Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 14

Media--singular or plural?
Bilsonius and Amatulic may want to consider this:

media 1 (ˈmiːdɪə) — n 1. a plural of medium 2. the means of communication that reach large numbers of people, such as television, newspapers, and radio — adj 3. of or relating to the mass media: media hype Usage: When media refers to the mass media, it is sometimes treated as a singular form, as in: the media has shown great interest in these events. Many people think this use is incorrect and that media should always be treated as a plural form: the media have shown great interest in these events Yopienso (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that already. The point of my revert was that it isn't necessary to slap the "(sic)" label on every quotation that uses improper grammar. Nobody would regard the quotation used here as a transcription error, and the label only serves to emphasize in a WP:POINTy and unnecessary way the speaker's usage of English. It's irrelevant to this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I hope Bilsonius reads my input and your response and agrees, too. Yopienso (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

NCSEexposed.org
This website debunks the "People presented in the film" section of this article: http://www.ncseexposed.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.117.33 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * NCSEexposed.org is self-published ID proponentsists attacking credible mainstream science, unsurprisingly. Not a reliable source, and not significant. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave, that seem incorrect. It's an organizations website, which is a citeable source even if content is suspect because party is involved.  If this is where the rebuttal was done that would make it the primary source for the fact of a rebuttal and providing it's content.  Whether it identifies itself as associated with the makers of the movie would be a relevant thing and important to mention.  Whether the content was itself supported in their rebuttal or whether it is unsupported assertions seems relevant but seems likely to be  debated.  If they're involved parties their input is suspect, but so is everyone else in this mess.  Markbassett (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The organisation concerned is the Discovery Institute, this is one of their several websites which share their poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and promotion of pseudoscience. As such, it can only be used where shown in mainstream context, and is essentially an unreliable source. . dave souza, talk 18:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave - looking further I see rebuttals reported elsewhere, e.g. at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/more-on-gonzale.html mention that for Gonzales there was Demoines Register article "Intelligent design theory influenced ISU tenure vote" by Lisa Rossi, December 1, 2007, that internal ISU emails did include his ID-involvement. (And of course DI has press conference running with this bit and Pandas thumb piddles on DI and so on.)  This does provide further citations shoowing rebuttal did happen and even that there's independant evidence some rebuttal claims had independant support.  For size reasons I would think it more appropriate to put move the ISU content here and any rebuttal info to the detail page of the Gonzzales article. Markbassett (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It shows that the DI put up spurious complaints, as usual. P.Z.Myers provides expert comments on these complaints: we should not give undue weight to such claims. . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 24.90.117.33 - the website pointer is good, but you'll have to be more specific to something there to be meaningful and particularly be discussing an edit for the article to have actual results.  So I suggeest that you pick the one biggest surest thing at that website and start boldly proposing edit mention of it and see how it goes.  Markbassett (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With any coverage of course needing to give due weight to the mainstream view, per WP:PSCI. . dave souza, talk 18:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV? The article is a biased hatchet-job
This Wikipedia page is as biased and propagandistic as the movie itself. Wikipedia's purported "NPOV" (Neutral Point of View) doctrine has been a joke from the earliest years, as further exemplified in this article. This long and painstaking article is simply a hatchet-job. Note the verbs "claims" and "alleges" when Intelligent Design sympathizers are cited; not once are these "shudder verbs" (questioning truth) used for the anti-Intelligent-Design people who instead merely "say" or "said" things.

There is a mostly-successful political campaign to keep Inteligent Design (deliberately conflated with religious Creationism) out of schools and universities, as the movie shows. The skeptics are more skilled in the use and abuse of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool than their opponents, as this article shows. (Shades of Serdar Argic.)

It's simply a fact that Social Darwinism and the Eugenics movement, and then Nazism, used Darwin's theory of evolution as supports. That's not Charles Darwin's responsibility, and it's not evidence for or against Darwinism, but it's true.

The main title of the movie is "Expelled", so it's appropriate for it to emphasize the career-destruction that results from endorsing or allowing for Intelligent Design, rather that setting out the theory and evidence in detail.

There is a certain general Wikipedia POV, basically that of the standard nerd. I have it myself. That it is "neutral" is a fraud and conceit of Wikipedia.

72.182.123.26 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to be a bit misinformed about facts, and while you seem to appreciate that this article complies with NPOV policy, it appears that you want that policy to change. Wrong talk page for that. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave -- ??? clearly he's flaming it as being an anti_ID hatchet job that failed at NPOV, not what you said. The note he makes of wording is a bit interesting, otherwise yah insertion of biases noted so what else is new. My suggestion would be to not try and fix it, there's enough factual content to be of some use and this seems about as good as it is going to get.   Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Overstreet quote
It was brought to my attention today that Jeffrey Overstreet was misquoted in this article, and upon investigation, this seems to be the case. The cite link is dead, but is available at Archive.org, and it is clearly from a "Letter to the editor" (the quoted bit is in "spoiler" text at the bottom), and cannot be credited to Overstreet. It was hamhandedly removed once today by an anonymous editor whose edit was justifiably reverted. I've re-removed it with explanation, although I cited the wrong "updated link" in the edit summary; the moved blog seems to have dropped the post in question. Overstreet's treatment of the letter and the response to it may push some buttons, but in any case we can't attribute that quote to Overstreet, since it is from "Stuart Blessman [...] a student at the University of Minnesota." --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the early 1950s experiment mentioned in the film. This experiment was a success not a failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.103.213 (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Divergence
looks useful. . dave souza, talk 17:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright controversies
I think the article would be improved by tightening it up a bit. I certainly agree that Copyright_controversies got notable news at the time, but both issues fizzled out as nothing. I see the section as dead weight distracting from the far more important content in the article. I'd like to just dump the Copyright_controversies section. Does anyone concur? Any opposition? Alsee (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Waited 9 days, no objections. Edit done. Alsee (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Just because something is on the news for a short time doesn't give it enduring notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed it was undue. If anything -- because there do seem to be several sources on the subject -- it might merit a brief one or two sentence summary elsewhere (in a "Production" section, for example). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  23:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A number of sources don't make something more notable. If 100 outlets report that Justin Bieber bought a new hat, does it merit mention in his bio? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. This is part of how Wikipedia maintains a NPOV. Of course that example isn't a good one because 100 reliable sources wouldn't report that he bought a new hat. Kind of like asking "would we report that bologna cures headaches just because all the major medical journals said it does?" If it's not true, then the journals wouldn't say it is and we wouldn't report it. If the medical journals say it is, then we do report it because we don't actually determine truth or importance at Wikipedia. If 100 outlets reported Bieber buying a new hat, then there's probably something notable about that event -- even if we can't figure it out, it's still "notable" for Wikipedia purposes. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins quote
Yes, you're right about Wikiquote. I was thinking Wikisource. Don't use either much. I think you didn't notice the IP was correcting grammar from a spoken source, not a written source. Can you please provide either a link to the clip you watched or an hour:minute where the quote occurs in the video? That should be included in your citation. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , it was a the first hit I got on a youtube search. I'm sure I could find it again, but do we really want to ref random youtube clip? The movie is the original source. Best would be to cite the number of minutes into the movie, if anyone has a copy. Alsee (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me that you might have wanted to see it. Here's the link. It's 1min 35sec for Stein's voiceover, and 1min 48sec for Dawkins' "But that higher intelligence..." quote. I'd rather keep it sourced to the movie though. Youtube has the benefit that readers can more easily see it, but youtube is generally a gross source, and there's no telling if/when that link could 404. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013155624/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/opinion/story.html?id=607100 to http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607100&p=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121224435/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/science-religion to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/science-religion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121224435/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/id to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/id
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705171039/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=f022096b-6832-4ec1-929d-92e8bc337364 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=f022096b-6832-4ec1-929d-92e8bc337364
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151230000918/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/sternberg to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/sternberg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151229232554/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/crocker to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/crocker
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aitse.org/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150310160713/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/egnor to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/egnor
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5527&issue=1%2F28%2F2008
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5534&issue=1%2F28%2F2008
 * Added tag to http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070601%2FNEWS02%2F706010392%2F1001%2FBUSINESS04
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121224435/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/background/interview-tactics to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/background/interview-tactics
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F10-04-2007%2F0004675856&EDATE=THU+Oct+04+2007%2C+08%3A00+AM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121224435/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/hitler-eugenics to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/hitler-eugenics
 * Added tag to http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080311%2FNEWS0120%2F80311045%2F1075
 * Added tag to http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/451272.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080313%2FCAPITOLNEWS%2F803130323%2F1067%2FRSS15
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080314%2FOPINION01%2F803140322%2F1006%2FOPINION
 * Added tag to http://pro.boxoffice.com/news/2012-08-number-crunch-how-well-do-politics-and-hollywood-mix
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5533&issue=1%2F28%2F2008
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.drdino.com/expelled-the-movie.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121224435/http://screenrant.com/review-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-vic-1530/ to http://screenrant.com/review-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-vic-1530/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing genre
While some reviewers used the term "propaganda", that doesn't remove it from a documentary category. Other reliable sources, such as the AV Club, New Scientist , Popular Science , Entertainment Weekly , Box Office Mojo, The Hollywood Reporter and TV Guide  call it a documentary, even while mostly criticizing it. We can't change it to "Christian propaganda" just because a couple of people (one of whom still called it a documentary) used the term. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propaganda films can be in the documentary genre, indeed that's been pretty common. This film is disreputable propaganda, and more to the point we should give due weight to the criticism and not misrepresent it by implying it's a valid or serious documentary. Of the two sources currently cited, one is a dead link, and the other is an archived press release by the film's promoters which calls it a "satirical documentary". At least that's more nuanced than just giving it undue credence. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Dave, I couldn't get the press release to open; my word processor says it's corrupted. I spent a quarter of an hour looking for "satirical documentary" on the internet, but couldn't find it wrt this movie. I think we need to stick with "documentary," citing to a valid page. YoPienso (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Dave, I see you're not on-Wiki right now. I'll go ahead and get rid of the dead link and remove "satirical," per sources; we can discuss and edit when you return. YoPienso (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm good only at manual citations, not wikified ones. I see my second source, a movie review in Christianity Today, is also used at the end of the third paragraph in the lead. Those are currently citations 3 and 15. I don't know how to combine them. I also managed to duplicate the citation to Shermer in SciAm, #s 2 and 12. Please note that a number of sources cited in the lead refer to the film as a documentary. YoPienso (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean with this edit summary: "in-bubble source. not reliable for the label"? YoPienso (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources should be actually independent; which means ideologically too. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely incorrect. A RS doesn't have to be ideologically independant. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All three sources you cite to call the film a documentary. YoPienso (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NYT: "One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry." That is not just plain "documentary"
 * USAToday does call it a "controversial documentary" and also "blatant advertising" and points out "While he cites the holes in Darwin's theory, he never identifies specific flaws. He does directly link the theory to Nazism and eugenics."
 * SA does call it an "antievolution documentary" and points out "Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves." It describes how the production company hired extras to act as Pepperdine students. This was not disclosed in the movie. It says "the central thesis of the film is a conspiracy theory about the systematic attempt to keep intelligent design creationism out of American classrooms and culture.".  It explicitly says " This propaganda production would make Joseph Goebbels proud."
 * All three sources support propaganda as well. I acknowledge that the term "documentary" is used broadly in the media for movies that are not telling fictional stories, and encompasses everything from actual documentaries to propaganda films like this.  Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked through the material at WP:FILM hoping to find some guidance on this (how do we generally separate something like Ken Burns' The Civil War that really fits the definition of Documentary film as in our article -- "a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." -- vs something like a Michael Moore movie, which is very much making an argument, or this movie. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that thoughtful reply.
 * My understanding and application of WP:NPOV is that we are to write objectively, not censoriously, about even those subjects we find distasteful. See, for example, the first sentence in the Adolf Hitler biography: Adolf Hitler was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. (Omitting a bit.) The next sentence is clinically to the point with no expression of outrage: As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust. "Central to the Holocaust," not "The vicious, deranged monster who condemned thousands of innocent Jews to the ovens of the Holocaust." Only a reader who already knew would guess he was a villain. That's how I feel we should begin this article--telling that it's an American documentary film. The propaganda aspect is treated later in the lead and in the "Reception" section. YoPienso (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This started with what I consider the unwarranted insertion of "satirical"--unwarranted because I couldn't find a source that said so. We have a source that calls it a "sleazy documentary," but we don't call Hitler cruel in the lead, or at all in WP's voice.
 * Then you decided to "call a spade a spade," which is something I certainly agree with, but I think the tone should be that of "central to the Holocaust."
 * Then you deleted all the documentary categories, which I think is uncalled for because it denies what the RSs say.
 * Claudia Puig notes that documentaries don't have to be objective (and goes on to call this one "blatant advertising), which is why we use the descriptor "documentary" for this movie and Michael Moore's.
 * I'm hopeful we can enjoy finding common ground and come to a meeting of the minds on this. YoPienso (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * once again, the body dicusses the allegation of the film being called propaganda. The question here was removing documentary from the lead and replacing it with "propaganda film". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a propaganda film in the documentary genre, the two aren't exclusive, but it's misleading to give any impression that it's an accurate documentary. The exact wording is open to discussion, it might work to say "propaganda in the form of a documentary film" . . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * that is an interesting proposal....Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an interesting proposal. Almost all sources call this a documentary. Some also call it propaganda, even while calling it a documentary. Calling it a documentary, something almost every source is doing, is not a value judgement. Calling it propaganda, which only some sources say, IS a value judgement. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Went and did some reading about types of documentaries. Most discussions I found seem to follow Nichols in --
 * He names 6 "modes"
 * Poetic (experimental, weird)
 * Expository (the most common kind, voice of god narration, etc)
 * Observational (camera just observes people doing stuff)
 * Participatory (interviews)
 * Reflexive (calls attention to the filmmaking)
 * Performative (emphasizes filmaker's emotional engagement and getting emotional response)
 * Looking at the whole book (which you can find online in several places) he doesn't deal with "propaganda" in any length. He does talk a lot about persuasion. in the chapter "What are documentaries about?". He says that educational videos are not much worth talking about; he thinks documentaries are generally directed to contentious things, and seek to persuade. He says "In general, then, we can say documentary is about the effort to convince, persuade, or predispose us to a particular view of the actual world we occupy". Thats interesting.


 * But back to the "modes", as an example, this blog post from the National Film Board in Canada has 4 modes, based clearly on Nichols' six modes:
 * Poetic (experimental, weird)
 * Expository (the most common kind, voice of god narration, etc)
 * Observational (camera just observes people doing stuff)
 * Participatory/Reflexive ("Performative" is rolled in here without saying it). Cites Michael Moore here.

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merely being persuasive (or attempting to be) doesn't make it propaganda. Again, almost all sources, including those who dislike the film, call it a documentary (fact). Only a few work in the term propaganda (opinion). You've shown no reason why the opinion of a few sources should trump the factual presentation that no source is disagreeing with. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Category
This film is widely categorized by movie reviewers and reporters as a documentary. I've watched it more than once and realize it is also a propaganda film. Nonetheless, the sources clearly call it a documentary. Therefore, so should we. YoPienso (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is related to the discussion above. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Yopienso. It is, of course, both a propaganda film (in that its evident purpose is to propagate a certain belief), and a documentary film. There is plenty of space for criticism down in the article, no need to put it in the first sentence. Plazak (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The introduction is supposed to summarize the article. Putting "propaganda" in the first sentence is a good way of doing that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with putting "propaganda" in the lead, but not in the first, defining sentence. See my rationale above. YoPienso (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Disagree: The film is a documentary. That's not opinion or in dispute. Even sources that dislike the film call it a documentary. Some sources call it propaganda. That has been contained in this article for some time now. Putting propaganda in the first sentence is not the best way to summarize a film because the propaganda label is opinion. This would be akin to labeling movies as good or bad in the first sentence based on their Rotten Tomatoes score. We put the genre in the first sentence. Discussions about opinions or critical receptions don't go in the first sentence on other films, so why on one you happen to dislike? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As above, the genre is "propaganda in the form of a documentary film" and it's misleading to imply in any way that it's an accurate or unbiased documentary. Propaganda doesn't mean it's bad, the same genre includes The Song of Ceylon and Triumph of the Will, both of which are excellent in their ways. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Dave Souza is entirely correct in saying that - strictly speaking - the propaganda film label label is neither good nor bad, it merely means a film with the purpose of persuading to a particular point of view. Unfortunately, too many readers and (alas) Wiki editors interpret it as meaning dishonest. The term is commonly used by film reviewers to denigrate a persuasive film with which they disagree. The question seems to be whether to use the propaganda label prominently in its true neutral sense, per Dave souza, or place it down further in the article in recognition that most readers will interpret it as a hot-button label meaning deceitful and dishonest.Plazak (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The term propaganda is a loaded one. We can play the 'here's the strict dictionary definition' game all day, but the average reader will see it as a pejorative, even if your intention is a strict reading of the term. This is even more likely when you put it in the very first sentence, where there is no context, as there is later on in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like how we handle the issue of balancing what those involved in a project say about it vs. what critics from the scientific community say about it at Creationist museum:
 * A creationist museum is a facility that hosts exhibits which use the established natural history museum format to present a young Earth creationist view that the Earth and life on Earth were created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in six days.[1] These facilities generally promote pseudoscientific Biblical literalist creationism and contest evolutionary science, which has led to heavy criticism from the scientific community.[2]
 * The first sentence is neutral in that it even-handedly defines the subject in the terms of those involved with the project. The next sentence presents the scientific community's view. YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dave Souza's recent edit seems to fix the problem--just call it a film. Thanks, Dave! YoPienso (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary Critical Reviews...
OK, I don't know why all those critical reviews are at the beginning of the page. Why can't you just say "the film was released to negative reviews" and put all the critical reviews under the "Reception" section? If you put them at the beginning of the article, it's just way too much information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neateditor123 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDE says the lead is supposed to be "a concise overview of the article's topic". Dishonesty and propaganda are essential components of the description and belong there.
 * Maybe the lead should be shortened, but this edit is too obviously WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the critic reviews. In fact, they're really great and well-written. However, when they're put at the very beginning of the page, it makes that introductory paragraph a bit bloated. What's wrong with moving those reviews to the "Reception" section (where they belong anyway) and just saying at the beginning of the page that the film was negatively received? That way, it's all neatly summarized. The casual reader doesn't need to read all those reviews at the beginning of the article. All that person wants to know is how the film was received by critics. This way, he or she can find that out very easily without having so much unnecessary information being flung into their faces. --Neateditor123 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

All right, since no one has responded, I've reverted back to my edit. If you wish to discuss this, please respond here. --Neateditor123 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * Silence is not WP:CONSENSUS, of course... Reverts also indicate a lack of it.  I've been watching this discussion but couldn't take time to evaluate the situation yet.  I however noticed that the lead generally appears to summarize parts of the body as it should per WP:LEAD.  It's possible that it contains too much details; that redundant sentences that are not part of the body already could be moved there.  To make the process easier to review, perhaps handle one source/review at a time?  The lead can still contain a summary of the important points made by reviews...  Also, there's generally an issue with calling such movies "documentary films", as they are considerd propaganda, an important fact that your edit removed from the lead.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. There is a reason it is not called BOLD, revert, BOLD cycle. If you do not stop this disruptive behavior at once, people might take it badly.
 * It is not acceptable to call this lying dungheap of a film a "documentary", and it is not acceptable to delete essential information such as "dishonesty" and "propaganda" from the lead. The assumption that you convinced anybody that all the reasons they had are wrong, just because you said "the introductory paragraph [is] a bit bloated", is just plain silly. The assumption that five hours of no answers means that nobody disagrees (because everybody is sitting in front of the article all the time and hitting "refreseh" every few minutes), is even more silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the citation of individual reviews in the lead section, this is indeed uncommon for film articles. Actually, now that I look more closely, the individual reviews are not even in the article body. This seems to go against WP:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The individual reviews should be placed in the body itself, and the lead section should summarize the critical reception (which I suggest making distinct from non-film critics' assessments). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, — Paleo Neonate  – 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I reverted back to my edit without waiting for an answer. It's just that since no one responded, I assumed that it was OK to revert back to my edit. In the future, I will not do that. However, I do think that Erik made a very good point. Again, the introductory paragraph shouldn't be the section of the article to have all those critical reviews. Those belong under the "Reception" section. In the introductory paragraph, you could just say that "the film was released to negative reviews from critics" and leave it at that. Also, I deleted the words "propaganda" and "dishonest" from the article because those are subjective terms. Just because you think this film is a "lying dungheap" doesn't give you an excuse to put subjective terms in a Wikipedia article. I put the term "documentary" on the page because that's what it essentially is, however dishonest or lying it may be. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. In fact, it very well may be right. However, such subjectivity does not belong on a Wikipedia page. --Neateditor123 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123


 * Regarding the "documentary" label, that label does not inherently mean fidelity to truth. I'm sure that in the history of documentaries, there is a whole range of subjectivity involved. Sampling the past year's news sources, Variety, Forbes, and The Hollywood Reporter call it a political documentary, so that label seems possible. Furthermore, even the first sentence in "Overview" has a New York Times citation calling it a documentary despite the pseudoscientific background. We have plenty of context provided in the article regarding mainstream critique of the subject matter. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Subjectivity is one thing, but good faith is another. It's not clear to me, at all, that the film makers attempted to adhere to any standard for truth-telling as many of the critics explicitly argue. To that end, it seems to me that while we have a film which is stylistically a documentary, to label it as simply a "documentary" is to be somewhat misleading. jps (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * what we think doesn't matter, if we say it it must be because sources also did. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Two paragraphs about reviews is certainly overkill. The fact that this movie has been widely panned and dismissed is one of its most notable features, so a prominent mention of that does belong at the beginning, but there is such a thing as going overboard. We don't need to include a mention of every negative review its received in this section. The last paragraph is mostly redundant and should go. -R. fiend (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I've reverted the edits calling it a propaganda film, and removing its status as a documentary. This was settled a long time ago. Various sources have called it propaganda, and we make that very clear from the beginning, but for us to say it is propaganda is POV, pure and simple. Likewise, pretty much everyone, even its critics, say it is a documentary. This doesn't mean it's accurate, fair, or without an agenda, it is simply the type of movie it is. -R. fiend (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a problem because as a genre the film only fits into the documentary style, but most critics claim the film was not made in good faith meaning that it is not really non-fiction which is what a documentary is generally described as. I think we could say the film was made in the style of a documentary, but we should not, in Wikipedia's voice, declare it to be a documentary. jps (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times calls it a documentary here. It does not say anything like "style of a documentary". The lead section and the article body already cover the fringe nature of the subject matter. Wikipedia's voice should follow reliable sources in calling it a documentary; it is overblown to say we are "declaring" it as a documentary as if a documentary is only ever "made in good faith" (whatever that means). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What, according to most definitions of film categories, is "[o]ne of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time" supposed to mean? If you want to say that the New York Times called it a "sleazy documentary", I won't object, but I think that the adjective the reviewer chose to attach to it means that she's really arguing that it does not function in the full sense that a documentary is supposed to function. What we're talking about here is Wikipedia's voice. If we won't take this critic's word that it is "sleazy", why is it okay to call it a "documentary" without qualification? And if you object to the wording of good faith, you are objecting to well-sourced descriptions of what non-fiction entails. Read it for yourself at the linked page!jps (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, there is a difference between "documentary-style" films and actual documentaries. The mockumentary is a famous example of a kind of film that is not a documentary but made in such a style. Of course, this film is not a mockumentary, but by the same token, it has aspects which make it justifiable to question whether it is a documentary without qualification. Can't we just call it a "documentary-style" film? jps (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence they are not honest and sincere in their beliefs? A documentary does not have to be correct, just honestly made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. If you read the reviews it seems that many (most?) critics accuse the filmmakers of purposely misleading interviewees. This is basically the definition of bad faith. It seems that the filmmakers were intentionally trying to mislead people. jps (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is not, they may well have been dishonest in how they asked questions (or in getting people to answer them) that does not mean they dishonestly presented their case. And again, a documentary does not have to honestly portray what it is a documentary about, just that the makers must believe what they are saying. Again I see no evidence this is not the case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I also note that some of the reviews we use as sources call it a documentary.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The filmmakers probably didn't believe what they were saying at some points. Let's be clear what we're talking about here, though. The filmmakers, I have no doubt, believe in a form of creationism or intelligent design. But that belief in and of itself is not what this film is about. This is a film about a claimed systematic campaign of exclusion by academics to alienate believers. It is not at all clear that the filmmakers actually believe that this is going on. In fact, it seems that the filmmakers are hoping that by claiming that this is going on, people will be more inclined to believe in their favored ideas. Thus, they try to mislead certain interviewees to say things that sound like this conspiracy exists. This is so egregious that the critic referenced above, for example, claims that "[t]his goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term." It cannot be a documentary if the film is intentionally lying to the audience, can it? jps (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it can A documentary is "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." there is nothing about that that means they have to be 100% true, just earnest in what they say and I note you say the film "The film suggests" which means it does not say it explicitly. Thus (yes) he may well believe what he says, just not what you think he says.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As I explained, critics really do contend that they are not earnest in their presentation. You also misinterpret what the word "suggest" means which would have been clear had you actually watched the film. They explicitly say that Sterberg lost his job. The critic is saying that the film was suggesting that the motive for the loss of the job was intellectual discrimination. But they explicitly claim he lost his job when he, in fact, did not (and there is plenty of evidence the filmmakers knew this). jps (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I explained I do not see that in reviews, I see them being represented as dishonest on their actions, not their beliefs. As to Sterberg, a job does not have to be paid, and many (for example) volunteers consider themselves as having a job. Sterberg might well have considered it a job (rather then paid employment). So lets have some quotes where RS say they did not believe what they said. Not the RS saying "we do not believe it" the RS saying "they did not".Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The previous quote does explicitly what you are asking for. This is getting into WP:CHEESE territory. I'm not going to jump through any more of my hoops. Let's wait for other editors as I tire of your tendentiousness and the asymmetry of demands. The WP:ONUS is on you since you are trying to argue for the inclusion of content. Good day. jps (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Neateditor123, you said you deleted the words "propaganda" and "dishonest" from the article because those are subjective terms. Wikipedia's job is to accurately summarize what Reliable Sources write about a topic. One of the most noteworthy things about the movie is the reception, which extends beyond the usual film critics to reception by scientific and educational communities. And one of the most noteworthy things about that reception is how often film critics and others reliable sources describe the film as "propaganda" or use terms such as "dishonest". You cannot delete those words as "subjective". It is an objective fact that is how the film is widely described. And without taking a position on exactly how much detail to include in the lead, that extraordinary fact does need to be noted in the lead. Alsee (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not just say that critics called the film "dishonest propaganda" instead of just subjectively calling the movie that yourself?--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * Also, I think we're going a bit off-topic here. All I wanted to ask on this Talk section was whether to move the critical reviews at the beginning to the "Reception" section or not. Have we reached a consensus on that yet? I would like to know so I can at least put that issue out of my head.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

OK, if nobody's going to respond to my post, I'm going to put the critic reviews where they belong without changing any of the controversial "subjective" terms on this page. I know that silence doesn't mean consensus, but I'm not going to sit here forever waiting for somebody to answer. If you have a problem with my edit, please reply to this post. Again, I didn't start this section to debate the "subjective" terms on this article. All I wanted to do was get the issue of the misplaced critical reviews properly handled.--Neateditor123 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123


 * The reviews mentioned in the lede don't look misplaced or undue to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, they most definitely are because all those reviews at the very beginning of the article is overkill and makes the article extremely bloated. At the beginning of the article, you should simply state that the film was released to negative reviews and put all the negative reviews under the "Reception" section where they belong.--Neateditor123 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * The negative reviews are what make the film notable in the first place, so they should be in the lede section. Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The film's main claim to fame appears to be the negative reception prompted by its disingenuous presentation. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, what's wrong with them being under the "Reception" section? If you put them all in the opening paragraph, it makes the article very bloated. What's wrong with moving the negative reviews to the "Reception" section and simply stating "the film was released to negative reviews" in the opening paragraph? It seems perfectly legitimate to me.--Neateditor123 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * They should be in both, a section about reception and a summery of said in the lead. What we should not have is material in the lead that is not in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's another reason I want to move the critical reviews to the "Reception" section. There shouldn't be critical reviews in the opening paragraph that aren't anywhere else in the article.--Neateditor123 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * OK, now the critical reviews, with their citations, are in the "Reception" section. Selected quotes have been kept in the lede. I hope I didn't leave too much of a mess... Just plain Bill (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, your edit was just fine. I'm just happy that at least that issue is FINALLY over (Thank God). If you don't mind, however, I will patch up a couple things.--Neateditor123 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * Thank Just plain Bill actually!!! Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Documentary?
Yes, it's a documentary film, per our article and multiple sources, a few of which I reference below.

User:ජපස's recent edit summary Since no source calls it a "documentary" without attaching adjectives, it's only fair to say that this is the style rather than the substance. We don't call Triumph of the Will a documentary. See where the film is described as "pure propaganda that would make even Leni Riefenstahl blush.") falsely claims "calls it a 'documentary' without attaching adjectives," implying they are all negative adjectives like the NYT's "sleazy." Check out these sources: So, fail, User:ජපස.
 * Scientific American: Calls it a documentary in the subtitle and says it's "allegedly a documentary" in the text.
 * Rotten Tomatoes: Genre:	Documentary, Special Interest
 * Metacritic: Genre(s): Documentary
 * Christianity Today: GENRE Documentary
 * Roger Moore, in the Orlando Sentinel, reprinted in the Chicago Tribune: This is a scathing review that nonetheless labels the film a documentary, qualified only by the adjective "new."
 * Roger Ebert's even more hostile review unqualifiedly calls it a documentary. (For the purist, he calls it "Ben Stein's documentary.')

Compromise suggestion: Why don't we call it an antievolution documentary like Michael Shermer did in SA. That's accurate, and should satisfy makers, supporters, critics, detractors, and enemies. YoPienso (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, a "pseudoscience documentary" as with Vaxxed. Of course, "documentary style" probably works as well - pushing the "documentary" label may be undue promotion of fringe theories. --tronvillain (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that our article on documentary film, citing to the OED, states: "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." intended to--lots of wiggle room there
 * Our article also refers to Grierson's definition of documentary as "creative treatment of actuality".
 * It furthermore says, "Documentary filmmaking can be used as a form of journalism, advocacy, or personal expression," which applies to Expelled.
 * Do you think the average reader will realize that the word "antievolution" signals opposition to mainstream science? I do. YoPienso (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the note I just added after the second ref in the lead to Claudia Puig's review. She specifically states documentaries aren't necessarily objective. YoPienso (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Objectivity is not the problem. Bad faith misrepresentation is the problem. It's the difference between having an opinion and lying. jps (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The filmmakers misrepresented their project to Dawkins and Myers in order to wangle interviews. Their finished product, however, represents their sincere opinions. Huge difference there: they aren't deliberately lying to viewers, but yes, they are trying to persuade viewers that their opinions are correct. YoPienso (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Their finished product, however, represents their sincere opinions" - No, it does not. See Myers' accusation of quote mining. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * People often quote mine to bolster their sincere opinions. Have you ever seen political memes on Facebook? YoPienso (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From the context, I had interpreted the word "their" in "their sincere opinions" as referring to Dawkins and Myers, not the filmmakers. The filmmakers quotemined what the scientists said so the finished product did not represent the scientists' honest opinions. Whatever people do on Facebook, or how common dishonesty is, is not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks for that; it explains our misunderstanding. I meant the film represents the filmmakers' sincere opinions. The filmmakers tricked Myers and Dawkins into an interview and then quote-mined their comments. I mentioned FB memes to you as an example to help you understand what I meant because it seemed to me you couldn't wrap your head around someone presenting fake evidence to support their honest sincere opinions. But now I see the confusion was a grammatical question of pronouns and antecedents. YoPienso (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More than this, I would argue that the finished product does more than merely present the filmmaker's opinions which is exactly where we run afoul of declaring something a "documentary" without qualification. The film as a whole is a means to present their polemic, but it much of the content does not sincerely adhere to what we have good evidence that the filmmakers knew according to the sources we see. When someone makes a movie about what they think is a scandal, but to do so they edit the footage to make it seem like various interview subjects hold beliefs which they do not or include what they claim to be statements of "fact" which are simply not true or lie by omission, this is a means by which the sincerity of the filmmakers is impugned. To plainly declare this to be a documentary in an unadorned fashion is to take the side that the filmmakers did not do any of these things which is a point of view. Specifically, it's the creationist point of view. jps (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet that's what the RSs say. And, like the RSs, we qualify the term: per Shermer, we preface "documentary" with "anti-evolution." Specifically, it's not the creationist point of view; it's merely the name of the genre to which the film belongs. YoPienso (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Documentary" is an appropriate description of the style, just as a comedy is a comedy regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's funny, and a qualifier such as "antievolution" would add accuracy. Reviews indicate that it is more anti-evolution than pro-intelligent design. –dlthewave ☎ 19:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So we should call it "documentary-style". But YoPienso reverted away that reasonable compromise in order to hide the relevant information in a footnote. Very suspicious. jps (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with documentary-style. I am not OK with documentary. From Documentary film: "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." The sources in this article establish hat the purpose here is not "non-fictional" and absolutely not to maintain a historical record, it's to replace scientific consensus with religious dogma. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read this section and the preceding ones for an understanding of why we're calling it a documentary. Also, I like and almost put a hyphen in antievolution, but the source doesn't use one. I'm happy to leave it in if others don't object. YoPienso (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained yourself sufficiently, YoPienso, and are claiming a consensus which does not exist. Since the film is accused by most of the reliable sources of not acting in good faith, it is irresponsible to label it as a documentary which tacitly implies the film is non-fiction. Leaving the vital caveats buried in a footnote as you have done is the height of editorial irresponsibility and a sign of creationist WP:POVPUSHing, which I hereby accuse you of engaging in. jps (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Documentary implies factual accuracy. Virtually every reality-based sources establishes beyond doubt that this is not factual. I am OK with not including any genre, but if we must include a genre then it's propaganda not documentary. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Especially wikilinked as it is to documentary film --> non-fiction --> good faith. I tried to make this point earlier, but it may have gotten buried. jps (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remember that at Wikipedia we go by the RSs, not our own critiques. Core, indisputable policies: WP:V, WP:NOR. The sources overwhelmingly call it a documentary. Jps, those same RSs to which you refer call the film a documentary. Surely this needs no further explanation. YoPienso (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't dealt substantively with the point. Instead you are sticking to your own obfuscation is classic POV-pushing fashion. jps (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that the overwhelming majority of RSs call it a documentary. Another point so basic it shouldn't need repeating is that WP relies on RSs, not users' personal opinions. You're adding your own definition/understanding of "documentary" in disregard of how RSs have used it. There, that's my best good-faith shot at dealing substantively with the point. If I'm still not clear enough, please ask R. fiend, NiteShift36, Plazak, PaleoNeonate, Erik, or SlaterSteven to explain it to you. YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's not the point. Try again. jps (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then pray tell, what it is? I won't play a guessing game with you. YoPienso (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What we do here is summarize high quality sources. This sort of one-word label content, tends to be difficult in a case like this, where high quality RS call it several things. One option would be to add some distance and say something like "which has been described as a documentary and as a propaganda film." Another would be to compromise on something in the middle, like "documentary-style film". Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The suggestion described as a documentary and as a propaganda film could work, the suggestion pseudoscience documentary pulled from Vaxxed is interesting. Or the lead sentence could simply say "film", leaving "documentary" and "propaganda" to be addressed with more nuance in later sentences. Alsee (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Documentary-style film" or just plain "film" would work for me. YoPienso (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a documentary, it may be foolish, ill informed and ignorant, but that does not mean its makers do not think it is real.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In previuos cases of faux-documentaries we have used "documentary-style film". It is claimed to be a documentary but th3 article makes clear that it systematically misrepresents the facts and other sources rightly call it propaganda. we can say it is a self-described documentary, but to call it a documentary in Wikipedia's vouce is to carry water for a propagandist. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I say call it a documentary-style Propaganda film. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of creationist WP:POVPUSHing
You yourself, jps, said, "There's a problem because as a genre the film only fits into the documentary style." You're right--that's what it is, as attested to by many RSs. The "problem" you discern is that you don't like it. Boomerang! You, in fact, are the one who is pushing a POV. See above what R. fiend said: Also, I've reverted the edits calling it a propaganda film, and removing [sic] its status as a documentary. This was settled a long time ago. Various sources have called it propaganda, and we make that very clear from the beginning, but for us to say it is propaganda is POV, pure and simple. Likewise, pretty much everyone, even its critics, say it is a documentary. This doesn't mean it's accurate, fair, or without an agenda, it is simply the type of movie it is. -R. fiend (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC) I understand when he wrote removing he meant restoring, since his edit summary is "all the sources say it's a documentary (whether it's a good one is not the issue), calling it propaganda is POV." No one's calling R. fiend a creationist POV-pusher. I fear you, jps, fell into a trap: you see on my user page I'm a Christian and jump to the erroneous conclusion that I think the film is accurate. Or maybe you didn't check my user page; maybe you simply misunderstood my objectivity as support. I fully recognize the film as a propaganda piece. We already have the word "propaganda" in the lead 4 times, and 4 more times in the body, and then some more in the refs and notes. I support inserting Puig's assertions into the narrative at an appropriate place--which isn't the first paragraph of the lead. It could be in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, as long as we don't fall back into the overkill R. fiend detected and fixed. Erik cited policy wrt the lead and PaleoNeonate agreed. So do I, as anyone who understands the policy would. You're the dissenter here, jps. YoPienso (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, in my statement I meant I was reverting it's removal [ie I was reinstating it]. I see how it can be ambiguous, but that is what I was attempting to say. -R. fiend (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is classic deflection. The proof is in the pudding. You tried to get this film described as a documentary without any acknowledgment of the fact that the reliable sources indicate that the filmmakers were intentionally misleading people. That's not what a documentary is according to all the definitions I can find, but this ploy is straight out of a creationist playbook. It doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are. Your actions are creationist POV-pushing. jps (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where's the deflection? The second half of your statement, "You tried to get this film described as a documentary without any acknowledgment of the fact that the reliable sources indicate that the filmmakers were intentionally misleading people," is off-topic. You're arguing about that on this page with other people, but I simply restored the well-sourced term documentary. We don't put everything in the first sentence; please read my argument about that above, posted 02:58, 27 May 2018, using the Hitler article as an example.
 * The issue I'm addressing is about what genre, per RSs, the film belongs to. YoPienso (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the sources call it several things. Be careful not to make misrepresentations in edit notes as you did here, since you cannot go back and change them. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? What did I misrepresent? YoPienso (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're claiming that there is a wide agreement that this movie is a documentary. You've refused to deal substantively with the critiques of the very sources your citing to make this argument which identify the movie making false statements and mischaracterizations in bad faith. I have pointed out why it's problematic to label a film suffering from such critique as a "documentary" without qualification. I have proposed that we call it "documentary-style". You refuse to talk about any of this and insist that the only possibility is to call the movie a documentary -- a description which aligns closely with a creationist POV. That's POV-pushing, plain and simple. jps (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was asking Jytdog what he meant about an edit summary of mine. I don't think you're answering that question.
 * Wrt your allegations, indeed I'm claiming that there is wide agreement that this movie is a documentary, and I provided links to the sources. Do you dispute that? YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Read what you actually wrote in the edit note. Read what i said. The problem is simple. I will not respond further, but do not continue to make misrepresentations in edit notes. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself--be opaque.
 * For other editors on this page:
 * I wrote (to User:ජපස, aka jps) You "believe you see" POV-pushing. :D The issue is very simple: What genre does the film belong to? The sources call it a documentary.
 * Jytdog said, Be careful not to make misrepresentations in edit notes as you did here, since you cannot go back and change them.
 * I have no idea what Jytdog means by this. I don't know what he thinks I misrepresented. Jps accused me of POV-pushing, which I think he did perceive, although mistakenly. The "'believe you see' POV-pushing" followed by the laughing emoji (:D) is a joke referring to these edits and edit summaries: 1, 2. I see nothing I would want or need to change. YoPienso (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is not and has never been with the genre. I have made it abundantly clear what the issue is. It's unclear why it's hard for you to figure this out. It is possible that you are simply incompetent in the context of these sorts of discussions. jps (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Debating a creationist is like wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Improving narrative
Jytdog has elegantly simplified the second sentence of the article. Continuing in that vein, I suggest two rewrites:

First paragraph of lead: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American anti-evolution documentary film directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein.[2][3][a][4] The film contends that there is an atheist conspiracy in academia to oppress and exclude people who believe in intelligent design (ID).[5][6] The film portrays evolution as a major contributor to communism, fascism, atheism, eugenics and, in particular, to Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust.[7][2] It presents intelligent design as a scientific theory rather than a religious belief, as it has been shown to be, [ref to Kitzmiller v. Dover] but does not offer a specific definition of ID or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines intelligent design as a political issue.[7][8][9]


 * Rationale:
 * Omit passive voice.
 * Give and occasionally use the abbreviation ID for intelligent design.
 * No need to say twice that ID is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Third paragraph of lead: The general media response to the film has been largely negative. USA Today, Scientific American, and numerous other publications described the film as poorly-done propaganda.[2][3][11] The New York Times called it "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."[2] Christianity Today gave the film a positive review, rating it with 3 out of 4 stars,[14] but the Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor),"[12] while the film review website Rotten Tomatoes gave Expelled a "rotten" rating with a 9% meta-score (later improved to 11% overall) and posted this summary: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary."[13]


 * Rationale:
 * Lump the reviews with ratings together. Put the lone good one first (not that there weren't other positive reviews, mainly Christian, IIRC), immediately followed with a "but" :and a whole paragraph on the mainstream reception.
 * Contrast Christianity Today with two well-known secular dailies.
 * Streamline the info from and about Rotten Tomatoes.
 * The clinching sentence should be strong, not a tacked-on "Oh, yes--one good review."

I've been careless with mark-up and deliberately omitted blue-links and actual refs here on talk. YoPienso (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of attribution to publications. There is editorial imprimatur, but it tends to make an article read like a poorly-done book report. Slightly better is quoting the critic directly, but even that is poor writing. The best thing to do is assert facts that are clearly agreed upon by all reliable sources and only include quotes that help the reader understand something unique about the situation. jps (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. If others agree, we can change that. YoPienso (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Imagine" Lawsuit
As far as I can tell, there's nothing currently in the article about Yoko Ono, EMI, and Lennon's estate suing Premise Media federally for using a fifteen second clip of John Lennon's "Imagine" without a license. Also, EMI and Capitol Records sued Premise in NY state, claiming that" by using the song, Premise is harming EMI's ability to license 'Imagine'." Premise argued that use of the song was fair use, and Ono's preliminary injunction was denied on 2 June 2008." By October 2008, EMI and Ono dropped their suits, but the DVD release of Expelled did not feature the "Imagine" segment.
 * Ah, I see the relevant section was removed back in as per talk, a discussion with which I am going to have to strongly disagree. -tronvillain (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm on board with adding this stuff back in, unless it's just a brief mentions in an existing section. There's certainly ample sourcing, but that sourcing is all from the same time period; last quarter 2008. That means no lasting significance.
 * What's interesting is that I see the "long standing consensus" to keep "propaganda" out of the lede is really just the long-standing opinion of one editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs an entire section, but that two lawsuits over John Lennon's Imagine ended up keeping it out of the home release is pretty relevant to the film, as well as interesting in terms of fair use. Plus, May through October isn't "last quarter 2008." --tronvillain (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, I missed the earlier stuff. Also, those newer sources address the whole lasting impact thing, so consider me won over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"Propaganda"
This has been gone over a million times, but I guess we're due for another round. Calling this a propaganda film is simply POV. Sure, some people have referred to it as propaganda, but that in itself does not make it a propaganda film. "X, Y, and Z have referred to the film as propaganda" is a fine inclusion, and the article states that. Saying it therefore is a propaganda film is a step too far, especially when some of those calling it that are the very same people/institutions the film attacks. -R. fiend (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not POV to state that this film is propaganda. The word "propaganda" has a specific definition, and this film fits that definition. Numerous reliable sources also call it propaganda, with no reliable sources arguing that it's not propaganda. So it's both true and verifiable that this film is propaganda. The insistence that we not label it is the only POV pushing going on here. It may be well-intentioned POV pushing, but it is pushing us to alter the POV of this article by making it less accurate which is not acceptable. I would, finally, note that yes, indeed, this has been gone over many times previously. Note that despite the constant complaints, the consensus has remained to call it propaganda. This is because the arguments against doing so are entirely unconvincing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the source calls it propaganda - if you have reliable sources that dispute that view, please present them. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not seen this consensus you cite. This article has stood for years without it being directly labelled a "propaganda film," and I am merely removing a recent addition to the contrary. Sure, some people have called this a propaganda film. It's been called a lot of things, in fact. Wikipedia does not call every film that has been criticized as being propaganda "a propaganda film." Very, very actually have that label. We don't call An Inconvenient Truth "propaganda" because to do so would be POV, and that word was actually used in a court ruling on the matter . Calling a film propaganda based on a handful of film reviews is simply POV. Stating that those sources have called it such is not. -R. fiend (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The film appears to fit the definition of propaganda and is described as such by sources. It's just an accurate description, not a violation of WP:NPOV.--tronvillain (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide these reliable sources? All I've seen are film reviews, which are opinion pieces, and therefore isn't exactly a reliable source (which is why we don't call movies "unwatchable," "terrible," and such). Film critics make lots of claims about lots of movies. We don't treat them as fact. -R. fiend (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Film critics are our usual go-to for the genre of a film. You are incorrect about how we use reviews. Regardless, neither this nor this are typical film reviews, but serious examinations of the film. Both refer to it as propaganda. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are issues with source like this. Scientific American is a publication about science, and not a reliable source for movie classification, and furthermore is one of the institutions directly or indirectly attacked in this movie, so is going to have some real issues with objectivity. I will admit that this film meets a the definition of propaganda in its most broad use, but so do Michael Moore's films, and probably just about every political documentary ever made. Wikipedia rightfully does not label them as such for the sake of NPOV. It almost never uses that label, in fact, and there is no reason this should be an exception. Saying certain sources have called it propaganda is accurate both accurate and fair, and there has been a long standing consensus to keep it that way. -R. fiend (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also USA Today: "This is propaganda, a political rant disguised as a serious commentary on stifled freedom of inquiry"; The Globe and Mail: "This film is an appallingly unscrupulous example of hack propaganda"; the Mountain Express: "Junk science meets even junkier filmmaking in Expelled -- a no more shameless, stupid and loathsome piece of propaganda has ever skulked its way into the theater", the Newark Star-Ledger: "Typical of all propaganda, it also distorts language", and The Chicago Reader: "Embracing evolutionary theory will turn you into a close-minded, God-denying Nazi -- that's the upshot of this ludicrous propaganda piece." Then there are those that are simply consistent with describing it as propaganda, like Roger Ebert: "This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions, segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, etc." --tronvillain (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does' look as if this has gone back and forth a few times. The diffs I spot-checked merely happened to be immediately after someone added "propaganda" to the description. It should be noted that when I'm spot checking the past state of an article, I generally pick diffs immediately following edits made by editors I trust, such as, in this case.
 * Regardless, has thus far failed to provide any sources disputing the label, nor presented any cogent reason why the label is inaccurate, but merely continued to insist it is "simply POV". I'm sorry, but repetition does not make for a convincing argument.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are certainly reviews that have considered the film fair and objective, which contradicts the notion of propaganda. To ask for a source that specifically says "the film is not a propaganda film" is just silly; no one uses that language. The movie is not universally considered a propaganda film the way Transformers is universally considered an action film, and we should not use the opinions of a select few film reviewers to dictate absolutes about it, especially with a word as loaded and controversial as "propaganda." -R. fiend (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest - which reviewers have called the film fair and objective? Just so we can get a grasp of whether or not these are reliable sources. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm interested to find that out at well, given that the overwhelming evidence seems to be that the film is absolutely not fair or objective. --tronvillain (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded (thirded?) I would like to see these sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? My whole point is that film reviews are not reliable sources for this sort of issue. The film has been very widely panned. The article makes that abundantly clear. A few people have described it as propaganda in their reviews. That is presented in the opening paragraphs. To say it therefore is ipso facto a propaganda film is going to far, and enters the realm of POV. If someone wants to state something as a settled fact it is incumbent upon them to prove it, not for others to try to disprove it. To say "this word has occasionally been used to describe it" is insufficient. More sources call it a documentary than call it propaganda, and the article is already weasel-wording it's way around that with this "documentary-style" phrasing. The POV is quite obvious here. -R. fiend (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it matters. We're discussing how to label the film. We label it according to what the sources say. If reliable sources call it propaganda, and a few random sources say otherwise, we call it propaganda. If it's the reverse, we don't. You brought up the reviews that said it was fair and objective - I'm just asking you to expand on that by saying which reviews they were. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  17:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources do not directly call it propaganda, therefore by your own criterion we Wikipedia should not either. What sources do call it propaganda? So far I've seen Scientific American and Center for Inquiry (neither of which is good source for movie classification). As of now the statement that it is propaganda is unsourced, which in itself is problematical. -R. fiend (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I repeat my last question. You said that reviews have called it fair and objective. Which reviews have done that? If you know of any that do, please tell us which. If you don't actually know of any that do, please strike that assertion. I'd be happy enough with synonyms, I'm not saying that they have to use those exact words, but seriously - which reviews are you talking about that say it is fair and objective? Girth Summit  (blether)  18:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Simplest explanation: R. fiend just made it up and hoped that nobody would notice. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We have reliable sources that say "this is propaganda" - if you want that removed, please start by showing reliable sources that dispute that it's propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the POV is quite obvious here. The film appears well established as deliberately misleading to further a fringe position and associated politics, but attempts seem to have been made to minimize accurately describing that in the lede for at least the past ten years. But that's a "No" on providing these "reviews that have considered the film fair and objective" then? --tronvillain (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. If you want an article to say something is X, you must provide reliable sources saying it is such, particularly in controversial matters. So far the only links anyone provided are to a scientific journal, which is a great source for scientific matters, but not for film classification. I believe there are some reviews out there that do call this movie propaganda, but no one's actually linked to them, nor is it terribly important, as they are opinion pieces, and therefore themselves POV. No one has provided any references to more reliable sources. IMDB, for example, might be a good one, but they have only one genre listed for this movie: documentary (a term which, hilariously, the same people who say the film is definitely propaganda and must state that up front because "the sources" say so, refuse to use in this article). Now, I'm not necessarily saying the film isn't propaganda (I've even said it meets its broadest definition), just that it isn't for Wikipedia to say it necessarily is, particularly based only on the words of a few individuals. "These people have called the film propaganda" is a perfectly reasonable thing for the article to say, and where it is presented that way no one is trying to remove it. To call it a "propaganda film" based on what seems to be a minority opinion, violates Wikipedia's NPOV policies, and you will find precious few other articles that do this. Regardless of anything else, I think this issue could use input from more people without an agenda. -R. fiend (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Yes, I agree. You should correct this misunderstanding by reading WP:ABIAS, WP:GEVAL and WP:V. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that was pretty much terribly irrelevant. Still no sources? -R. fiend (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been provided with numerous sources. You may pretend otherwise, but it's very unlikely to fool anyone. In the interest of giving you all the rope you need to hang yourself, I googled the quotes tronvillain provided above to show you all of those sources. It took less than 45 seconds to get them all, as well as grabbing the other two I previously provided you., , , , &  So that's six reliable sources, ranging from a serious write-up in Scientific American to dismissive critical reviews, all of which agree that it is propaganda. Meanwhile, you have not provided a single source contesting this, nor have you provided a single reliable source stating that the film is "fair and objective", despite you claiming such sources exist. If all you have to make your case is this level of abject dishonesty, then you do not have a case and should stop before this becomes disruptive.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've only given opinion pieces so far, which don't carry a lot of weight. It's fine for saying "the film has been criticized for being propaganda" but it does not establish that the film itself is, in no uncertain terms, a propaganda film. I've skimmed through a fair number of reviews and most do not describe it as such, which seems a bit odd if it is so obviously so. Pretty much all sources do call it a documentary though, which makes the "we go with what the sources say" argument seem pretty flimsy. I have yet to see it labelled as a propaganda film outside of an opinion column; IMDB, Netflix, and Amazon do not do so, and they do categorize the movies they list. -R. fiend (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for you to provide even a single source to support your argument. P.S. Here's a little something to contextualize your argument. According to what you're saying, the propaganda film which is possibly the best known work of propaganda ever produced is not, actually, propaganda. Try to find "propaganda films" as a category on IMDB, Amazon or Netflix. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is not "sources for my argument" when my point is the lack of sources for yours. Most sources dealing with this subject do not call it a propaganda film, and only a handful of opinion pieces do. My "source" is WP:NPOV. As for your Triumph of the Will argument, I never said that because Expelled wasn't labelled as such on IMDB it isn't a propaganda film (I didn't say it wasn't a propaganda film at all), but the lack of such labels in impartial descriptions illustrates how problematical that label is, and Wikipedia in particular should tread very lightly when bestowing it upon a movie. (Besides, on IMDB the tagline for Triumph of the Will is "The infamous propaganda film," so that makes a pretty strong case for that one.) -R. fiend (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're done here. You clearly aren't interested in any conclusions except your own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You called my propaganda film a propaganda film. Prepare to be talked to death. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can honestly say that I've only five fingers on each hand. But I do have a third leg. Ladies....   ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * R. Fiend's argument is that sources which they refuse to share with the rest of us demonstrate that the film is accurate, and that numerous RSes which have been presented to them don't exist or don't count for reasons that have nothing to do with our policy. To say that argument is "correct" to the point of overriding the very clear consensus here is just nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Can eds please read wp:v, you are required to prove your case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * R. fiend already made the argument well; there's no reason for me to repeat it. The fact is, the film is most widely called a documentary in the RSs. Calling is documentary-style is a concession, and one I approve of.
 * But if I must repeat, here's his argurment: Calling this a propaganda film is simply POV. [...] The question is not "sources for my argument" when my point is the lack of sources for yours. Most sources dealing with this subject do not call it a propaganda film, and only a handful of opinion pieces do. My "source" is WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is neither a reliable source nor supportive of this claim. Additionally, the claim that there are no sources supporting "propaganda film" is so blatantly false that there is no excuse for any editor making it: the sources have been presented multiple times by multiple editors in this very thread, as well as being used in the article long before this thread started. The "argument" you claim is correct is built upon false postulates, and is a non-sequitur anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! YoPienso (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see a consilience of reliable published sources literally using the word "propaganda" to describe the film. If it quacks, flaps, dabbles, and sheds water like a duck, along with cognizant observers being on record saying, "look, there goes a duck," then it is appropriate to use Wikipedia's voice to call it a duck. Sources proclaiming the film "fair and objective" have not been shown here, despite repeated requests. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you find this amusing. Responding to your edit summary: I don't know R. Fiend, but I do know WP:NPOV, WP:IRS and community norms and I know that the latter doesn't work the way the former claims it does when it comes to fringe subjects. We are explicitly instructed not to present a false balance, when what is being argued for here is a false balance between the claims of critics of this film and the claims of the filmmakers by describing the film in ways that lend false legitimacy to its claims.
 * The arguments about sourcing have consisted of R. Fiend claiming that film reviews are not reliable sources for the genre of a film (a claim which is startlingly ignorant of common practice here), and claiming that non-film-reviews are not reliable sources for the genre of a film (a claim which you might recognize as problematic with respect to the first), and bitching about the bias of non film review sources, for good measure (a claim which you might recognize as meaningless). R. Fiend has also claimed the existence of sources which say things that support his argument, but has refused to provide those sources. R. Fiend has further made claims that, were their logic sound, would mean there is no such thing as a propaganda film, despite admitting that this film meets the definition of a propaganda film. Finally, R. Fiend has rejected the very existence of those sources which have been provided to them. It has literally been a shifting of the goalposts, a denial of what has been shown to be fact and the complete and unexplained rejection of any counter-argument and evidence to the contrary. Hence my eventual response above where I explained that I was unwilling to debate this further with them.
 * Again: the claim that this argument is "correct" is nonsensical. It is, in fact, utter shit, as far as arguments go.
 * Now that I have explained myself to you, I will not debate this any further. Unless you have novel, convincing arguments, this discussion is done, the consensus is clear, and your position on the content will not be taken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, read wp:v, tell us what the source is and what it says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out before and has been extensively explained by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, there is no conflict with NPOV. The evidence clearly establishes the film as fittings the definition of propaganda in both the broad and the narrow sense, and there are numerous sources describing it as such. Attempting to explain away the sources as "biased" or "opinion pieces" on a fringe topic like is moving way past neutral point of view towards false balance and profringe. --tronvillain (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the new section below, responding to Slatersteven's request to "tell us what the source is and what it says." YoPienso (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Tell us what the source is and what it says"
I'm opening a new section to follow up on the "Propaganda" discussion. Per WP:NPOV: Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Can you identify the judgmental, partial language in this sentence? Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American documentary-style, anti-evolution, propaganda film directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein. Can you see the intent to disparage the film in the very first sentence of the article? That is not a neutral point of view. As pointed out above, film reviews for the most part call Expelled a documentary. Opinion pieces in science magazines and from think tanks aren't written by professional film reviewers. Their opinions must be included, but as opinions on the film, not as definitions of it. The opening sentence should neutrally define the subject. I'm pasting in the general review at Rotten Tomatoes along with the first 7 reviewers (the most prominent), and emphasizing the words "documentary" and "propaganda" to help editors spot them quickly. The views of those reviewers notable enough to have their own WP articles carry more weight. Rotten Tomatoes: Genre:Documentary, Special Interest Critics Consensus: Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary.
 * Roger Ebert, probably the foremost movie critic of the day, called it a documentary and never once used the word "propaganda" in his harshly critical review. "I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution."
 * Philip Marchand "A documentary directed by Nathan Frankowski, hosted by Ben Stein." "a polemical documentary" (Doesn't say "propaganda.")
 * Liam Lacey "Ben Stein's pro-creationist doc" The full review facetiously begins "A reading from the Book of Apocryphal Documentary," and ends, "this film is an appallingly unscrupulous example of hack propaganda. . ."
 * Reece Pendleton--"ludicrous propaganda piece" https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/Film?oid=1050393
 * Steven Hyden "an intelligent-design documentary" https://film.avclub.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-1798204147
 * Adam Markovitz "GENRE Documentary" "polemic doc"
 * Brian D. Johnson "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary polemic arguing that believers in intelligent design (i.e. creationists) are being persecuted by “Big Science” and that theories of Darwinian evolution helped spawn Hitler and the Holocaust. There’s not much action in Expelled, but it made me want to throw things at the screen." "I found this film so distasteful I hesitate to dignify it with even a thumbnail review. But what makes it noteworthy—aside from the minor celebrity of its host, Ben Stein—is that it’s an example of a rare breed: the right-wing documentary. He goes on to contrast right-wing and left-wing documentaries. He calls the director a propagandist and says the "investigation" is "vested in propaganda."

I personally find Ebert's and Johnson's reviews the best sources. Both describe it as a documentary and then lash it to pieces. Johnson futhermore inserts references to propaganda, though he never directly calls it propaganda. I suggest our first sentence call it a documentary or a right-wing documentary or a polemical documentary. The rest of the article effectively presents the pertinent facts. YoPienso (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh yes--and, stylistically, this string of adjectives is just too much: "a 2008 American documentary-style, anti-evolution, propaganda film." YoPienso (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with the string of adjectives is actually the "anti-evolution" in the middle. Based on a quick survey of other films, the first sentence is rarely that specific, with the specific content in the rest of the lede. Anyway, no, I can't identify "judgemental, partial language" in that sentence - it's just an accurate summary. That proponents of a fringe view may not like that accurate summary doesn't make it a violation of NPOV. --tronvillain (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"I suggest our first sentence call it a documentary or a right-wing documentary or a polemical documentary"

Based on the sources above, should we simply call it a polemic? : "A polemic is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position.  Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics. The practice of such argumentation is called polemics. A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is called a polemicist. The word is derived ,. Polemics often concern issues in religion or politics." Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even in those sources, we have people explicitly calling it propaganda, and a bunch of people giving descriptions completely consistent with calling it propaganda. "Polemic" might work, but it's even more likely to have fringe proponents pointing to reviews that don't specifically say polemic, plus the film isn't simply a single piece of rhetoric. --tronvillain (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For the argument presented above to make any sense, it has to rest upon the premise that this is not a propaganda film., would you care to go ahead and state, without qualification, that you do not believe this is a propaganda film?
 * I would prefer "propaganda film" but I would accept "polemic" if that were necessary to arrive at a consensus. I would note, however, that there is a blatantly obvious consensus in the "Propaganda" section, above to call it a "propaganda film".
 * I agree with you that "anti-evolution" is the odd man out, there. The film is certainly anti-evolution, but that is not actually the argument of the film: rather, the argument of the film is that the scientific community ostracizes scientists who believe in ID. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will state I believe it is a propaganda film, but the RSs are not explicit on this, and for us to say so violates WP:NPOV. Wrt Tronvillain's statement above that the sources do explicitly call it a propaganda film, of the 7 major reviews I cited, only Pendleton explicitly does, and he is not as notable as Ebert, Hyden, or Johnson, who don't.
 * Definitely agree that "anti-evolution" is out of place both stylistically and substantially.
 * I would much prefer "is a 2008 American documentary-style film," since we call it propaganda no less than three times in the final paragraph of the lead. In order to reach a consensus, however, I would reluctantly accept "is a 2008 American documentary-style propaganda film." Also acceptable would be "is a polemic documentary-style film."
 * I also suggest simplifying "The scientific theory of evolution" to "The theory of evolution" or even "Evolution," with a blue-link. YoPienso (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we probably have consensus (though there was already consensus in the section above) on ""is a 2008 American documentary-style propaganda film" then. Also, in those examples, Liam Lacy also explicitly calls it propaganda, and when Johnson says the director is a propagandist it's disengenous to claim that he doesn't then consider the film propaganda - what propagandists produce is propaganda. --tronvillain (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It definitely seems to me that there's every reason for "is a 2008 American documentary-style propaganda film". &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tronvillain, sorry for missing the "hack propanda" line in my recap, after I'd pasted it in above. Yes, there's a clear consensus for "is a 2008 American documentary-style propaganda film".
 * What do you think about the pedantic descriptors of "evolution"? YoPienso (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be unnecessary, but I think in this context people like to specify "scientific" given the tendency of creationists to dismiss it as "just a theory"? --tronvillain (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all sources that discuss the sea say it is wet, ergo we cannot say the sea is wet. You need a source that says "is is not" not one that just does not call it that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I will state I believe it is a propaganda film Then you are arguing that this article should be inaccurate because you find the arguments in favor of accuracy insufficient. That may not be the definition of "stupid", but it is certainly a fine example. Since you are apparently not a stupid person, I suggest you distance yourself from the stupid argument.
 * but the RSs are not explicit on this This is not only untrue, it has been corrected multiple times by multiple editors over the past few days. You are either lying or purposefully not reading the arguments you claim to find so unconvincing.
 * and for us to say so violates WP:NPOV This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, and you actually have this completely backwards. Us not referring to this as a propaganda film would be an NPOV violation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd point out they already agreed to leaving propoganda in. --tronvillain (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I didn't see that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of disingenuous arguments being made here, which isn't terribly surprising, as topics like this tend to bring out people with strong opinions on the matter. But some of this needs to be addressed for real.
 * First of all, people seem to be using "propaganda film" as they would any other film classification, as if it were no different than terms like "action-adventure movie" or "romantic comedy." That's bullshit. It's a very loaded word with obvious negative connotations. As such, a resource like Wikipedia for which neutrality is paramount needs to tread very lightly when using such a label. And in general, it does. If you look at the other films it calls propaganda they seem to be generally films put out by governments to support their regimes or wars or to disparage their enemies. For all this movie's flaws, it isn't that sort of film. I don't see any other films similar to this labelled this way, and the world has no shortage of one-sided documentaries with a political agenda to push. Why just this film? Even Dinesh D'Souza's are just called "political documentaries" (For fuck's sake Loose Change is not called a propaganda film). Nearly every propaganda film on Wikipedia has also had the advantage of being subject to scrutiny by historians and others who can offer more scholarly, subjective analysis, not just the opinions of contemporary film critics.
 * Furthermore, it appears that the ridiculous argument is being made that if this film is not called a propaganda film in no uncertain terms then it is the equivalent of stating "this is not a propaganda film!" That line of thinking is so absurd I have trouble believing that is seriously being made, but it really seems so. While labelling it a propaganda film has serious POV issues, calling it "not propaganda" certainly would as well, which is why no one is suggesting we do that. "Many critics have dismissed this film as propaganda" is both NPOV and accurate. For most of the last decade that has been the position this article took, and I'm not sure why there is suddenly a big push to change that now.
 * Then there is the issue that the opening sentence should stick to the basic defining information on a subject, and not get too much into the weeds right away. If the fact that Expelled is a propaganda film is such a characteristic, why do most sources not call it that? Seems like a significant oversight. This film got loads of negative reviews, but you have to cherry pick the examples that actually call it propaganda (and some, such as this one, are hard to take very seriously). Add to this that this article won't even call the film a documentary, which is one thing pretty much every source agrees on (even some of those who have been the most harsh in their reviews). I suppose some must think calling it a documentary endorses its position. It doesn't.
 * So, can anyone explain what is unique about this movie that it is nearly the only one in the last 50+ years that Wikipedia has labelled a propaganda film? -R. fiend (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus exists, and it's pretty strong, despite your efforts thus far. Please read WP:1AM. I highly doubt anyone has the patience to re-litigate this for the third time in a week. Also, you should watch those personal attacks. Constantly accusing people who disagree with you of disingenuity is entirely uncalled for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Loose Change isn't called a propaganda film, which is unsurprising given that it doesn't actually fit the definition. It's a film from someone who apparently actually believed in a variety of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and is identified as such. --tronvillain (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when does a film being from someone who actually believes in conspiracy theories exclude it from being a propaganda film? Is there any evidence that Nathan Frankowski or Ben Stein don't actually believe that evolution is the cause of communism, fascism, atheism, or the Holocaust? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Who cares? This isn't Talk:Loose Change. This is Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, R. fiend, for injecting some logic and common sense into the discussion, though I fear it hasn't been understood or accepted. Interesting that the person who said I was either lying or refusing to read calls you on personal attacks, which you haven't made. MjolnirPants, that would be you, who apparently didn't read my comments or read R. fiend's very closely. Slatersteven, as it happens, we don't call the sea wet in the Sea article. But we could. More to the point, we wouldn't define the sea in the first sentence of the lead as a large, wet body of saltwater. YoPienso (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not every source describes the sea as the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface, but that doesn't stop us from calling it that in the lead. –dlthewave ☎ 07:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me make this clear. I do not happen to think we should call it a propaganda film, as it is no more one then (say) anything by Michael Moore. But we go with what RS say, not what we think. RS say it is, so we must.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's mostly not described as a propaganda film by the sources. YoPienso (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So? Something is only a NPOV issue when there is disagreement among RS, not when some RS express no opinion. The sea is wet, even if most sources do not say so.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that one side of this debate is calmly explaining why we are following the sources and describing this film in factual terms. The other side is repeatedly questioning the character and bias of the first side in the course of arguing that we should not describe this film in factual terms. In a year, when someone is going through the archives looking for this discussion, one side is going to come out looking like they care about this project and engage like adults, and the other looking like they only care about this film and engage like children. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * From a disinterested viewpoint, I don't see what's so dreadful about following sources that say it's a propaganda film. Both the excellent Mrs. Miniver and the more debatable The Green Berets are properly categorised as propaganda films. It's a genre, not a mark of quality. . . dave souza, talk 15:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a loaded term; let's not pretend otherwise. There's a reason why it's been removed from articles like Fahrenheit 9/11 and D'Souza's movies. Besides, the articles you cited begin with "Mrs. Miniver is a 1942 American romantic war drama film..." and "The Green Berets is a 1968 American war film..." whereas this one currently begins with "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American documentary-style propaganda film..." The other two are referred to as propaganda only in their categories (which actually may be problematical for The Green Berets, as there is no source for it that I noticed). In any case, both of those are movies that have been viewed in a historical context, and are not called propaganda based solely on some contemporary critical reviews, as this one is. As far as I can tell, this is the only movie of its sort that Wikipedia calls propaganda. Is this the only movie made in the last 50 years that some critics criticized as a propaganda film? Clearly not. I'm not sure where this notion that some film reviews called the movie propaganda so Wikipedia must do the same as well comes from. It is certainly not being enforced in any other articles I could find. -R. fiend (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's some tasty WP:SOUP. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What other articles say is up to the editors of those articles. Take era styles - some articles on the Bible use BC/AD, others use BCE/CE. There's no need for consistency across the range. Put me down as someone who agrees with calling it a propaganda film, which, as Dave Souza says, is a genre. Doug Weller  talk 11:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop pretending it's just another genre like any other? It isn't, and we all know it. People arguing for its inclusion have admitted it carries a certain POV. Its selective use in some articles and its removal in others that fit the same criteria is not a "some articles use British spelling, others American" kind of issue. It's indicative of bias, which is something Wikipedia is really supposed to avoid. For all the people insisting that to call this anything other than a propaganda film violates NPOV, and cannot be tolerated under any conditions, I'm seeing a big collective shrug about every other film that meets their definition of propaganda but is not labelled as such here. Kind of makes me think they don't care about maintaining a neutral point of view in general, but just care about this one particular article. I wouldn't care about this issue so much if the term were used evenly and consistently, but it isn't, and it certainly doesn't appear that it is about to be. -R. fiend (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:1AM ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I kind of like WP:1AM for some reason... :) I highly recommend that R. fiend read it and follow the advice in it. I also kind of wish that he would stop referring to NPOV as if Neutral point of view didn't exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on bias and NPOV.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said something that directly address the question of whether this article follows our NPOV policy:


 * "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."


 * "What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool story, bro. How is any of that relevant? -R. fiend (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird... NPOV was such a big deal when you mentioned it, but now that Guy brings it up, it's irrelevant? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Did someone mistake this for a debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution? That's not what is being discussed here at all. The issue is whether a topic should be defined by the views of its harshest critics (which is, let's face it, what's happening here). No one is arguing in favor of Intelligent Design. Hell, even the movie itself doesn't really do that (though it isn't hard to discern what their opinion is on the matter). Its premise is that academia has a bias against teaching ID, and in a sense it has a point. ID is not science, so, yeah, you're not going to get very far in scientific institutions by advocating for it. None of this is relevant to whether or not Wikipedia should endorse the view that this film is de facto propaganda. How many reviewers have to call it that before Wikipedia gives it that label? One? Four? Six? Most of them? All of them? Crop circles, astrology, ancient astronauts, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with any of this. -R. fiend (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. Duh. Why didn't I see that? Of course this article has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent design or evolution or any sort of conspiracy theory even though this article is about a film that claims there's a conspiracy by people who believe in evolution to suppress research into intelligent design. How could I miss that? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I have to pretend I'm talking to a seven-year-old now. Here we go. The movie is about intelligent design. The discussion about how the movie is categorized is not about intelligent design. This movie could be about just about anything, and the argument would be the same. A handful of critics, all of whom severely panned the movie, referred to it as propaganda. They have every right to do so. They have no obligation to an neutral point of view - quite the opposite in fact, they are obligated to take a point of view. It's their job. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does have to take a neutral point of view. Does allowing these few critics to define a movie in a fundamental way - one that, like it or not, carries a distinctive negative connotation - violate this important aspect of Wikipedia policy? I would argue it does. You obviously disagree. The merits, or rather lack thereof, of intelligent design are not relevant to this discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that any negative review of the film (including calling it propaganda) is due to bias. This is not the case; if a movie is "bad", then unbiased critics will describe it as such. You also seem to be misinterpreting NPOV. On Wikipedia, "neutrality" means that we reflect the existing body of RS coverage, which does not necessarily mean that we give equal weight to positive and negative reviews. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about giving undue weight to positive or negative reviews. The articles makes it very clear that the vast majority of reviews have been negative, and no one is disputing that. At issue here is that we don't endorse the views of critics. A well respected critic, one that we would call a reliable source, could say "this movie is a steaming pile of pigshit." Wikipedia could then very justifiably say "[well respected critic] referred to the movie as 'a steaming pile of pigshit,'" but could not ourselves call it a steaming pile of pigshit. Now, I'll admit the propaganda label is not as cut and dry as that, but it is used to disparage the movie. If, on the other hand, some positive reviews used that term ("5 stars! One of the best movies of the year! Terrific propaganda!") one could then at least use that to try to formulate an argument that "propaganda" is not a a snarl word, but an accurate and neutral description. It doesn't look like that's the case though. Seriously, I've looked at a lot of movies that can or could fit this category, and almost none of them start off with "X is a propaganda film." This one does. -R. fiend (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your appeal to authority isn't helpful; although Jimmy's statement is correct, it has nothing to do with this article or discussion. Your own statement is likewise true, but not germane to this article or discussion, either. We're not talking about weighting science v. pseudoscience or fringe or conspiracy theories; we're talking about telling about a particular movie. What applies here are:
 * 1) WP:WikiVoice:"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. [...] "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. You want to disparage the subject. Not allowed.
 * 2) WP:IMPARTIAL (Please see.) YoPienso (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Riiiight. We're not talking about weighting science v. pseudoscience or fringe or conspiracy theories; we're talking about a particular movie. It's a total coincidence that the movie in question just happens to contend that there is a conspiracy in academia to oppress and exclude people who believe in the pseudoscience of intelligent design. How could I have missed that? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Beats me how you could miss that this article about a conspiracy in academia, but an article telling about a particular movie that argues there is such a conspiracy. We're supposed to neutrally describe the movie and give details about its contents, impact, and reception 'without disparaging it. Surely if an editor were trying to sympathize with it you wouldn't miss that. YoPienso (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Describe disputes: You mean the "dispute" between the sources which say it is a propaganda film and the sources which say it is not? If the second type of source existed, this discussion would not be happening. There are those which are silent on the matter, but silence is not disputing. There is no dispute. Unless one counts the lunatic charlatans, of course. And we shouldn't count them.
 * We are conveying to the reader the information contained in the reliable sources. That does not mean we extract the information which is contained in every reliable source and throw away all the information which is contained in some reliable sources only. Otherwise this encyclopedia would be empty.
 * Why is this so difficult to understand (for a few people)?
 * Prefer nonjudgmental language.: "Prefer" is not the same thing as "use exclusively". It implies that there are exceptions. When the reliable sources use judgmental language without contradiction by other reliable sources, as they do in this case, then we have an exception. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See the thing is no one calls a movie "not propaganda." Human beings don't tend to speak that way. ("The Force Awakens is a science fiction, not-propaganda film." Doesn't happen.) It's almost an impossibly high bar to meet, and a standard other articles are not held to. I certainly found one reviewer who referred to it as being as fair as any other documentary these days, which admits it has an agenda, but if he's saying it is propaganda, he's saying every other documentary is too. (He's not saying that.) Sure, he doesn't call it "not propaganda" so I'm sure it won't carry any weight around here. But right now we're taking opinion pieces and using them as the objective truth. -R. fiend (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It could happen that reliable sources, responding to other reliable sources, say "X calls this a propaganda film, but it is not". That would constitute a dispute we could describe, and it would be a perfectly legitimate and usual instance of humans speaking that way, despite your belief that they don't. But there are no sources who say that, therefore there is no such dispute, therefore we just say what reliable sources say: it is propaganda. The "describe dispute" policy simply does not apply here because there is no dispute about that in the reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could happen, but is that the sort of thing that does happen with any frequency? Perhaps more with movies that are more significant than this one, that get discussed more in the long term. This one came out, a bunch of critics wrote reviews (the vast majority negative), mostly at roughly the same time, so not really responding to one another, and I don't think much has been written on it since. It didn't so all that well, briefly stirred up some controversy, and went away. 10 years later I'm not sure too many people other than us are talking about it. This "not propaganda" criterion still strikes me as a very high bar to clear, and a standard no other article has to meet. If the vast majority of reviews used the label then I think you'd have a stronger case. But they don't. What several people are essentially saying is that if one critic calls a film propaganda, and no other uses the specific phrase "not propaganda" then it is ipso facto a propaganda movie. That would not wash in any other article, I'm quite certain. -R. fiend (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources calling it propaganda. If it would be a proper documentary, don't you think someone would have written that these articles are wrong? If no one reputable disputes overwhelmingly negative reviews and labels it usually has a reason. --mfb (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrt "describe disputes," I simply pasted in a relevant passage from WP:NPOV with its original bolding. I don't think it refers to disputes among editors about interpreting sources; I think it refers to disputes within the sources. In this case, it seems to me some editors are engaging in a dispute about the alleged conspiracy in academia as well as the popular dispute in America about intelligent design and evolution that the movie also addresses. Because the movie presents erroneous and unscientific ideas, some editors feel we should disparage the movie, whereas policy states we should dispassionately say that it does so.
 * Wrt to "Prefer nonjudgmental language," I believe "prefer" here is a synonym of "choose." When professors tell students to "prefer" something, they mean "do this, not the alternative." They don't offer a suggestion that might have exceptions. But I don't really need to say that since the WP policy explains what is meant: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." YoPienso (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please indent appropriately. You responded to me, not to R.fiend. I corrected that for you.
 * Yes, you pasted that in, and I noticed that you did, and I explained to you why it does not apply to this case: because there is no dispute about that in the reliable sources. Then you went on a completely irrelevant tangent talking about disputes among editors. You don't think it applies to disputes among editors, and there is nobody else who thinks that either. I objected to exactly the thing you said, and you did not answer my objection: the policy does not apply because there is no dispute about that in the reliable sources. You have been told this several times, by several editors, but it does not seem to get through. It probably will not get through this time either, but I am still trying.
 * "I believe "prefer" here is a synonym" So you believe that the policy should be interpreted that way. Well, all the other editors except you two do not believe that. Your exegesis is a minority exegesis.
 * To summarize, your attempts at justifying your opinion with policies failed. Policies do not dictate specific wordings; those are a matter of taste. In this case, it is a matter of taste whether the "propaganda" bit comes in the first sentence or later. You failed to convince anyone of having the same taste as you. Can we go on to something else, please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It being propaganda is supported by notable (and noted) RS, so you need RS saying it is not (that is actually saying it is not, not just not expressing an opinion).Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly does one differentiate between fact and opinion in an opinion column? Any review that says "this is propaganda" is stating a fact, but anyone saying "it is not propaganda" is stating an opinion? -R. fiend (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not, but where there is only one opinion expressed by RS we do not have to take into account a hypercritical objection. Now as has been said below we have discussed this at length, you do not have consensus and this should now be the end of it. Please read wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is an overwhelmingly obvious consensus here, and we have long past the point where the arguments against it are merely being repeated ad nauseum.
 * THIS DISCUSSION IS NOTHING BUT DISRUPTION and it needs to stop, now. If it doesn't, I'm going to ask for a page ban for R. Fiend at ANI and I'm going to point out YoPienso's constant enabling of this tendentiousness, as well and ask what the community thinks should best be done there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)