proponents reject such claims" and his 2008 assertion, unrelated to the film, that scientists "… construct testable predictions about the type of informational properties we expect to find in nature if an intelligent agent were at work in designing a natural object". This is blatantly false, as shown by the continued failure of ID proponents to conduct such research, and as discussed in more detail by the NCSE . We should not give undue weight to these self-published ID meanderings, which I've removed. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit comment was "first link just makes vague assertion, second has no mention of film, undue weight". This is misleading.  The first link says, "Other articles that refute many of the false claims about ID in "Expelled Exposed" are found at some of the following links:", and one of those links is the second link.  That is, the first link points to the second link as the answer to the criticism.  Because of that, the first link cannot reasonable be described as "vague assertion", and that the second doesn't mention the film is irrelevant given that the first offers it as a response to criticism of the film.  This is why I included the response in the first place, and also why I'm reinstating it.  If it helps, I'll put the two references together rather than separate them, which could have given the unintended impression of two distinct points.
 * Your claim that "This is blatantly false, as shown by the continued failure of ID proponents to conduct such research, and as discussed in more detail by the NCSE" is your opinion, and, in my opinion (seeing you seem to think that contributor opinions count), is shown to be false by the link I provided (not to mention other reasons).
 * Your further claim that "We should not give undue weight to these self-published ID meanderings, which I've removed." is special pleading. Apparently we are supposed to give undue weight to self-published anti-ID meanderings (i.e. NCSE, which was not set up to promote science education per se, but to oppose criticism of evolution (unless, of course, you falsely conflate those two things)), but not ID meanderings.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:GEVAL, your presentation unduly legitimises Luskin's fringe claims which come from a source with a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The NCSE is recognised as a good quality source for scientific views on this topic. Yes, Luskin says ID proponents have put forward arguments, and links to his own writings, but essentially all that says is that irreducible complexity and specified complexity are scientifc; they've failed to show that, so his writings are at best misleading. So, have removed it again, please stop trying to give undue weight to these fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Luskin's fringe claims which come from a source with a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy." "Fringe" and "poor" according to evolutionists. Many others would disagree with you.
 * "The NCSE is recognised as a good quality source..." By evolutionists.  Many others would disagree.
 * "...Luskin says ID proponents have put forward arguments, and links to his own writings..." You mean like evolutionists also put forward argument and link to their own writings? Aren't you engaging in a double standard here?
 * "...essentially all that says is that irreducible complexity and specified complexity are scientifc; they've failed to show that..." Nonsense.  He's said more than that, such as the bit I quoted in the article about the ability to make predictions that you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist.
 * "...so his writings are at best misleading." Given that you've misrepresented him, it is your comments that are misleading.
 * "...please stop trying to give undue weight to these fringe views" Please stop trying to censor views that you don't agree with, that are "fringe" only by self-serving evolutionist definition.
 * If I haven't made it clear already, your comment is heavily-laden with value judgments about the veracity of the different arguments.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reality does have an anti-nonsense bias. ID is not science, and that is widely realised by the scientific community, by most Christians, and by the US court system. You are constructing an artificial symmetry where there is none. Yes, NCSE is a reliable source (and has been at WP:RS/N). No, the various ID/Creationism groups are not reliable sources for scientific topics - at best, they can be used as primary sources about themselves. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment adds nothing. Of course reality has an anti-nonsense bias: but which is the nonsense and which is the reality?  That comment says nothing.  Your link to WP:RS/N doesn't mention the NCSE (I'm not suggesting that it hasn't been mentioned, but you need to post a link to the actual page if you expect me to read it).  Beyond that, your comment is just your pro-evolutionary POV, and as such is off topic and therefore irrelevant to discussion of what goes into this article.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/N has a very convenient search function that will show you that the NCSE has been discussed several times, e.g. here, explicitly with reference to 'Expelled'. And you still fail to see that "NPOV" does not mean "no point of view", but "Neutral Point of View" - and the neutral point is indeed that ID has been overwhelmingly rejected as nonsense and evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as one of the most profound and best supported scientific theories we have. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That the NCSE has been "discussed" several times is beside the point. That discussion had various claims that it was reliable, as well as claims that it not be considered an appropriate source.  This includes, for example, one person who agrees with their position conceding that "they are not an unbiased source as to the issue of how supporters of creationism are treated in the scientific community".  So the discussion fails to substantiate your previous unequivocal claim.
 * "And you still fail to see that "NPOV" does not mean "no point of view", but "Neutral Point of View" " Huh?  What gives you that idea?  How about sticking to the topic instead of inventing claim about what you (erroneously) think I believe?
 * "...ID has been overwhelmingly rejected as nonsense and evolution is overwhelmingly accepted..." "overwhelmingly" is weasel-wording, but ignoring that point, I reject your assertion.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip J. Rayment, your rejection of NPOV policy in trying to give undue weight to ID views is directly contrary to WP:PSCI policy: see WP:FRINGE/PS for arbcom agreed procedure on identifying pseudoscience such as ID. You may sympathise with ID as a theological viewpoint, but articles must be clear in not giving its scientific pretensions undue weight and must clearly show it as pseudoscience, making clear how it has been received by scientists. The NCSE is an excellent source for showing the latter. . . dave souza, talk 17:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What rejection of NPOV policy? You've not shown that I do reject it.
 * You claim that I'm giving "undue weight" to ID. But I'm not.  I'm simply wanting the article to be about the movie rather than an attack on the movie and ID, and I'm saying that as it stands, it violates WP:3PARTY.
 * WP:PSCI does not mention ID; it is a general statement about weight given to fringe ideas and pseudoscience, but does not itself define those two categories; it relies on WP:FRINGE/PS for that.
 * WP:FRINGE/PS, as you said, has a "procedure for identifying pseudoscience". "Such as ID" is your addition, as the section doesn't mention ID.  It starts with "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific...".  So we are back to "reliable sources", which are defined as uninvolved third parties, thus, in this case, ruling out the likes of NCSE.  The page then goes on to list three things which can be labelled pseudoscience and one that shouldn't be.  The first, "Obvious pseudoscience" clearly doesn't apply.  The second, "Generally considered pseudoscience" may be the one you would wish to apply, but I reject it on the grounds that it has not been shown that ID is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community".  "Generally" is a weasel word, and there are a lot of scientists (a minority, sure, but still a lot) that do not consider it pseudoscience.  The third is "Questionable science", but for this one, the page is talking about how something is labelled.  It says that "Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point."  This probably describes ID pretty accurately, given the bit about "which some critics allege to be pseudoscience".  However, the fourth one, an example of something that is not pseudoscience, also fits: "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.".  ID is supported within the scientific community, no matter how much critics pretend otherwise.
 * You are wrong to suggest that I sympathise with ID as theological viewpoint, for two reasons. One, contrary to the incessant harping of critics, ID is not a theological viewpoint.  It is a scientific study of the evidence.  ID proponents have repeatedly pointed out in no uncertain terms that, regardless of their personal views on the matter, ID itself is not theological, but scientific.  That critics claim that ID is theological/religious simply because many of it's proponents are, makes as much sense as saying that evolution is atheistic simply because many of its proponents are atheists.  Two, I'm a creationist, not an IDer, specifically because I don't agree with their approach of leaving God out of the argument.
 * So, in summary, your objection appears to be on the grounds that in your opinion ID is pseudoscience and/or fringe, and on that basis you make false claims about me, and in the process, avoid the question that the NCSE and the like does not meet the requirements for WP:3PARTY.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Creationism and its various strands are mentioned a few times in the WP:FRINGE guidelines: "Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology (as is common among Biblical creationists)" and: "Creation Science – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia."

ID is a subset of Creationism (See Intelligent_design). Moving on: "ID is supported within the scientific community, no matter how much critics pretend otherwise." It is a very, very fringe position among the scientific community, and especially among the relevant fields. Note that "fringe" doesn't mean that no scientists support it, just that it is "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". I am not going to comment on the rest, as that is going too far into WP:FORUM. But you are going to get exactly nowhere by trying to argue that ID is not classified as a pseudo-science on Wikipedia. If you truly wish, you may bring in third party arbitration, but I think it's very unlikely that they will rule that ID is not pseudo-science.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, creationism is mentioned (with some false claims) a few times, but we are talking about ID here, not creationism. Your first quote has "Biblical creationists" linked, and that article describes it as something that "attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis".  ID doesn't fit that description, as it is explicitly non-religious.
 * Your next quote refers to the alleged views of the "overwhelming majority of scientists". I've already pointed out on this page that "overwhelming" is a weasel word, and reject that the claim is true. Nobody has shown I'm wrong.  Not to mention, of course, that the quote is referring to notability, not reliability.  Despite me already raising this, you go further with unsubstantiated claims, alleging that "It is a very, very fringe position among the scientific community, and especially among the relevant fields."  I want to see hard evidence of this, in terms of actual numbers of scientists, not opinions of critics and not statements by organisations that do not provide information on how many of their members agree.
 * ID is emphatically not a subset of creationism, and is only claimed to be by its critics, and not even all of them. I could explain why your link doesn't prove what you claim it does, but that would be going too far off topic.
 * "you are going to get exactly nowhere by trying to argue that ID is not classified as a pseudo-science on Wikipedia." Only I'm not (primarily) arguing that.  I'm arguing that groups such as the NCSE don't qualify as WP:3PARTY.  Why does everyone keep dodging that point?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip J. Rayment, your claims that ID is not a rebranding of creation science indicate that you lack knowledge about the topic. I suggest that for a start you should study the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District judgement as a useful third party overview.
 * As for WP:3PARTY, it's an essay and does not override the policies that you've been repeatedly reminded about. . dave souza, talk
 * It is not a lack of knowledge that is the issue: the issue is that the claims that ID is a form of creationism are simply wrong, not supported by creationists, ID supporters, some evolutionists, nor the evidence.
 * As for WP:3PARTY, I'll respond to that point in a section below where you repeat the claim.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cdesign proponentsists. . . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said just above (albeit about a different link), "I could explain why your link doesn't prove what you claim it does, but that would be going too far off topic." Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave souza, Philip J. Rayment has no lack of knowledge in this area. Have you read the book: Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision? The book is useful to form a non-biased opinion. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the US evolution debate really cracks me up. I just cannot tell if you are trying to pull a parody here, or if you are serious. The book is published by Discovery Institute Press, and two of the authors are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. It's hard to imagine something more biased. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now Stephan, it's not a question of whether it's biased, it's a question of what weight should be given to pseudoscientific fringe views in a publication lacking any good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Which the DI consistently fails. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And you really believe the judge who tried the case was not completely biased? That naive ... Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise you found the book I pointed biased, this trial judge was biased also. So your suggestion that this trial would serve as a useful third party overview does not apply. Now, you and your friend told that the book is biased, but I do not recall hearing that you or your friend read the book. This is how it is to be impartial? I do not understand this way. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite likely that Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by Bush-II, was somewhat biased. But he managed to overcome his bias. No, I have not read the book in question - I have about 50 good books on my to-read stack. But then I never had a root canal either, and still know that it is a rather unpleasant procedure. I have, however, read the Kitzmiller vs. Dover  decision - have you? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. I read both. If you read only good books you know only one side of the question. I read both good, bad and ugly books/texts (like Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision). Regarding your root canal, it is an Ignoratio elenchi fallacy. An argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. I considered the book enjoyable but, like you, I think root canal is a rather unpleasant procedure. So, one thing has nothing to do with the other. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "The book is published by Discovery Institute Press, and two of the authors are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. It's hard to imagine something more biased." Except, perhaps, something published by the NCSE?  What makes people on one side of the issued biased but not people on the other side?  That you agree with one side but not the other?  And as for Ricardo's comment "The book is useful to form a non-biased opinion.", did you stop to think that he might not have been saying that it was unbiased, but that in order to form an unbiased opinion you should look at both sides of the issue?
 * "...any good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Which the DI consistently fails." Actually, Dave, I'd like to see some evidence of that.  That is, evidence of a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" with the NCSE or lack thereof for the DI.  Because this sounds very much like a euphemism for "the majority agree with this side and not that side, so this side must have a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy".  Further, what does it mean to have "a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy" when someone is shown to get facts wrong, like Judge Jones?  Does that disqualify them, or does an unwarranted reputation by people who want to agree with him count more?  One final question for this paragraph: is Dave going to bother answering this, given that he's failed to answer so many other things?
 * Regarding Judge Jones' bias, his defenders point to his background (church, who he was appointed by, etc.) and his critics point to comments he made in and around the trial. The former only tend to suggest what sort of bias one might possibly expect.  The latter shows what sort of bias he actually turned out to have.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the second shows what a careful observer will conclude from the evidence. That is not bias, that is reason. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's simply rhetoric, but perhaps you misunderstood. I'm not talking about his decision per se.  I'm talking about comments such as the one that he "had a fervent hope that ... the opinion ... could serve as a primer for school boards and other people who were considering this.", which might suggest that he was doing more than simply trying this case.  I'm not wanting to get into that discussion; I'm merely pointing out that such comments might indicate a bias that actually exists, as opposed to one you might expect from his background.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeap, Philip J. Rayment got exactly the point: "to form an unbiased opinion you should look at both sides of the issue". I do not particularly believe in non-biased opinion. We have our worldviews and they influence how we look at each question. But I believe that if someone wants the truth should become aware of both sides of the issue. So it may be that at some point, someone question his own worldview and change...or not. I'll give an example of bias in Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision: We read in the text of the decision: "NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.” Now let's contrast this with the NAS publication "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science", You can see in page 18 that the Rodhocetus tail was designed as a fluked tail like whales. But they were wrong. Dr. Philip Gingerich stated in an interview for the video series "Evolution: The Grand Experiment," conducted on 28 August 2001 that: “I speculated that it might have had a fluke, I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail." (Dr. Philip Gingerich)” We observe that the drawnings of the NAS book don't came from confirmable data, observations and experiments, Anything that can be observed or measured or empirical evidence. By its very definition, one must concede that this is definitely not science, although treated as if it were. I call this bias. What different name someone here could give for this? Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A mere fluke: the 1998 book makes no such textual reference, though flukes are shown in its illustration the text says "A later fossil in the series from Pakistan shows an animal with smaller functional hind limbs and even greater back flexibility. This species, Rodhocetus, probably did not venture onto land very often, if at all." The illustration appears to represent current thought on the issue, as confirmed by the later quote you give from Gingerich. Science moves on, sometimes quite quickly. Unlike ID creationism which keeps rehashing the same old accusations. . dave souza, talk 04:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Scientific results are always tentative - that's the very nature of science. That does not mean that many scientific theories are not extremely well supported, or that we cannot very high confidence in them. As Gould put it: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". And you completely misunderstand  the situation.  The Rodhocetus fossils were observable and yield confirmable data. Gingerich did the observations, came to a hypothesis about how to interpret the data, published it, others rechecked the data, disagreed, and a new (still tentative) consensus emerged. I'm fairly sure that neither NAS nor Gingerich ever elevated the "fluke" to the status of "scientific fact" - and if they did, that would just show that humans are fallible. Science is not a collection of individual 'facts', science is a framework and a set of methods for creating increasingly better theories about the physical universe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact remains, though, that Mesonychids evolving into Ambulocetus into Rodhocetus into Basilosaurus is not something that has been observed or measured by empirical evidence. Rather, that is an interpretation of the evidence made within the evolutionary framework.  Evolution is a framework, not a fact, in which mainstream scientists attempt to interpret facts to build a history of life on Earth.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unlike ID creationism which keeps rehashing the same old accusations." You mean like evolutionists rehash the same old accusation that ID is creationism?  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not even wrong. You don't "measure by empirical evidence". A measurement is (part of) the empirical evidence. Assuming you mean that there is no empirical evidence that supports the evolution of whales, that is wrong, as well. There is plenty. It's not entirely conclusive in every detail, but that's why science is an ongoing project, not a finished product. Note that evolution is something we (well, originally Darwin and Wallace) came up with via the scientific method, not something we started with. Of course, now that evolution is well-supported and generally accepted, it is, like any other established theory, used to guide and interpret current research. That's what the whole standing on the shoulders of giants is about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my poor wording. I was referring to the wording that Ricardo had put in bold, above, but not wanting to repeat it all, I attempted to cut it down to a briefer version.  That's all.
 * No, I didn't mean that there is no empirical evidence supporting the evolution of whales, which statement is too broad for me to agree to. There is empirical evidence of different creatures that can be interpreted as being due to evolution, but not empirical evidence of the evolution—the actual change—itself, because the actual (alleged) change took place in the distant past where there was no-one to observe it.  And no, evolution from a common ancestor is not something that people came up with via the scientific method.  Darwin observed that the evidence didn't fit the then-accepted (and unbiblical) idea of a fixity of species, so concluded that creatures do change.  That that change is (effectively) unlimited so that all living things can be traced back to a common ancestor is an extrapolation of that idea that is contrary to the evidence.  Of course, that could start a whole new discussion that is off-topic for this page, so I suggest that we leave that there.  You have made your assertion, I have countered with mine.
 * I do question, however, just how "generally accepted" evolution is. I'm not saying it's not well accepted; I'm saying that the claim is usually vastly overstated.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip, you seem to be confused about scientific method and about the evidence, and rather poorly informed about Darwin. Biological evolution (and stellar evolution) are universally accepted in science which is the majority view we must give due weight to in this article. We also show the creation science and theistic science claims of ID proponents where relevant, in the majority view context. . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not confused about the scientific method and the evidence, nor am I rather poorly informed about Darwin. Rather, you are poorly informed to think that biological and stellar evolution are universally accepted in science.  I'm not disputing that biological and stellar evolution are the majority view; I'm disputing the size of that majority, and therefore the universality of it.
 * What is not clear is why the claims of creationists and IDers are to be given "in the majority view context" when the context is the claims of the creationists or IDers. Not allowing creationist views to dominate in the article about evolution is one thing.  But allowing the evolutionary view to dominate in an article about ID is a different thing entirely.
 * And how about all my other comments and questions that you are yet to answer? Why do you keep avoiding them?  No good answers?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip, "allowing the evolutionary view to dominate in an article about ID" is perhaps better phrased as "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." As for your attempts at irrelevant debate, see WP:NOTAFORUM. . dave souza, talk 13:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that rule. But what is "appropriate reference"?  Countering as many points as you can?  That seems to be your position, and that is not contained in the rule you quoted.
 * So if you make claims on this page, and I question those claims or ask you to justify them, then suddenly I am attempting "irrelevant debate", so you can avoid having to support your claims. That's nothing but a cop-out.  Be a man and respond properly.  Or are your assertions automatically correct because you are infallible?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave, what I said is much simpler than that: NAS publication showed a fluked tail when the skeleton found had no tail. There was no plea to put that kind of tail on the drawing. Period. This is not science. It's another thing: or is amateurism, or bias, or fraud or bad faith. I chose the least severe: bias. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Science continues .. but I answer you a question: Where is the ISBN of the publication of the NAS that repairs the factual errors in their publication of 1998? They fixed their mistake to the American public? Distributed new versions of this book? Where they are different from National Geographic which published a cover article with Archaeoraptor and retracted in a tiny footnote? Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What specific improvements to the article are you proposing on the basis of the NAS source, and have you a source specifically relating this to the topic of the article? Otherwise this looks like original research or trolling on your part. . dave souza, talk 15:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply told that Philip J. Rayment had no lack of knowledge in this area. The discussion followed. But, regarding to the improvements to the article, I disagree with the remove of the text: "(he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology [44])". The source was the Washington Post and clearly stated that he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology. 186.213.156.214 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC) (I apologize, I forgot to login. now I am leaving my signature) Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BSW and editorial review
I've altered the following line from the article to include a direct quote:
 * "The Council of the Biological Society of Washington has stated that Sternberg circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process to include the controversial paper."

That wording is different to the BSW's official statement ("Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process") in several seemingly-subtle but nevertheless important ways: My point in explaining this is not to argue for or against Sternberg, but to point out how the sentence in the article differed from the statement and thereby justify why I'm replacing part of the sentence with a verbatim quote.
 * The statement did not use the word "circumvented" or any equivalent. That implies that Sternberg deliberately got around the rules.  Rather, the statement indicates that he simply failed to follow normal procedure.
 * The statement did not refer to "the journals's" processes, but to "typical editorial practices". Sternberg has denied that he failed to follow the particular practices in place at that journal at that time, and the BSW statement does not contradict him on that.
 * The impression is given—and was widely claimed—that Sternberg did not get the paper peer-reviewed. There is evidence that he did, and no evidence (that I know of) that he didn't, and, importantly, the BSW does not claim that it was not peer-reviewed.  Rather, the statement refers to no review "by any associate editor", adding that "Sternberg handled the entire review process".  In other words, the problem was not a lack of peer review, but that Sternberg as the senior editor handled the peer-review process rather than delegate it to an associate editor.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation by Harizotoh9
Harizotoh9 has twice reverted edits I made, the first without supplying any reason (the edit comment was simply "reverting"), and the second by misrepresenting me. The second edit comment was "You can't just remove references and information critical to the film because you don't like it. Reverting.". This implication that I removed material just "because I don't like it" is false and Harizotoh9 should have known it was false, as I gave reasons for my edits in the edit comments, specifically (for most) that the material was in violation of WP:RS, particularly WP:3PARTY. I have previously pointed out this problem, but nothing was done about it then, so I'm fixing it now.

Further, one of my edits reverted by Harizotoh9 was added material. Can I similarly accuse him of removing material because he doesn't like it? I won't, as I suspect it was more a case of looking carefully enough at what I had done.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm disregarding your complaint about Harizotoh (this is the wrong venue for such complaints); I disagree with your claim that the removed content violates any policy. Please explain your rationale for why the content violates policy. I also suggest you consider the possibility that the reason "nothing was done" when you "pointed out" the issue previously is simply that no one thought anything needed to be done, also disagreeing with your assertions. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) KillerChihuahua has also reverted, saying "Disagree with assertion on talk. Win consensus for your change, please, cease edit warring for it.". Okay, so you disagree.  But given that I have provided reasons, of what value is your mere assertion of disagreement?  As for winning consensus, I've already mentioned raising this issue before.  At that time, I got agreement.  Admittedly only two people responded, but one of those two—who disagrees with my views—agreed that I had a valid point.  Besides, why do I need to get agreement on deleting something that is clearly a violation of WP policy?  So instead of pretending that I'm being unreasonable, how about explaining why you believe I'm wrong?  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is "clearly a violation of WP policy", in fact I believe I made it clear I see no policy violation at all. If you see one, please clarify, as you have been asked to do. The onus is on the person wishing to make the change to persuade and convince. You want a change; convince me. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict again) It was not simply a complaint about Harizotah9, but a rationale for why his reversion was unjustified. That is, apart from falsely presuming something about my reasons, he had provided no justification for reverting my edits.


 * I have already explained my rationale, but I'll mention it again: WP:3PARTY says that


 * Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in...


 * The NCSE is not such an independent party, as they are, to use the words of the article, "one of the groups discussed in the film". It is not "a story that they are not involved in".


 * The problem with your suggestion that nothing was done because nobody thought it needed to be done (a) ignores that another editor agreed that I had a valid point, and (b) ignores that only one other editor disagreed with me. That is, nobody except that one editor took issue with my argument.  Following your suggestion, I would suggest that it's because nobody wanted to do anything, as it suited their POV to leave it in.


 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your accusations of POV against your fellow editors is not helpful. Your cherry picking of policy is not convincing to me; we base an article on secondary sources as much as possible, however we use individuals and groups as sources for their own views quite often; they are acceptable sources for such content. We must not interpret them, but we can use them. Please see WP:PSTS for details (this is a policy, not RS, which is a guideline.) I cite at length; from RS: Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. and from NOR: Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense... Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them In other words, yes we can use primary sources. We use them for quotes and official positions, and do not try to reword or interpret them. Since the contested content is nothing but a quote, this is perfectly acceptable and well within policy. Scott is a highly regarded scientist and her opinion is included per WEIGHT. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "If you see one, please clarify, as you have been asked to do." No need to be impatient.  I clearly marked my previous comment as having an edit conflict; that comment was not a reply to your request for an explanation.  My next reply was that.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you took my patient repetition of an unanswered question for impatience. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Your accusations of POV against your fellow editors is not helpful." You mean things like "You can't just remove references and information critical to the film because you don't like it", "And you still fail to see that "NPOV" does not mean "no point of view"," your rejection of NPOV policy in trying to give undue weight to ID views is directly contrary to WP:PSCI policy", and "Your cherry picking of policy"?   No, wait... that can't be it—they were accusations against me!  Oh, I see.  It's okay to accuse me of various things, but not okay for me to accuse others.  I'm glad I got that straight.  Of course POV-pushing it not helpful either, is it?
 * I'm not clear on what you are getting at with your quotes from WP:RS and WP:NOR. You point out that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources, then go on to say that primary sources such as the NCSE are okay.  But the NCSE is not a primary source for this topic, and all this avoids the issue of the NCSE not being an independent party.  Further, I don't know what you are talking about when you say that "the contested content is nothing but a quote"—The contested content is several different sentences and paragraphs which includes quotes, but is by no means all quotes, let alone a single one.
 * Scott is highly regarded by evolutionists, not by all.
 * I don't want to get sidetracked, but I would have thought that patience in this environment would mean waiting more than 20 minutes before repeating a question. I apologise for not appreciating how long a time 20 minutes is.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So the Discovery Institute and its members, mentioned multiple times in the article, are OK, but NSCE and its members are not? Olin (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The DI is an acceptable source for their views and positions, and the NCSE is an acceptable source for their views and positions. Primary sources are fine for such usage. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that the NCSE is an acceptable source for their views. That is not the issue.  This article is not about their views, but about a film.  The question is whether the NCSE is an acceptable source for information about the film, for which they are not an independent third party.  Note that I did not delete NCSE's comments on their involvement with the film—for that, they are a primary source; I deleted their criticisms of the film and ID, for which they are not an independent third party.
 * Olin essentially claims that I'm being unfair in wanting/having DI views but not (opposing) NSCE views. That's rich, given that critics of the film (of which the NCSE is only one) already get considerably more space in the article than the film itself and those involved with it.  This is supposed to be an article about the film, not about what's wrong with it.
 * Before I deleted the NCSE-sourced material, I tried adding responses from ID people, but dave souza objected (see section above Undue weight to Casey Luskin) as he claimed that they were being given too much weight (even though the film is more about their views than the NCSE's views). Yet now the two of you imply that having the DI's views is okay.  So which is it?  Are both okay for their respective views, or is only the NCSE's views acceptable to mention?  I think that the NCSE's views (other than of their involvement) are a violation of WP:3PARTY given that the article is not about their views and is about something that they are not an independent third party for, but I'm prepared to go along with their views being put if the DI responses to their views can also be put.
 * I also note, KillerChihuahua, that you've ignored essentially all of my previous reply. Can I assume that's because you don't dispute it?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip J. Rayment, first note that WP:3PARTY is an essay, not even a guideline. The fact that mainstream organisations are disparaged in the film does not stop them from being accepted and valid sources on the topic.
 * WP:WEIGHT is policy requiring that pages about a "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.",
 * WP:GEVAL is policy requiring that "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."
 * The NCSE is a good source for the clear majority viewpoint and established scholarship about ID. Casey Luskin has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy, his views should not be presented as though they have equal validity to majority scientific views. . . dave souza, talk 07:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:3PARTY is an essay, not even a guideline. It is, however, linked from not just a guideline, but a policy, the Verifiability policy, which states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources...".  So even if you want to dispute the specific description of a third party, the policy does say that the source needs to be a third party.
 * "The fact that mainstream organisations are disparaged in the film does not stop them from being accepted and valid sources on the topic." Given that they are no longer a "third party", why not?  Especially in the case of the NCSE which was never a neutral party in the first place, being set up specifically as an advocacy group for a particular view.
 * In this, you are still avoiding the main issue, which is not, for example, that I'm disputing that the article "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". I have never indicated that the majority viewpoint should not be mentioned—i.e. have a "appropriate reference".  I'm saying that criticisms of the arguments made in the film by groups who are not independent (neutral) third parties should not be allowed to dominate an article about the film, thereby turning it into an article about what's wrong with the film.
 * Similarly, I'm not expecting WP to "legitimize" the film or it's claims. So that comment is also missing the point.
 * But yet again, you repeat your personal opinion on the validity of the NCSE as a good source as though it was self-evident fact. Repeating an assertion does not make it true, and I've already pointed out that it is only evolutionists who think this of the NCSE.  Further, you impugn the integrity of Casey Luskin without providing any evidence of his alleged failings, other than to link to a section of an article with a blatant falsehood (given that the "scientific community" is not all on the same side on this issue).
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Evolutionists" is not a term generally used. Repeating it does not change that. It happens that support for evolution coincides to an amazingly strong degree with expertise in the topic. Your argument is equivalent to "only computer scientists believe that 3-SAT is NP-hard" - which is largely true, but does not justify any doubt about the Association for Computing Machinery, the Association for Automated Reasoning or the American Association for Artificial Intelligence as sources "because they are all made up of computer scientists". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How frequently the word "evolutionists" is used is irrelevant. I'm not repeating the word so much as the point, which everyone keeps avoiding.
 * "It happens that support for evolution coincides to an amazingly strong degree with expertise in the topic." Evidence?
 * Your analogy with computer scientists is, I would think, wrong, because I expect that there is not a significant body of computer scientists who reject that view, and because, I expect, those associations were not set up with the express purpose of advocating that particular view.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. Given that "Evolutionists" is not generally used, it does not have a clear meaning. Thus, your argument (if you have one) is not clearly stated. Please clarify it. Are "evolutionists" people who support the theory of evolution? People who "believe" in it? People who work in the field and contribute to it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim is nonsense. It's used frequently enough to be described in dictionaries, and has no greater a semantic range than many other terms, including "evolution" itself.  Further, your scare quotes around "believe" suggest that you don't understand the meaning of that word; again, see a dictionary, not to mention my user page.  For more, see here. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to intrude again, but the point of a talk page is how edits improve the article, and the point of this section is how your deletion affects the quality of it. Further, there appears to be nothing that has been presented to discredit NCSE, either in its stances or by WP policy. Olin (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I know the point of this section, given that I started it, and and the point was not my deletions, but the unexplained reversions by another editor. I'm not trying to "discredit" the NCSE per se, but to point out how it is not appropriate to include their views in this article (in most cases) because they are not a neutral third party, and that is according to WP policy, as I have already pointed out above.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The NCSE views are not only appropriate, they're required by NPOV policy. . . dave souza, talk 09:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you say so? Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's spelt out extensively above. Your claims that we should exclude mainstream views appear to be your own tendentious view, only supported by your say-so. . . dave souza, talk 13:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There have been a lot of things "spelt out" above, including assertions that the NCSE is a reliable source because other evolutionists think so. I have pointed out the problem with this, and my responses have gone unanswered, other than by more assertions.  Also, it is false to allege that my claim is supported simply by my say-so.  I have, all along, provided reason (you know, that thing on which good arguments are based) that the NCSE does not fit WP's policy requiring third parties, and that the NCSE is clearly not such an independent third party.  I have explained my rationale, but all I've got in return is dismissal, assertion, distraction (such as a silly claim about the word "evolutionists"), silence (more on that in a moment) and now what is close to name-calling, labelling my views "tendentious" when yours are clearly just as biased if not more so.
 * Regarding "silence", you made a number of assertions in a post above of 07:59, 28 September. I responded point-by-point to each part of your post, refuting some parts and pointing out problems with other parts.  Your response to that?—nothing.  My arguments have gone unanswered, yet you now claim that your case has been "spelt out extensively above" and that my case is supported only on my "say-so".  This is clearly false.
 * Further, you have repeated a straw-man that I have already pointed out is wrong, as I have never said that the article should exclude mainstream views. (My argument has been about the sources quoted.)  If you are unwilling to address my arguments, that's your choice.  But to then pretend that I have no argument and you have is intellectually dishonest.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments here from the peanut gallery.
 * @ Philip: Wrt "It happens that support for evolution coincides to an amazingly strong degree with expertise in the topic." Evidence? I've looked at this argument closely over the past few years from the viewpoint of a Christian layman, and everything I've found by DI fellows starts out with the premise that evolution is missing something, and that "something" is the designer behind it. Their research isn't into transitions or hox genes or disease, etc., but into proving and promulgating a point they already believe. This is maddening to "evolutionists" who are doing research in those fields from the standpoint of a profound confidence that evolution accurately describes reality. They aren't trying to prove evolution or disprove ID, but are doing scientific research. (Richard Sternberg is a maverick who got grudging acceptance from "evolutionists" because he was engaging in actual research. Until he stepped in some doo-doo, of course. Guillermo Gonzalez does real astronomy work, too, when he's not distracted by ID.) The evidence that Stephan's assertion is true is that the literature, written by experts, is overwhelmingly supportive of evolution.
 * @Dave: It seems to me Philip has a point here about the NCSE not being a neutral third party in this case. Representing mainstream science, of course they are a RS for evolution v. creationism. Citing them at the ID article, for example, is utterly appropriate. But, since Eugenie Scott was in this movie and felt duped and misconstrued, NCSE reviews on the movie itself--not to say on the science it attacks--would seem to be reliable only as first-person opinion/reaction and not as neutral criticism. NCSE definitely had an iron in this fire and a score to settle. I would think this applies to all interviewees. That still leaves the AAAS and the surprisingly vitriolic Roger Ebert. Yopienso (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yopienso. On the missing something – it's a duck!. . On articles being based on third party sources, the article is based on multiple third party sources. Including the AAAS; if the flim has a comment attacking the AAAS, do they cease to be a third party? From memory, the DI subsequently attacked Ebert – was he only a third party before the attack? The NCSE is more than Eugenie Scott, she's currently executive director, there are 4 other directors, a president and vice-president. The Expelled Exposed pages aren't credited to any individual member of staff. Third party or not, the NCSE remains an accepted reliable source reporting on the film, and at the very least we can use it as a reliable secondary source. As for "neutral", they meet the WP:WEIGHT requirement of showing the clear majority view on the topic. We also cite the Disco Tute's staff, but have to take care not to give "equal validity" to their fringe views. Slightly offtopic, while looking these sources out found the Globe and Mail's summary: "Ben Stein's pro-creationist doc Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed forgot that God gave us a brain." . . . dave souza, talk 08:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"...everything I've found by DI fellows starts out with the premise that evolution is missing something, and that "something" is the designer behind it." Then I would suggest that you haven't looked too far, as many scientists have come to believe in a designer because of the evidence. For example, co-author of Of Pandas and People, Dean Kenyon, was an evolutionist who changed his mind and came to believe in a designer because of the evidence. Your rose-glasses view that evolutionists "aren't trying to prove evolution or disprove ID, but are doing scientific research." is similarly incorrect.

"(Richard Sternberg is a maverick who got grudging acceptance from "evolutionists" because he was engaging in actual research. Until he stepped in some doo-doo, of course." A very common story.  Creationists and IDers engaged in real science get ostracised when evolutionists learn of their views.  Hardly an advertisement for tolerance of opposing views.

"Guillermo Gonzalez does real astronomy work, too, when he's not distracted by ID" Or even when he's doing ID (which I'm not sure he does, actually, if by "ID" one is referring to evidence of design in living things.  But don't get me started). Yopienso, you are more fair-minded than others here, but even you are still blinded by this nonsense that ID cannot be science, a POV that even Dawkins had to disagree with in this very film.

"The evidence that Stephan's assertion is true is that the literature, written by experts, is overwhelmingly supportive of evolution." Correction: the literature is overwhelmingly written by evolutionists. That is, people who are convinced that evolution is true, as opposed to those who are not so convinced. But many of those creationists and IDers were once trained, practising, evolutionists, so surely they are also "experts"? The point is there are many experts who are not evolutionists, so Stephan's claim that "It happens that support for evolution coincides to an amazingly strong degree with expertise in the topic" is patently false.

And why the scare quotes around "evolutionists"?

"On the missing something – it's a duck!". Straw-man.

"if the flim has a comment attacking the AAAS, do they cease to be a third party?" Why not? Like previous points I've made, I've already asked this question, but it was not answered. If a party ends up on one side of a dispute, how can they not be considered party to the dispute?

"Third party or not, the NCSE remains an accepted reliable source reporting on the film..." Accepted by evolutionists. Why do I have to keep repeating that point? Oh that's right—because it's yet to be refuted. Perhaps you are simply trying to wear me down instead of making a reasoned argument?

"As for "neutral", they meet the WP:WEIGHT requirement..." More assertion. That requirement says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", with "reliable sources" linking to WP:V which says, under the heading of "What counts as a reliable source" that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..." (my emphasis). And "third-party" links to WP:3PARTY which, although an essay, points out the obvious: that "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered...". Further, WP:V adds that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.". Perhaps the NCSE is an appropriate source in some contexts, but in this context, given that it's not an independent, neutral, source, it's not appropriate.

"Slightly offtopic, ... found the Globe and Mail's summary: "Ben Stein's pro-creationist doc Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed forgot that God gave us a brain."". I'm not surprised you like that: it criticises a film that you disagree with, but offers no analysis whatsoever to back it up. Why bother with reason, analysis, or argument when you know you are right?

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * By association with the executive director, NCSE's "Expelled Exposed" is a biased source. So is Shermer's (and possibly Rennie's) response in SciAm. If we were to eliminate those refs, (but still include Eugenie Scott's participation in and reaction to the film) this would be a leaner, better article. If the film had attacked the AAAS, yes, that would have compromised a review by the AAAS as a neutral source.


 * For a clear-eyed explanation of why "ID cannot be science," see this clip from a longer film made before this movie came out.


 * I put "evolutionists" in scare quotes out of deference to others on this page. Here, out of deference to Philip, I'll omit them this time to note there is not a tug-of-war between evolutionists and creationists. Evolutionists represent the mainstream scientist, and creationists are annoying little gadflies, but unlikely to have the wisdom of a Socrates. Yopienso (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with this idea of excluding a "biased source", particularly when the source is biased towards reality as shown in mainstream majority views. As above, policy is clear that we can and should include this as a good quality source. If you've specific ideas for tightening the article, they can be discussed. . dave souza, talk 20:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your position (while holding mine!). Generally, the NCSE, an advocacy group, as Philip points out, is "biased toward reality," if you like that wording. In this case, irrespective of its scientific orientation, it's also biased toward Dr. Scott. Eliminating it would be like a good, solid judge recusing himself from a case in which a COI exists.
 * Had I the time to wade through this way-too-long article, I would trim out a great deal, leaving the basics: what the film presented and what the responses were. And, yes, since it's a documentary, some background info on the people, events, and issues featured in it. I would eliminate, for example, the second paragraph of "Portrayal of evolutionary science as atheistic" since it's from the NCSE. We only need one paragraph there, anyway, to show the "false dichotomy between science and religion." Some good material would be sacrificed to brevity.
 * This article in the NYT (See footnote 4.) is a good, neutral, general source for the article as a whole. Yopienso (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yopienso, did you post the correct link? That link has several video clips, most of which I recognise from the titles as being pro-ID, and the one that would not be is a response to Expelled, therefore presumably not "made before this movie came out".
 * Again, Yopienso, I appreciate your efforts to be even-handed, but using scare quotes out of deference to others who question the use of an ordinary word seems a bit bizarre. On the other hand, there seems no excuse for the gratuitous insult of creationists that you included in your comment.
 * That the NCSE view is "biased towards reality" is simply your (Dave's) POV, and of course one that I reject. I'm questioning the inclusion of the NCSE on the grounds of meeting WP's policies, and you are responding with silly assertions about who is right and wrong on the issue of naturalistic evolution vs. ID.
 * The "policy is clear" that we not treat involved parties as independent/third-party sources. The policy mentions nothing about including the NCSE—this is simply your attempted application of the policy; it is not the policy itself as you represent it as being.
 * And please don't pretend that I'm not discussing specific ideas for tightening the article: this whole discussion is about specific "ideas" I have, in the form of edits I made and which were reversed.
 * Yopienso, that New York Times article is relatively balanced, but is hardly neutral, as it takes sides on the issue, by (a) referring to "conflict between science and advocates of intelligent design" when the ID side considers themselves part of science, (b) referring to "intelligent design [as] a creationist idea", when IDers, creationists, and even some evolutionists reject that ID is creationism, and, most blatantly, (c) siding with the evolutionists in claiming that "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely, Philip, your idea of "neutral" is evidently giving "equal validity" to creationists and trying to remove "evoloutionist" views in favour of anti-evolutionist views. That's not neutrality in Wikipedia terms, fails WP:WEIGHT, and is unacceptable. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you are using "evolutionist" with scare quotes! Why?  And my comment about the New York Times' neutrality was about true neutrality, not WP's version of it that is biased in favour of mainstream opinions.  Further, you are accusing me of bias simply because of the views I have, not on the argument I made.  That there is supposedly "no credible scientific challenge" is making a value judgement about what is and is not "credible".  This is, according to normal uses of the word "neutral", not neutral—it's taking sides.  That is simple observation.
 * It is not just me, but also Yopienso, who sees a problem. Your only real answer to him was to assert that evolution corresponds to reality, which is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and you have not responded to rebuttals I made to your argument.
 * I have previously pointed out that you have failed to respond to a number of arguments I've made, simply reasserting your position. I have also pointed out that this is not the way to do reasoned argument.  Yet you have still not responded to those, or to my more recent rebuttals.  Are you afraid of reasoned argument?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip, your arguments are against Wikipedia policy, and as you should know by now talk pages are for proposing well sourced improvements that comply with policies, not for debating the topic of the article. Irrespective of your feelings that mainstream views are biased, policy sets how we show these views when discussing minority or fringe views. The term evolutionist is rather archaic, but is commonly used by creationists trying to misrepresent modern biology as another -ism, and is a red flag about your whole approach. .  dave souza, talk 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip, thank you for receiving my comments in the spirit in which they were offered. The link to the clip is correct. (It's the very last one on the page.) If you watch it to the end, you will see a notice that it is based on an earlier, longer film made in 2006. I assume it was the abridgement of an existing film that was made in response to Expelled.
 * My intent in referring to creationists as gadflies was to show how the scientific world views them. Wikipedia takes that viewpoint, and is the reason (as Dave notes) that equal validity is not given to creationism (which was the point of my tug-of-war analogy). As you will have noted in watching Expelled, most mainstream scientists do not engage in discussing the merits or errors of creationism because they feel it is boring or inane. You are free to reject the idea that the NCSE view is biased towards reality, but since that is the bias of this article and this encyclopedia, that view will determine its content. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the origin of the clip, and I have now watched it (several times). However, it does not do what you claim it does, for two reasons.  One, it misrepresents ID, and two, it doesn't address my comments above.  I've whipped up a response to it here.
 * As I point out in that response, it doesn't address Dawkins comments, which I raised above. So your video does not answer my point that it is nonsense to say that ID cannot be science
 * Expelled does not show that most scientists do not discuss creationism because they feel it boring or inane. Rather, it shows that they are ideologically opposed to it.
 * "...but since that is the bias of this article..." But this is an article about a movie; why does that bias have to intrude so much?  And there are two further problems with this.  First, similar to a point that I have already made, WP does not say that the NCSE is biased towards reality; it doesn't mention the NCSE in its policies.  Second, there is no policy that says that the NCSE is legitimate to include in this article.  Their legitimacy for this purpose is an interpretation, and one based on the disputed opinion that the NCSE is biased towards reality.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant policies have repeatedly been pointed out to you, your original research is evidently accepted at Creationwiki but is unsuitable here. This heavily edited propaganda film is not a good source for the views of Dawkins. Of course ID has been examined to see if it is science, and on the evidence of its own proponents it isn't. Unless of course you accept redefinition of science as theistic science as proponents so forlornly hope. . dave souza, talk 15:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your claims of relevant policies, and you have not addressed the points in my responses. I had no intention of using the "original research" here; that was purely in reply to a point I was discussing with Yopienso.  Are you suggesting that the film edited Dawkins to say something other than what he actually said?  If so, please produce your evidence.  I know that Dawkins has complained that he was tricked into appearing in the film, but I've not heard him claim that he was edited to the point of misrepresentation on that matter.  And what's your evidence that the film was any more "heavily edited" than any other documentary?  For what it's worth, the AAAS film that I responded to on CreationWiki was edited to the point of starting and finishing clips in the middle of sentences so that one person's sentence was shown as being completed by another person.
 * Where is your evidence that ID isn't science "on the evidence of its own proponents", when its proponents deny that very point? And why shouldn't theistic science be considered acceptable, given that that's how science started and it was the atheists who redefined it to arbitrarily exclude certain explanations a priori, thereby making it unscientific?
 * Now, where are your responses to previous questions I've asked and rebuttals I've made to your claims? It's looking more and more like you are just trying to wear me down with silly objections and repeated assertions rather than engage in rational, reasoned, argument
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're throwing all sorts of debating points without any evidence: please cite your sources and propose specific improvements to the article. For example, where is your evidence that it is "nonsense that ID cannot be science, a POV that even Dawkins had to disagree with in this very film"? You'll note that I've already cited Kitzmiller, you'll find the reference above. . .  dave souza, talk 07:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "You're throwing all sorts of debating points without any evidence..." False.
 * "please ... propose specific improvements to the article." I already have, and I've already pointed out that I have.  And I've already asked you to not pretend otherwise.
 * "For example, where is your evidence that it is 'nonsense that ID cannot be science, a POV that even Dawkins had to disagree with in this very film'?" Ummm, in the film?  (The Dawkins bit, that is.)
 * "You'll note that I've already cited Kitzmiller, you'll find the reference above." First, I don't recognise the authority of Judge Jones in this matter, and not just because his ruling has authority only for half a U.S. state and I'm an Aussie.  Second, he's an unreliable source, given the factual errors he made.  Third, his argument is flawed, and/or not applicable to my point:
 * We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
 * His first claim is false. First, ID does not invoke supernatural causes.  Second, how can it "permit" supernatural causes?  ID can't control what God does!  Third, as I touched on above, science did not originally exclude supernatural causes.  Modern science was started by creationists who believed that God created life, etc.
 * His second point is also false: it's not a "contrived dualism", but a case of the law of the excluded middle: either life arose naturalistically or it didn't. There is no other choice.  Further, evolutionists from Darwin to Dawkins have used "it can't be God" arguments to argue for evolution, but when ID does similar, it suddenly becomes unacceptable?  That's called double standards.
 * His third point is also false, if for no other reason than it invents a false distinction between the "scientific community" and IDers.
 * BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT IS that all this argument is only an argument as to why ID isn't science, not why it can't be science. It is all concerned with how ID is (supposedly) currently practised, not with anything inherent to ID.
 * So, I've addressed your argument in some detail. When are you going to bother addressing my arguments?  Or are you going to continue to ignore my argument and repeat your assertions ad nauseum, hoping to wear me down?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this argument about whether or not ID "can be science" relate to any concrete proposal to change the article? If not, it doesn't belong here.

As near as I can follow, the proposal put on the table by Philip is to remove essentially all references to anything written by NCSE. I do not understand his argument, so perhaps he could claify. He said, oh, ages ago, (his emphasis) ...
 * I fully agree that the NCSE is an acceptable source for their views. That is not the issue. This article is not about their views, but about a film. The question is whether the NCSE is an acceptable source for information about the film, for which they are not an independent third party.

My problem with his reasoning is that none of the passages he removed were making an assertion on the authority of NCSE. They were all "NCSE responds ...", "NCSE stated ...", "NCSE criticizes ...", "According to NCSE ...". Is he arguing that these passages should be removed because they assert facts that are not backed by an independent third party, or because it is not appropriate to include the opinions of NCSE in this article? Art Carlson (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not ID can be science is relevant to the extent that some of the commenters here are arguing their points on the assumption that ID is inherently unscientific. If they weren't using that assumption in their arguments, the question would be irrelevant in this context.
 * Like you don't understand my argument, I don't understand yours. If you are saying that the bits attributed to the NCSE are not made on their authority because they were given attribution, that doesn't make sense.  Attribution means that they are not being made on WP's authority, but on the NCSE's.  My argument is that WP's policies say that articles should be based on Reliable Sources, and one criterion for a source being an RS is that they be third-party sources.  Yet a significant proportion of this article is based on things the NCSE has said despite them not being a third-party source.  To put it another way, a significant proportion of this article is based on claims by critics of the film, and, as such, they violate WP's NPOV policy.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That argument seems to be incompatible with WP:RS:
 * Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".
 * Art Carlson (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that we can cite IDers in response, just so long as we include an "inline qualifier"? Sorry, I've already tried that, and that was opposed also.  To put it another way, that provision does not seem intended to give blanket approval of offering an opinion from a biased source just because it attributes it to the author.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is your position that the intended or de facto policy does not correspond with the apparently clear meaning of WP:RS? If that is the case, then you need to clarify the policy first, and this is not the place to do that. As long as you are arguing against the obvious reading of WP:RS, you will not make any progress justifying your edits.
 * Or is your position that more opinions of IDers should be included in the article. If that is the case, then it would appear that your edits are intended to make a WP:POINT. The proper approach would be to go back to the edits you tried before and argue for them on the base of established policy. (I don't know what those edits were or what the arguments for or against them were, but obviously WP:RS can't be used to justify the inclusion of every opinion.)
 * Art Carlson (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If "WP:RS can't be used to justify the inclusion of every opinion" (and I'm not suggesting that it should), then on what basis do we decide which opinions to include? If including a reasonable number of pro-ID opinions constitutes making a point, why doesn't including a reasonable number of anti-ID opinions constitute the same thing?  After all, this article as it stands is not just about the film and reaction to it, but is making the point that the film is wrong in so many ways.  It does this by repeatedly providing claims made not by independent third parties (as required by the RS policy), but by critics, and mostly without allowing a right of reply by IDers.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The basis for deciding which opinions to include is set out by WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL: the tiny minority views propagated by the film are shown in the context of how the film has been received by the majority scientific views on the topic. The critics are independent third parties, regardless of whether or not they or their executive director have been specifically targeted by the film. Eliminating all criticism from those featured in the film clearly gives undue weight to Stein's views. . . dave souza, talk 03:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything published by the NCSE prior to the executive director's involvement in the film is an independent third-party source for ID. Anything the NCSE said specifically about the film after that could not possibly be "independent," though.
 * WP:3PARTY: A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.
 * Criticism from those featured in the film should not be eliminated, but it should not be considered "independent," either.
 * Opinion: the fact a recognized expert adamantly protests the portrayal of his/her interview automatically communicates strong criticism. The fact they felt tricked speaks volumes about Stein and/or Frankowski. Yopienso (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:3PARTY is an essay, and as it says at the top "Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." Note that the example is "a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter", it does NOT say "a newspaper whose reporter covering a story has been involved in the story outwith their capacity as a reporter". Even if we concede that Genie Scott is involved in the film, that does not mean that the whole organisation is involved in the sense of the essay. Of course Genie Scott can still be cited with attribution, as discussed above. . . dave souza, talk 05:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it's an essay. Happily, we possess enough discretion to see the sentence is true and to apply it correctly to this issue. Scott, in the newspaper analogy, would not be a reporter, but the editor-in-chief. Expelled Exposed should be used solely as her angry reaction to the film, not as an independent source.
 * Even if we concede that Genie Scott is involved in the film, that does not mean that the whole organisation is involved in the sense of the essay? She wrote, "So we [NCSE] were prepared to take Expelled seriously. Imagine my surprise, though, when we discovered that I was already involved!" Here's is more of what she wrote:
 * "I meet a whole lot of creationists in my job. . . But when they flat-out lie to me about what they are doing, I get angry."
 * "We decided to devote a separate website, Expelled Exposed, to debunking Expelled."
 * "It was a lot of hard work. But it was worth it. When Expelled opened — in over one thousand theaters across the country — our website was already live, receiving tens of thousands of visitors every day."
 * "NCSE’s efforts were not the only cause of Expelled’s failure."
 * "I think that it is fair to say, however, that NCSE’s contribution to the response to Expelled was indispensable. As the only national organization focused exclusively on defending the teaching of evolution, NCSE was in a unique position to coordinate, as well as provide the bulk of, the response, both through Expelled Exposed and through one-on-one communications with reporters, reviewers, and bloggers."
 * So, Scott claims the NCSE, under her direction, spent significant effort even before the film opened to make it fail. She takes credit for a campaign that heavily influenced the media and the public against it. Yopienso (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to Philip Rayment's comment of 15:07, 4 October 2012, ''Expelled does not show that most scientists do not discuss creationism because they feel it boring or inane. Rather, it shows that they are ideologically opposed to it.''
 * True, that is how Expelled spins it, but that is not what the interviewees actually said. Provine said it was boring and Dawkins, perhaps in other words, that it is inane. Expelled, though deeply flawed, does have one point right: a person open to the idea of creationism is automatically suspect. Consider Ben Carson. Yopienso (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yopienso, you've put the NCSE issue well, adding significant information about their involvement.
 * "True, that is how Expelled spins it, but that is not what the interviewees actually said." True "boring" and "inane" is how Provine and Dawkins spun it, but it's pretty obvious to the seasoned observer that they are ideologically opposed to it.
 * Yes, the sorry case of Ben Carson is far too common. This is not just "one point" that the movie got right: it's pretty well it's main point.  But it's not just that they are "suspect"—they are positively discriminated against.  Emory university, for example, whilst not withdrawing Carson's invitation, did promise that in future their background checks on invitees would include their views on such matters!
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I seriously question the logic you're employing, Philip. I'm curious as to whether you would apply it evenhandedly.  Let us suppose that someone produced a film attacking Christianity in general and Biblical inerrantism in particular.  Let us further suppose that said film made numerous assertions about Christianity which were inaccurate--and, in some cases, outright defamatory.  Naturally, the groups most equipped to point out the inaccuracy of these assertions would be Christian groups...but, by your logic, any response by a Christian group pointing out such inaccuracies would have to be excluded, since the film attacks them and they are therefore "not a neutral third party!"


 * Are you seriously prepared to go there? Would you argue just as strenuously that Christian groups pointing out inaccuracies in an atheist attack film should be excluded?


 * It seems very much as if you're trying to have your cake and est it, too. You call for neutral, third-party sources, but when such sources are provided (Judge Jones, for example), you reject them on the grounds that they "got it wrong."  You can't call for neutral sources and then reject the neutral sources when they don't say what you want them to say.  --BRPierce (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not Philip, but I employ the same logic. The most reliable sources for Christianity in an article about an anti-Christian attack film would be those deemed RSs before the film was made, such as those used at History of Christianity. Certainly an angry rant, a smarmy parody, or a website set up by activist Christians specifically to refute the film would not be neutral. Such responses would be RSs for the responses of those attacked, just as Eugenie Scott and the NCSE are the most reliable possible sources for her opinion of the film. Yopienso (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ...except, of course, that sources existing prior to the making of our hypothetical film would be unlikely to be responsive. If I claim, for example, that Martin Luther and Protestantism are responsible for the Holocaust, general sources on the history of Christianity are going to be useless; moreover, it is unlikely that non-Christian sources will have the expertise or the motivation to explain why this argument is flawed.  Yet the argument being made here is that those sources which are both qualified to refute the claim and motivated to do so are unacceptable!  Taking the argument one step further, any evidence released by the government to demonstrate that the HAARP array is not a mind-control weapon should be excluded from the article on HAARP conspiracy theories, since such conspiracy theories are directed against the government and it is not a "non-neutral party."


 * Neecless to say, I think this is manifestly a severe distortion of the intent of the policy. I wonder if, perhaps, Christian sources strongly critical of Expelled's rather remarkable claims would be more acceptable?  They certainly exist.  --BRPierce (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Arrggh! I live 50 miles from HAARP and must have been zapped. (We actually had a local crank some 15 years ago meticulously record the exact time our local radio station's programming went on the blitz, alleging it was HAARP's fault, "and just imagine what it's doing to us". HAARP wasn't even powered up during most of those times!) I see my error. Either my memory fails me or this article has been substantially trimmed since the last time I looked it over carefully from top to bottom. I remember a lot of digression from reviewing to debunking. Yes, of course Expelled Exposed is fine for a response to the film. Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So where do we stand? What specific statements by the NCSE are objectionable and/or presented as fact, rather than a response?  Are there criticisms of the film that would be best if bolstered by non-NCSE sources (such as the ASA, for example?)  --BRPierce (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "I seriously question the logic you're employing...". Yet you go on to question not the logic, but my rationale and presumed consistency.  Whether or not I would act the same in the reverse situation is beside the point, because I'm not arguing on the basis of my views, but on the basis of Wikipedia policy, because that's the only consideration that is acceptable here.  As for consistency, I would question the consistency of many Wikipedia editors if not Wikipedia policy itself.  I believe that if the situation were reversed, many of those editors would not be consistent.  But the problem is, I can't think of an anti-ID film to compare this one with (and that, not Christianity or inerrantism, is the reverse of the situation here, note).  Actually, that's not entirely fair.  Many here (you included, obviously), would consider an anti-Christian movie to be the opposite of this film, so perhaps that could be compared.  But again, point me to one so that we can actually compare.
 * You know, having said that, if we broaden the category, there is a film that's somewhat from the other side of the fence: Fahrenheit 9/11. But in Wikipedia's article on this film, virtually all criticism is removed to a separate article where most readers won't get to read it, and even this is not really mentioned and linked until near the end of the main article.  The introduction does say that "The film generated intense controversy, including some disputes over its accuracy.", but without a link to the controversy there.  The introduction did have the link, but it was removed.  Moreover, the "controversy" article itself has, in a number of places, responses to criticism by the people who made it or supporters, rather unlike this article which has criticism of the film, but largely no responses to that criticism, because they are not from a "reliable source", i.e. they are from IDers.  There is the inconsistency you imagine that I have.
 * "... by your logic, any response by a Christian group pointing out such inaccuracies would have to be excluded, since the film attacks them and they are therefore 'not a neutral third party!'". No, not by my "logic" (reasoning), but by Wikipedia rules on the use of third parties.
 * "You call for neutral, third-party sources, but when such sources are provided (Judge Jones, for example), you reject them on the grounds that they 'got it wrong.'". Wrong again.  First, I have not actually called for anything from Judge Jones to be removed from this article.  Second, even if I did, it would be on the grounds that he is not a neutral or reliable source.
 * "Yet the argument being made here is that those sources which are both qualified to refute the claim and motivated to do so are unacceptable!" Kind of like evolutionists claiming that creationist and ID sources are unacceptable.  Another flaw in your argument is that it presumes that claims in a film are novel and therefore nobody has previously answered them, and therefore the only available answers are responses.  In some cases that could be so, but it's not the case with the claims in this film.
 * "...Expelled's rather remarkable claims..." They are not remarkable at all, in the sense that there is nothing really new in the film—the claims are largely ones that have previously been documented.
 * "What specific statements by the NCSE are objectionable and/or presented as fact, rather than a response?". My issue is not whether they are a response, but that the NCSE doesn't qualify (in this case at least) as a Reliable Source, which is supposed to be a Third Party, which they are manifestly not.  That they have responded as they have just goes to emphasise how non-neutral they are.  My point is that this is supposed to be an article about the film, not about what is wrong with it (which doesn't mean that it can't mention criticism at all, but it should not dominate), and that this bias is achieved by heavily quoting from sources (the NCSE in particular) that are not independent third parties.
 * The NCSE is not the only involved party. The film takes aim at "big science" in general, and the mainstream media, so groups like the ASA are also not independent third parties.  The objection has been made that as the film criticises almost everyone, then that makes it difficult to find a truly independent third party.  Part of my answer to that is "tough"—are the rules there to be followed only when it suits, or not?  But I would not be that rigid.  Another part of my answer is that the film does not criticise almost everyone.  It criticises "big science" and the mainstream media—which is not everyone.  Some of the media is more open.  Much of the population is more open.  Some of the scientific community is more open.  Even people that critics would presume to be on the same side could offer criticism.  Creationists groups such as CMI, for example, are prepared to point out problems where they see them, as they do with some aspects of the ID movement or even with other creationists.  Expelled hasn't criticised everybody.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Beats me. I tried to figure this out above in my contribution starting "As near as I can follow, ...", where I pointed out that all the NCSE statements Philip eliminated were presented as the opinion of NCSE, for which NCSE is the one and only reliable source. (See WP:RS.) I keep reading through his answers, trying to figure out what he thinks, but I fail every time. Let me try directing a few yes-or-no questions directly at Philip:
 * Do you agree that the passages you removed were phrased to represent the ideas presented as opinions of the NCSE, rather as as objective facts?
 * Do you agree that NCSE is a "reliable source" in the sense of Wikipedia policy when it comes to presenting the views of NCSE?
 * Do you agree that it is appropriate in principle, although arguable in quantity and presentation, to include responses of critics in an article about a film, particularly if they were the subject of the film and/or are representative of the majority view?
 * Art Carlson (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, without checking, I think they were.
 * No. I'll qualify that in a moment.
 * Yes (in principle), in certain circumstances.
 * WP:RS says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". It further says that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.", and "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."  I have seen Wikipedia editors claim that creationist sources cannot be considered reliable sources for the views of those creationists.  This might make sense if there is reason to believe that a source is going to deliberately misrepresent itself, but not otherwise.  But, according to WP's rules, NCSE is not a secondary source regarding their views.  The bit you quoted ("Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion...") need to be read in that context; there is nothing there to say that this provision overrides all the other points I've mentioned.
 * Ignoring that last point about requiring secondary sources, I would agree that the NCSE should be considered a reliable source about their own views, but this is only appropriate in an article about their views. I don't believe that Wikipedia's rules allow for the NCSE to be considered a reliable source in this context, because the article is not about their views, the statements I tried deleting were not about their involvement, but about their views on more general claims made in the film, and because they are not an independent third party.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As above, this is an article about promotion of a minority viewpoint, and the NCSE is entirely suitable as a reliable source for showing the majority scientific view of the topic. Your beliefs about this are incorrect. . dave souza, talk 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As above, you are simply reasserting your views and refusing to properly respond to opposing views. "Your beliefs about this are incorrect" is simply another unsubstantiated assertion by you, which, if you stay true to form, you will refuse to demonstrate.  Assertion is not reasoned argument.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "No, not by my "logic" (reasoning), but by Wikipedia rules on the use of third parties."
 * You're making the same fundamental error here that I believe Biblical inerrantists in general make
 * in promulgation of their claims concerning "God's Word" when what they actually mean is their INTERPRETATION of
 * God's Word--which they treat as if it was synonymous. The two are not the same at all.  Likewise, here, what we're
 * talking about is not the "rules of Wikipedia," but your particular interpretation of that rule and how it should
 * be applied. Clearly, many other editors have a different interpretation.
 * I'm not going to go through your rebuttal point-by-point, because frankly, this debate is already well outside the
 * purpose of this talk page. It is unlikely that you remember me, but we have had fairly lengthy debates on such
 * topics in the past. I would be happy to do so again, in an appropriate venue...which this is not.  The relevant
 * point here is that no consensus exists for the interpretation you're promoting. Yopienso agrees with certain of
 * your points, but not all of them; I agree that intelligent design can be scientific, but maintain that it most
 * manifestly is NOT scientific in its present incarnation. Neither of us, from what I've seen, believes that a
 * blanket ban on "big science" and "mainstream media" sources is justified. That being the case, precisely what
 * will be achieved by continuing to rehash the debate? Are there any concrete changes you think should be made to
 * the article for which we might be able to build some sort of consensus? I think it should be abundantly clear
 * by this point that no blanket ban on "big science and mainstream media" sources will achieve consensus.
 * --BRPierce (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Philip wrote, "I would agree that the NCSE should be considered a reliable source about their own views, but this is only appropriate in an article about their views. I don't believe that Wikipedia's rules allow for the NCSE to be considered a reliable source in this context, because the article is not about their views, the statements I tried deleting were not about their involvement, but about their views on more general claims made in the film, and because they are not an independent third party."
 * Where do you get the idea that the reliability of the source of a statement can depend on the subject of the article where the statement appears?
 * Where do you get the idea that the reliability of the source of a statement of opinion can depend on what the opinion is about?
 * Where do you get the idea that only independent, third-party sources can be considered reliable? (WP:3PARTY: "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, ...")
 * Art Carlson (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "what they actually mean is their INTERPRETATION of God's Word--which they treat as if it was synonymous." Utter, unfounded, nonsense.
 * "Likewise, here, what we're talking about is not the "rules of Wikipedia," but your particular interpretation of that rule and how it should be applied.". Again, wrong.  What we are talking about is the rules.  Of course that is going to involve each of our respective interpretations of them to the extent that they are not clear, but that applies equally to all parties.  The way to resolve this is to resolve which interpretation is correct or applicable in this case; not simply to point out to one side that they (and presumably not the others) have a mere "interpretation" rather than a correct understanding of the rule.
 * No, I don't recall you BRPierce, sorry.
 * "The relevant point here is that no consensus exists for the interpretation you're promoting." And a consensus exists for an opposing point?  If not, then what's the point of this comment?
 * "Yopienso agrees with certain of your points, but not all of them". I'm not sure that he has much disagreement with the main point I'm raising about the article, though.
 * "I agree that intelligent design can be scientific, but maintain that it most manifestly is NOT scientific in its present incarnation." Okay, that's your opinion.  Should your opinion of that influence the content of this article?  If not, why mention it?  I've questioned that point above simply because others here who hold a view on that have allowed their views on that to influence what goes into the article.
 * "Neither of us, from what I've seen, believes that a blanket ban on "big science" and "mainstream media" sources is justified. That being the case, precisely what will be achieved by continuing to rehash the debate?" Which debate?  The debate is not about having a blanket ban; it's about having a more neutral article.  Is there no point in discussing that?
 * "Are there any concrete changes you think should be made to the article..." I've already proposed some.  But...
 * "... for which we might be able to build some sort of consensus?" Now there's the catch.  How do I know until I try?  (And give it a good try, not a half-hearted one.)  But I'll add another section below on this.
 * "I think it should be abundantly clear by this point that no blanket ban on "big science and mainstream media" sources will achieve consensus." Given that I've not actually asked for one, what's your point?


 * "Where do you get the idea that only independent, third-party sources can be considered reliable?" Can I quote dave souza who has pointed out that that page is only a non-binding essay?  One of the problems I've had elsewhere on Wikipedia and here on this page too is that multiple people object, but each for a different reason, and sometimes those different reasons are inconsistent.  But they are all on the same "side", so don't disagree with each other (Yopienso is a refreshing exception to that).  Let's put your questions on hold, and I'll make a specific proposal below.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And about time too. This whole removal of reputable mainstream views looks very wp:pointy, a substitute for examining the specific instance. . . dave souza, talk 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "About time too"? I've asked you before to not pretend that I haven't made specific proposals, and you've not even attempted to demonstrate that I'm wrong in that.  And you've not supported your claim that the mainstream views in this instance are reputable.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of testability
One of the sections I tried removing was this:
 * The National Center for Science Education, one of the groups discussed in the film, responds that "Intelligent design has not produced any research to suppress", and "The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested"

Before removing that, I had previously tried adding the following (I've replaced the properly-formatted references with straight links for this post):
 * Intelligent Design proponents reject such claims, citing, for example, the ability of scientists to "… construct testable predictions about the type of informational properties we expect to find in nature if an intelligent agent were at work in designing a natural object".

Dave souza removed my addition, with the edit comment "first link just makes vague assertion, second has no mention of film, undue weight". (In fact, the first link cites the second link as the answer to this specific claim.) The section "Undue weight to Casey Luskin" on this page started as a discussion on that particular edit.

Now, we have dave souza citing Undue Weight provisions, me citing Third Party provisions, Yopienso agreeing with me in principle on the Third Party provisions, Stephan Schulz supporting that the NCSE is a reliable source and that ID is not science (not to mention questioning my use of English), KillerChihuahua disagreeing with my claims about policy, but not explaining why I'm wrong, BRPierce questioning my perceived consistency, and Art Carlson citing Statements of Opinion and Non-independent Sources provisions! In addition, we have dave souza repeatedly asking me to make a specific proposal despite me having already made several, and BRPierce telling just me that I'm talking about an "interpretation" of the rules and that consensus is needed!

So my question is this. Why is it okay to have the NCSE-sourced comment but not the ID-sourced comment? Dave souza will of course cite Undue Weight provisions, interpreting that to mean that the mainstream view should dominate an article about a film criticising the mainstream view instead of letting it be primarily about the film. Art will justify the NCSE's view—despite then not being an independent third party—on the grounds that we are allowed to cite a non-independent involved party so long as we make clear that is is their view, not an undisputed fact. But will he similarly allow the ID response to that view, perhaps under the same provision? What does Stephan Schulz or BRPierce say about this? Do they agree to either have both or have neither, or do they also interpret the rules to allow the silly* mainstream claim in but not a rebuttal to it, thereby presenting a one-sided critique of the film's claims in this supposedly-neutral about the film (and yes, I know that "neutral" is interpreted by WP to mean biased towards the mainstream view). * —I say "silly" because I think it's manifestly silly to claim that "intelligent design claims cannot be tested". Even astrology can be tested (and found wanting, of course).

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't really say whether or not I thought the NCSE comments should stay in. I only objected to the reason giving for removing them, namely that they were not from a reliable source. You may think that that is nitpicking, but I thought that clearing that up would be a marginal contribution to getting the discussion back in focus. The question of whether either or both of the NCSE and Luskin comments belong in the article is harder so I can't answer it right away, except to say that both are phrased as attributed opinion rather than fact, so if I object, it won't be on the grounds that we have no realiable source for the statements. Art Carlson (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We're back to WP:WEIGHT requiring that the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, having shown the minority view claims of Paul Nelson and Stein we show the NCSE views of these claims. Philip has been trying to then introduce Casey Luskin's self-published counter-arguments against that majority view: Luskin is no expert on science, and "Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled"  merely rehearses invalid ID claims. The argument cited "for example" is another self-published piece by, guess who, Casey Luskin, restating Behe's argument of "irreducible complexity" that failed so spectacularly at Kitzmiller. A religious view, and not science. Following the majority view expressed by the NCSE with this argument by Luskin fails WP:GEVAL, it's clearly trying to equate the majority view with the self-published fringe "rebuttal". We don't need to go into all these arguments and counter-arguments in such detail here, WP:MNA allows us to show such detail on the main pages on this pseudoscientific topic and briefly show the balance of views on the topic of this film. . dave souza, talk 16:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed a specific change in isolation of other changes, but after several days the only responses are from dave souza (predictably rejecting it on a combination of WP:WEIGHT and his own biased views on Casey Luskin and his arguments), and Art Carlson who defers his answer. Several other people objected previously to changes I made related to this, but have failed to comment on this specific one. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else?
 * A mainstream view of the film is primarily about the film, you seem to be rather muddled about that: or perhaps you're trying to get a creationist propaganda film presented in terms of a creationist worldview which you hold? Predictably, that fails WP:WEIGHT and you don't seem to be getting any more support for your creationist views. . . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll make a few comments, although I'm not really sure what should be done with this paragraph. The fact that the film says that ID is suppressed is uncontroversial. The fact that the scientific community disagrees is also uncontroversial, but since it is difficult defining who the scientific community is and what they believe, it is better to attribute the statement. The NCSE is a good choice for that, in part because of their association with the AAAS. Of course a one line rebuttal is exceedingly terse, but there are the links to Intelligent Design and Intelligent Design Movement to provide more detail.
 * Now, as to Philip's proposal, I think my biggest reservation is introducing a potentially endless back-and-forth. ID says this, however the mainstream responds with that, however ID responds to the response with another thing, however the mainstream responds .... A better style, where it is possible, would be to let the film have its say, possibly putting the statements into the context of ID generally, then let the mainstream give its reaction, then move on. As in a formal debate or trial, no new topics should be introduced in the rebuttal. Another problem, perhaps unavoidable under the circumstances, is that Casey Luskin, I believe, is speaking for himself, not for any ID organization.
 * That's my idea on the organization. Backing up a step to comment on the content, NCSE makes two related claims. First, that ID has produced no research to suppress. While this may in some sense be true, it is unsatisfactory because it in no way addresses the specific cases brought forth in the film. The second claim is that ID cannot in principle be tested. I personally disagree with this claim, although when you get down to specifics, I see a ton of problems. Dawkins, as much as he hates to admit it, apparently disagrees with this claim, too. I would prefer to see a clear secondary source stating that the majority of the mainstream believes that ID is inherently untestable before implying that this is the mainstream position.
 * Art Carlson (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Answering your last point first, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition: "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." On the issue of research and testing, ID has made some testable negative claims that evolution can't explain certain features: when evolutionary explanations are shown, ID proponents quickly move on to other features, deny the plausibility of the explanations, or simply ignore developments in science as Behe rather dramatically demonstrated at Kitzmiller. Speaking of which, the issue is covered in a section of the judgement, for example p. 82, read the whole page leading to the conclusion that "ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory." The NCSE point out that research and theory-building is demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise: no research, no science. On whether ID proponents have done any research to suppress, they cite Behe. When asked about some of his claims he says "I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful". In his book he demanded that "advocates of the natural mechanism, the Darwinian mechanism, must publish or perish", but he had not done so himself as he "would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors". And so on. . . dave souza, talk 21:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The level of detail of the argumentation — basically one-line description of the position on this particular question advocated in the film, followed by a one-line description of the mainstream position — seems appropriate to an article about a film, with wikilinks to the main articles. If the NAS (plus others) says ID cannot be science, then that is an adequate indication that that is the mainstream position. (I disagree on epistomological grounds, but that is not relevant here. And, for the record, Luskin's arguments for this position are mostly faulty.) Art Carlson (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there's much point in discussing this with dave souza, who has shown that he's unwilling to defend his claims when they are challenged, so I'll mainly address Art Carlson in this response. However, that doesn't mean that I won't point out some problems with dave souza's claims.  Dave souza's references to "Casey Luskin's self-published counter-arguments" and "The argument cited 'for example' is another self-published piece by, guess who, Casey Luskin" are both hypocritical and false.  In the section below (Dawkins on ID), dave souza seems to be saying that Dawkin's blog piece on his own site is not self-published (seemingly on the grounds that Dawkins has made similar comments elsewhere).  Casey Luskin's articles, by contrast, were not on his own web-site, but, in one case, on Evolution News and Views, and I'll get to the other in a moment.  Now it could be that ENV is a group blog; it's not clear.  However, the same information is also on the NCSEExposed web-site.  The second article is on the Discovery Institute web-site, not a personal blog.  Not only that, but it says right at the top that the article was also published on the OpposingViews.com web-site.  Clearly the claim that this article is self-published is false.  So dave souza defends keeping Dawkin's self-published response in the article on the grounds that it's not really self-published, but opposes Casey Luskin's articles partly on the incorrect grounds that they are self-published!
 * dave souza doesn't leave it there, admittedly. He repeatedly denigrates the ID response, with terms such as "no expert on science", "invalid ID claims", "fringe" "rebuttal" in scare quotes, and "pseudoscientific".  Yet he finishes up by saying, "show the balance of views on the topic of this film", which is code for showing the mainstream view and censoring the ID view.
 * Now to respond to Art Carlson's comments.
 * The fact that the scientific community disagrees is also uncontroversial,... Sorry, but it is controversial.  The "scientific community" includes creationists and IDers, who, of course, don't disagree with ID (except to the extent that creationists disagree with ID's approach of leaving God out of it).
 * I think my biggest reservation is introducing a potentially endless back-and-forth. Yes, I agree that is a danger.  However, I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the case nor insurmountable if it is.  Instead of having argument A, response 1, response B, response 2, response C, etc. we may be able to jump to the end and give responses 2 and C, or, if that omits relevant information in the other responses, combine them to give ABC and 123.  But will it get to that?  In this particular example, anti-IDers claim that ID is not testable; IDers point out how it can be tested, and anti-IDers have not addressed those responses.  They tend to resort to repeating refuted claims as though they have never been refuted.  So there is no endless chain of responses.
 * ...let the film have its say, possibly putting the statements into the context of ID generally, then let the mainstream give its reaction, then move on. This, however, will introduce a bias.  A film, by its nature, will not be able to go into the arguments in any depth.  Responses on web-sites (etc.) can.  So immediately the article favours the criticisms of the film, simply because they can have more detail.  Then, of course, there is the fact that your suggested approach automatically gives the last word to the critics.  Dave souza harps on about equal weight, which actually says (my emphases):
 * In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
 * It says that the majority view should be clear, and described in "sufficient detail". It does not say that the majority view should dominate, have the last word, etc.  They should merely be described in sufficient detail.
 * Remember, WP aims to present a neutral point of view. "Neutral" includes not giving the impression that minority views are right or are the majority view, but making out that the minority views are wrong is not being neutral.  Including mainstream views that have been refuted (i.e. are wrong), such as the claim that ID is not testable, is taking sides on the issue.
 * Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. Is this blatant lie really the majority view?  The most blatant lie in this is that ID is a claim of supernatural intervention.  The other lie is that they are not testable.  Gould, talking about creationism, said that "...individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research...", and Donald Prothero said that "In fact, there have been many scientific tests of supernatural and paranormal explanations of things..."  The AAAS might say that they are not testable, but many other scientists say that they are testable (claiming, of course, that they have failed the test, but that's a separate issue).  Even dave souza agrees: "ID has made some testable negative claims...".
 * On whether ID proponents have done any research to suppress, they cite Behe. Yet the link doesn't show that.
 * When asked about some of his claims he says "I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful". In his book he demanded that "advocates of the natural mechanism, the Darwinian mechanism, must publish or perish", but he had not done so himself as he "would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors". So?  That seems to be implying that because Behe chooses to research in particular areas that he consider more fruitful and not other areas that he consider less fruitful, he is therefore not researching!  That's nonsense.
 * And, for the record, Luskin's arguments for this position are mostly faulty. For the record, they are not.  (See, I can make unsubstantiated assertions too.)
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We only need to decide what the majority viewpoint is, not whether it is right or not. Would like like to propose a more accurate summary of the mainstream response? (I concede you have me beat when it comes to making unsubstantiated assertions. I parenthetically mentioned my personal views because I thought it could potentially ease the discussion if others knew where I was coming from. This is not the place to discuss my views or their justification any further.) Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins on ID
The article makes this claim:
 * In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on when Stein asked Dawkins under what circumstances intelligent design could have occurred.[61] Dawkins responded that in the case of the "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)." He later described this as being similar to Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel's "semi tongue-in-cheek" example.[61][62]

The section of the film says this (taken from q:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution. DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, by probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very very high level of technology, and DESIGNED a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's POSSIBLE that you might find EVIDENCE for that IF YOU LOOK at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a SIGNATURE of some sort of DESIGNER

STEIN NARRATION: Wait a second! Richard Dawkins thought that intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

DAWKINS: Mm, and that DESIGNER could well be a higher INTELLIGENCE from elsewhere in the universe. That higher INTELLIGENCE would, itself, have had to have come about by some explicable, ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.

STEIN NARRATION: So, Professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain “types” of designers… such as God. So Dawkins made a two-part reply: (1) how ID could be legitimate, and (2) that if it was, the designer would be an alien that itself evolved.

In a self-published ad hominem blog article, Dawkins gives his explanation. He says:
 * I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).

Where this article says "Dawkins responded...", the clear impression is that this is his response in the interview. This impression is reinforced by this article going on to add another point that Dawkins said "later". But this is false. The quoted response is from his blog, not the interview.

Further, the quoted blog response is actually explaining/enlarging/clarifying the second part of his reply.

The final sentence (mentioning Crick and Orgel) is also from the blog response (at least this bit is mentioned as being "later"), but was his response to the first part of his reply, which hasn't been mentioned.

Much has been made on this talk page about using sources with a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy", and also a couple of times rejecting self-published sources. Dawkins blog response is self-published, and is clearly inaccurate. In the blog response Dawkins also claims:
 * I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices ...), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

Dawkins at least admits that it wasn't fact-checked and may be inaccurate, but the first "quote" misrepresents Stein, and the second is something that Stein didn't say at all.

Summarising, this section of the article does not actually give Dawkins' response to Stein's question, instead quoting a non-fact-checked, inaccurate, self-published blog article by Dawkins, and misrepresents even that as being being partly from the film. It should be removed.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're totally missing the fact that the film was edited to misrepresent Dawkins' view. Yopienso (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is that explained? Dawkin's blog response doesn't mention being edited, in so many words at least.  What did Dawkins actually say that was edited out that materially changes how the film presents him?  Dawkins' blog response, quoted above, in which he explains what he said and what he was getting at, essentially says the same thing as was in the film.  He says "The conclusion I was heading towards was...", implying that either the film cut off his full answer or he never got the chance to say it, yet that conclusion was actually in the film!  About the only bit that wasn't in the film was his blog response references to Dennett, Crick, and Orgel, which are asides, not actually part of his argument.   Philip J. Rayment (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Your Dawkins blog response is self-published, and is clearly inaccurate threw me off. Dawkins' blog is 100% reliable for his views and opinions. The film does not, in fact, allow Dawkins to complete his thought; that's what I refer to by editing to misrepresent his views. Stein's statement, "So, Professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain “types” of designers… such as God," is false, and highly offensive to Dawkins.


 * Here is a possible rewrite that addresses the issues you correctly raise:


 * In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on Stein's question to Dawkins about the circumstances under which intelligent design could have occurred.[61] Dawkins responded that an evolved alien from somewhere in the universe could have designed and seeded life onto our planet. Responding later to the film in a personal blog, he explained that in the "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)." He described this as being similar to Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel's "semi tongue-in-cheek" example.
 * Yopienso (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dawkins' blog is 100% reliable for his views and opinions. But creationist or IDer blogs are not? At least not acceptable to use?  I'm not saying you've said that, but dave souza in effect has.  See, for example, the section above "Lack of testability", where I've asked for comment on (as one option) including an ID response.  You've not supported that (you've not commented at all) on the grounds that the ID response is 100% reliable for his views and opinions.  So the impression I get is, Evolutionist: okay to include as long as attributed, not WP's words; creationist or IDer: not okay to include because self-published.  That's a simplification, but hopefully you'll see why there appear to be double standards in play.
 * The film does not, in fact, allow Dawkins to complete his thought... I've already pointed out that it does.  I asked in my previous comment, "What did Dawkins actually say that was edited out that materially changes how the film presents him?"  You haven't answered that.  I also said, "Dawkins' blog response, quoted above, in which he explains what he said and what he was getting at, essentially says the same thing as was in the film."  You haven't shown how I'm wrong.
 * Here is a possible rewrite that addresses the issues you correctly raise: Partly.  It still gives the impression that an equivalent to his blog response wasn't in the film, and still misrepresents the reference to Crick and Orgel as applying to the second part of his response, not the first.  Like the current article, it also gives the impression that Dawkins was also being "semi-tongue-in-cheek", which Dawkins doesn't actually say (although he might have been trying to give that impression too).  To put it another way, Crick and Orgel provided an example that (according to Dawkins) they did in a semi-tongue-in-cheek way.  Dawkins provided a similar example.  But did Dawkins also do it semi-tongue-in-cheek?  He doesn't actually say that, yet there appears to be little reason to include that comment in this article unless one is trying to imply that—Dawkins included the comparison parenthetically.  This article doesn't.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE, self-published ID sources are RSs. The Intelligent design article cites to ID sources about a dozen times. (I've quickly and perhaps not accurately counted 11--#s 7, 10-12, 15-19, 30-31. They aren't blogs. But blogs that fulfill the criteria would certainly be RSs.)
 * The film cuts away while Dawkins and Stein are still talking; Dawkins makes his point more fully on his blog than in the short clip on the film. The interview ends with two Stein voice-overs that utterly misrepresent Dawkins' views. He is given no opportunity to rebut Stein's assertions.
 * I encourage you to offer a suggested rewrite. Yopienso (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dawkins makes his point more fully on his blog than in the short clip on the film. I can't see it, but even if this is so, you've not shown that this is because the film was edited in a way that misrepresented him.
 * ... two Stein voice-overs that utterly misrepresent Dawkins' views. Demonstrate the misrepresentation.  I can't see it.
 * He is given no opportunity to rebut Stein's assertions. Again, this does not indicate that Dawkins was edited in a way to misrepresent him.
 * Okay, here's a suggested rewrite:
 * In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on when Stein asked Dawkins under what circumstances intelligent design could have occurred. Dawkins responded that an evolved alien from somewhere in the universe could have designed and seeded life onto our planet, and that it might be possible to find evidence of that.  He went on to emphasise that this alien would itself have had to evolve.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the voice-overs: "Wait a second! Richard Dawkins thought that intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?" "So, Professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain 'types' of designers… such as God."
 * Dawkins never said and has never believed as an adult that "intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit." He actively opposes it. Here's just one source recording his stance three years before Expelled premiered. Do you think he changed his mind between then and the interview, and then changed his mind again between the time Stein interviewed him and the time he wrote angry rebuttals to the film? Dawkins was saying that even if THIS planet were intelligently designed, its designer could not have been, showing that ultimately (originally) there was no intelligent designer. The voice-overs deliberately misrepresent his views. The whole interview was a set-up to get Dawkins on record as a God-hater so religious audiences would be properly scandalized. Of course he was already proudly on record many times over, (if not as a God-hater, as a strong critic) but presumably not many viewers would have read The God Delusion or other of his writings or watched his lectures.
 * If Dawkins "went on to emphasise that this alien would itself have had to evolve" in the film, it was inaudible because of the voice-over. He did in his blog. The script doesn't use the word "evolve":  That higher intelligence would, itself, have had to have come about by some explicable, ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point. Yopienso (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Earlier in this section, you claimed that "the film was edited to misrepresent Dawkins' view". I've asked you to provide evidence of that, and repeatedly pointed out that your responses don't do that.  So you've utterly failed to support your claim.  Your claim is false.
 * Instead, you've resorted to claiming that Stein's understanding of Dawkins' view is wrong. That is a different claim.  Further, it's a claim that insults the intelligence of the viewers.  They can see for themselves what Dawkins said, and make up their own minds whether Stein has correctly understood it.
 * It also misses another obvious point. Dawkins wasn't endorsing ID as currently promoted by IDers; he was conceding that some sort of ID could, in principle, be legitimate.  That in itself is a significant admission, and Stein was correct to draw attention to it.
 * Supporters of ID claim that opposition to ID is ideological. True, Dawkins has always been opposed to ID.  But why?  As I said to you on my talk page, "As Dawkins conceded in Expelled, if we were intelligently designed (even by aliens, which was the only agency he would accept), then it should be possible to see evidence of that.  And it's that logic that I've not seen refuted, and which is the very point that means that ID is not inherently unscientific, despite all the ideologically-driven claims of critics."  You didn't respond to that; I'm guessing you have no good answer.
 * Anti-IDers make a big deal of Behe being "caught out" in the Kitzmiller trial supposedly having to admit that there were no peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, contrary to what IDers (presumably including Behe) have long claimed. Why is this not a similar case?  Dawkins was put in a situation where he was forced to admit that ID could be legitimate.  Stein picked up on that.  Claims that Dawkins was and is opposed to ID miss the point: he did admit that it could be legitimate.  Stein did not misrepresent Dawkins; Dawkins had to admit something that, ideologically, he doesn't want to admit.
 * If Dawkins "went on to emphasise that this alien would itself have had to evolve" in the film, it was inaudible because of the voice-over. That was my paraphrase of Dawkins' comments, which were not inaudible, and which are correctly transcribed on Wikiquote, as I pasted above.  Dawkins said "It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, by probably by some kind of Darwinian means...", and subsequently added, "That higher INTELLIGENCE would, itself, have had to have come about by some explicable, ultimately explicable, process. "  Having already said that the aliens would have evolved, are you suggesting that he wasn't talking about some form of evolution in that second bit?  Of course he was.  That was him expanding on the point that the aliens would had to have evolved.
 * Dawkins was saying that even if THIS planet were intelligently designed, its designer could not have been... If a witness for the defence in a court case says that the accused was not at the scene of the crime because he was in bed with her (the witness), the witness' point was that the accused could not have committed the crime, but in the process of making that point has conceded a different point (about their relationship).  Similarly, Dawkin's point was that the intelligent aliens if they existed must have evolved, but in making that point, he has conceded a different point, that (a form of) ID could be legitimate.  Your argument about what Dawkins' views on ID have been and still are doesn't change the fact that he conceded this point.  Your argument about what Dawkins' views on ID are do not address what he actually said in the film.  It seems that we are supposed to believe that just because Dawkins doesn't believe in ID, he didn't make this admission.
 * The voice-overs deliberately misrepresent his views. "Deliberately"?? Now you claim to know the motives of the producers?  Or is this just another empty claim like your one that the film was edited to misrepresent Dawkins' view?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you there? On the one hand we have an argument put in a film edited to be  "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike", "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments", and on the other the word of the interviewed scientist about the argument he was trying to put over before it was mangled by editing. Obviously ID creationists have expressed the view that the intelligent designer could have been aliens, and Dawkins was giving consideration to the implication of that view. His own views on that are not just self-published, Philip, so your argument about "non-fact-checked, inaccurate, self-published blog article by Dawkins" is itself a falsehood. Why are you trying to censor Dawkins' views? . . dave souza, talk 13:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On the one hand we have an argument put in a film edited to be ... It was not edited to make Dawkins say something that he didn't say.  Unless you can produce some evidence that Yopienso was unable to.  Even Dawkins doesn't claim that in his blog response.
 * Philip, please--the voice-over is an edit; it was not part of the dialog. The voice-over says (asks, literally, but so as to assert) insinuates that Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit. He most assuredly did not and does not. From his blog: My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. ... Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings. Yopienso (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * His own views on that are not just self-published, Philip, so your argument about "non-fact-checked, inaccurate, self-published blog article by Dawkins" is itself a falsehood. The particular comments quoted in the article are from a non-fact-checked, inaccurate, self-published blog article by Dawkins,  That you indirectly refer to other sources ("not just self-published") is a tacit admission of that.
 * Why are you trying to censor Dawkins' views? What views am I trying to censor?  Please spell it out, because my alternative wording above gave Dawkins answer to the question.  I didn't quote his blog response partly because it is an unreliable source, but also because it adds nothing of substance to the answer he is shown giving in the film.  If you disagree, please spell out which specific point(s) his blog response adds.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are playing word games. ID is the claim that "natural" processes alone cannot create something as complex as life or humans, and that therefore there has to be an "Intelligent Designer". Of course there are plenty of signs of "intelligent design" (lower case) all around us - I'm hitting keys on such an object right now. But that is not in question, nor is it a statement that covers any of the same ground as evolution. Of course, given that we are a product of nature, our artefacts are not signs of a pre-existing higher power that designed them. It just shows that nature can construct such solutions (via humans). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually room for improvement of the section provided it accurately shows Dawkins' considered views as well as the misleading impression given by the cutting and narrator's voice-over in the film. We cite two sources for the views of Dawkins, and should show these views in context. On the question of quality of sources, the text shown above is someone's transcript of a YouTube copy of the section of the film, put up on Wikisource. Does that raise issues about using a wiki as a source, and about replicating copyrighted information put up on YouTube? . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I had been under the impression Wikiquote was a RS, and am quite sure I've been so informed. This quote belies the claim, though. I have made a note in it that part of the dialog was dropped; no ellipsis showed that. I also think the capitalization should be removed, as it does not reflect any stress or intonation in the speakers' voices. It seems to indicate words important to the editor who capitalized them. I find that highly misleading. OTOH, the YouTube clip seems reliable. I wouldn't know about copyright issues. Transcribing a brief clip for review purposes should be OK? Making the clip in the first place? Hmmm. Yopienso (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if Wikiquote would be considered reliable - per WP:USERGENERATED, all open Wikis are suspect. The same applies to Wikisource. Similarly, YouTube is not reliable per se, but can be used as a convenience link to an otherwise reliably published source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, and I'd confused Wikiquote with Wikisource. Yopienso (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Live and learn! After a hunt on WP:RSN I found we've got an essay on Video links, which is emphatic that "Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission. Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, music videos, advertisements, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not obviously uploaded by the copyright holder. Editors must not link to copyright violations." A lot of the discussions aren't exactly the same situation, but this recent one shows the sort of concerns. The video concerned was "Uploaded by PacificNW326 on Sep 7, 2009", with no evidence of permission. . dave souza, talk 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. This is one of those walls we smack into at WP. So, we can include only any snatch of transcript that a RS puts out. I understand the rule and agree with it in spirit, but in practice the rule hinders common-sense editing. Did you see the brouhaha Jimbo caused at the Tawakkol Karman and will.i.am articles? I thought the first was a case for ignoring all rules. I do here, too, since no editor is disputing what was said, but only what was meant by what was said. [Sigh.] This is one of the WP's limits that will forever keep it from being a definitive source. (At least until our society is a total anarchy where either everything's crowd-sourced and nothing's reliable and or else where reality is whatever the Party says and O'Brien's really holding up five, not four, fingers. Just kidding, sort of.) Yopienso (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can check any transcript against a primary source, and from what you say the above transcript isn't entirely accurate. What we can't do is cite the YouTube video or a wiki transcript of it. Our article shouldn't give an inaccurate impression of the film because Dawkins as a self-published source of his own views, or in an op-ed published by a newspaper, can't recall the exact wording of a film he's watched once in a cinema preview under rather amusing circumstances. What we can do is reword it carefully to have an accurate paraphrase of what's in the film, or better still find a reliable secondary source with a detailed description or transcript. . dave souza, talk 08:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What we can do is reword it carefully to have an accurate paraphrase of what's in the film, or better still find a reliable secondary source with a detailed description or transcript. Can't do the first without the second, which doesn't seem to exist online. Yopienso (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)