Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 6

Science not Atheist
I changed portrayal of science as atheist, to portrayal of evolution as atheist. This is fits because the movie supports ID as a science, therefore is not accusing science in general. maybe the term Big Science could be used. Rds865 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Gonzales. It may astonish you to learn that astronomy is not covered by the science of biological evolution. .. dave souza, talk 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point stands, I will change it to Big Science, since Expelled considers ID a science and therefore wouldn't view Atheists of having a monopoly on science, but instead having control on Big Science. I think the basic claim of the movie is that ID is as much science as Evolution. Find one place where a filmmakers says science is atheistic without meaning Big Science. Rds865 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're framing it in the filmmakers terms, a violation of NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Reliable secondary sources describe it as an attack on science, quite rightly. Their stance that ID is science has been soundly disproved, as all the references that some people seem to object to. .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WTF is big science? There is science or there is...magic?  Religion?  Little Aliens from Area 51?  Oh yeah, it's not science.  Evolution is science, period.  ID is not science, since it cannot be tested scientifically.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rds -- uh, no. Big Science would by necessity emcompass all science. Your logic is faulty.  If the sentence is still in your form, I shall be reverting it to the proper version.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter books and films claim that magic exists and that there are wizards and witches among us. That does not make these claims reality; it is fiction, at least for most level-headed intelligent people.

This film claims that "intelligent design" exists and is science, but for most level-headed intelligent people who have not had the misfortune to have parents who indoctrinated them with superstition/religion it is fiction.

Wikipedia does not say that magic really exists because the Harry Potter films say it exists. Wikipedia does not say that "intelligent design" is science just because this ridiculous and obnoxious film says it is science. Sheesh. --RenniePet (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing that ID is science, I am saying Expelled does not claim that all science is atheistic. By the way how is Evolution tested? Not being able to be tested does not make it wrong, Expelled is not pushing magic, or even religion(as for aliens, I believe thats what Dawkins talked about). Is string theory science? it has yet to be tested. I don't know, all I know is that Expelled does not claim all science is atheistic, and believes science will support theism. Rds865 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ID definitely claims that all science except theirs is atheistic. And that includes forensic science. So empty all the jails if you want to accept ID; because the foundation of ID which they do not advertise is that they insist magic be incorporated into science, and all science that rejects magic as an explanation is evil, atheistic and wrong.--Filll (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? The point was that the movie takes on "big science".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anywat, Rds -- "a god" is lower case, "God" (no indefinite article) is upper case. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds, In your comments, you wrote that: "Science is a broad term, Expelled is not portraying, the scientific method, astronomy, physics, or even biology as atheistic, just [evolution]" The thing is, biology today and past incorporates evolution as part of its studies, it's one of the foundations principles of this science. --BirdKr (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, thanks for making unsupported claims on what ID is. That whole part about Harry Potter is a red herring, and I bet you think belief in God is belief in magic. Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents often argue that evolutionists come to their conclusions, because they start with the belief that there is no God. That is their belief. Even though biology incorporates evolution, doesn't mean Expelled is claiming if you are a biologist, you are atheist. Intelligent Design is not science, but you can't say Evolution is science. The question is whether or not they are scientific. Again, I will state, Expelled does not say that Science is atheist. Rds865 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're going against the consensus that evolution is part of biology which is part of science. Evolution is science. However, the section does indeed seem to only say that evolution is atheistic while not talking about science in general or "Big Science" for that matter at all. --BirdKr (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that evolution is a part of science, but to say Evolution is science, is according to my knowledge not correct. What is really meant is Evolution is scientific. Chicago is apart of Illinois, which is a part of America, does not mean Chicago is America. Rds865 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From that analogy, should I then say that though the law of gravitation is part of physics which is part of science, law of gravitation isn't science? Your concern can be immediately addressed with "Biology is science" => "Biology as atheistic". --BirdKr (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But Crocker is a biologist. The movie isn't saying studying life is atheistic, but rather that evolution is atheistic. Rds865 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I just saw that it said "science" again. I changed it back, though I'd imagine that someone else might change it back. Nightscream (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot pick and choose what is and is not science. Evolution is based on the science of biology, morphology, chemistry, geology, physics, and some other ologies that I just don't remember.  Evolution is science.  We're done here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is confused. Astronomy is not biology. Astronomy is not evolution. Astrophysics is not biology. Astrophysics is not evolution. Medical science is not biology. Medical science is not evolution. Celestial mechanics is not biology or evolution. And so on. Physics is not biology or evolution. And a few others. These are all subjects that are supposedly under the strictures of BIG SCIENCE where supposedly Darwinism has intruded. In some of the publicity interviews, they even include Climatology as a place with too much Darwinism (Not sure if that made it to the film). Anyway, the foundational problem is that Science rejects supernatural causation. Intelligent design and this film embrace supernatural causation. And this film implies that if you do not include supernatural causation in science, it is atheistic. And I have read all the reviews and listened to several interviews and read interviews and promotional material. That is what it is about. It is not just biology and not just evolution. The scope is far broader than that. Remember they are angry about the big bang and the fine tuning of the universe etc. And the origin of gravity and light and so on. --Filll (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would someone please provide the sourcing on which basis we are saying the film claims "science" is atheistic? If no sourcing is provided, it should be changed to "evolution" or "evolutionary theory."  To say one type of science, or even two or three types of science, are atheistic is not to say that "science" is atheistic.  That has a completely different meaning. Mackan79 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Evolution = science.  Therefore, if Evolution is atheistic, then all science is atheistic.  You can't pick and choose.  Science is science.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rock n roll=music. Therefore, if Rock n roll is good music, then all music is good. Music is music. Britney Spears. Restepc (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice analogy. Also, the film did not explicitly say the sentence "science is atheistic", at least not according to my theatre-going friends who have seen it. (however, I have not personally viewed the film). Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can't pick and choose, but a film should be able to try without our making these kinds of deductions for them. I wouldn't care if we removed the header altogether, but saying they claim "science" is atheistic isn't accurate.  It's taking a dumb claim and making it into something totally foolish and nonsensical, like saying Al Gore claimed he invented the internet and then making fun of him for that (I think a fair claim in his case, but all the same).  This would obviously be an extraordinary statement, which I don't think we can justify without some clear sourcing to back it up. Mackan79 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At the heart of the ID attack on science is that science = naturalism, which = materialism, which = atheism. Pennock discussed this a decade ago in Tower of Babel.  They conflate methodological naturalism (which underlies the scientific method) with philosophical or metaphysical naturalism.  The ignore the rest of science, but they attack evolution by attacking science.
 * More to the point, of course, is that ID isn't just anti-evolution, it's anti-science. Gonzalez was not talking about evolution.  There are quite a few other areas that the creationists attack.  But they use the term "evolution" because their target audience is far more willing to reject "evolution" than "science".  But just because they use "evolution" to refer to "science" doesn't mean that we should - or even can - use their code words.  It's misleading and inaccurate.  We don't pretend that religio-political propaganda is true.  Guettarda (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are fair points. In terms of "Science is atheistic," though, I don't think it can get us quite there.  The thing is, Gonzalez may have a problem with "modern science" or "left wing science," or whatever he would term it, but to say he's totally against scientific inquiry would be absurd.  This may well reflect an inconsistency in his position, and I can see arguing that we shouldn't adopt their code words, but the question here is whether we can translate them into something ridiculous, and that he or the rest of the film makers would never agree to.  That's too far in the other direction.  I actually don't think it's code -- I think they truly believe to accept evolution would be to give up their religion, and that this is their primary point that we should represent here -- but if others do we'd need either to find something else or to remove the header. Mackan79 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OM, you're arguing a point. This is a violation of WP: POINT. Do you understand that policy? It is not the place of editors to place their own conclusions in articles. The film does not say anything about science being atheistic, nor do the critics quoted mention this idea, so it can't be in the article. Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda hit the nail on the head - they are not just attacking evolution, but they are attacking the entirety of methodological naturalism, which is the foundation for all of modern science. Furthermore, (and admittedly I haven't see the movie nor do I have any burning desire to) I think I've seen it mentioned that they also attack cosmology and other fields of physics. Either of these points by themselves is enough to justify having the section header say "Portrayal of science as atheistic" instead of "Portrayal of evolution as atheistic". Raul654 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I must disagree Raul, right now that's solely an argument of editors on this page. When someone argues that evolution is atheistic, we can't decide they meant something else that they obviously wouldn't agree with.  This violates NPOV for the same reason as it's original research. I've tried to find ways around several of these issues; if people don't like a heading that they portray evolution as atheistic, then we need to find something else that accurately reflects their view.  Mackan79 (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * right now that's solely an argument of editors on this page - swing and a miss. "Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component." - http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution Also note the word "like" in the preceeding sentence, clearly indicating that it's not just ID/evolution they are concerned about, but other ideas in other areas of science. Raul654 (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul, are you really trying to say that statement, from a critical site, is proof that they argue science as a concept is atheistic? That's what we currently have them saying, and is what needs to change.  I'm concerned that people can't see the very clear problem with this, and aren't looking for some other way to address this accurately. Mackan79 (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it is other areas of science, but not all science, still note that the section which that heading is under only discusses evolution. maybe the heading should be removed, or say "the influence of atheism on science," or Intelligent design rejected due to Atheism" or "the Role of Atheism in science". Rds865 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it is other areas of science, but not all science - they object to methodological naturalism, which is the basis for all science - so yes, they do. If someone blows up the foundation of a house, you don't say they were trying to remodel the kitchen. Raul654 (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the proper way to fix that section would be to talk about the other areas of science they object to, cosmology and geology for starters. Raul654 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is taking the critical view of them and using it as the description for what they argue. Their problem, per your quote above, is with what they consider the "atheistic, amoral scientific elite."  This doesn't mean they oppose "science," regardless of whether we can argue their position ultimately amounts to a rejection of scientific principles.  To say so is parody.  Mackan79 (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, as requested. . . dave souza, talk 10:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the film says that Evolution is "atheistic", let alone Science. What it does is allows others (e.g., Richard Dawkins) to explain how, when they fully embraced evolution, it freed them of the perceived constraints they associated with theism. Does the film go beyond that and declare evolution to be atheistic? How? --Davidp (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The film might not "say" it. It might imply it because it is a visual medium and a lot of the communication is not just verbal. And this article is not just about the film, but many things around the film as well; the controversies, the promotion, the reviews, the screenings, the interviews of the star and producers, etc. And if you cared to listen to these interviews and read the material in the sources, the film strongly implies that science is atheistic, or leads the audience to that conclusion, and it is said over and over in the promotional materials and in the interviews.--Filll (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we cite those things as a source? If so, then "science" in the section title would be apt. Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is meant here by science? Theology is consider a science, but not under the definition here. The orgin of the debate is that Each group has their own definition of science. Perhaps they are trying to blow up the house, but only in order to build a new one. that seems to be as a slippery slope argument, and they have not argued for the release of prisoners, or implied the scientific method and cell theory is atheistic. The argument given under the heading in dispute here, is that Evolution has an atheist or Darwinism has an atheist bias. Frankly I am surprised someone was a against the edit. Creationism is no more an attack on Science, then Evolution is an attack on Religion. Rds865 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, skeptics like Michael Shermer have argued that any attack on a scientifically rigorously confirmerd idea like natural selection, without doing so on the basis of its science, is an attack on all science. However, again, this is beside the point. I think we should be arguing whether the film makes this point. If it does, then that section title is apt. If it doesn't, and confines itself to evolution, then it should say "evolution" and not "science". Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement as it is remains indefensible. I'd like to give people another opportunity to come up with an alternative, but saying they argue science is atheistic is original research and  a clear misrepresentation. Saying they argue evolutionary theory is atheistic, on the other hand, appears to be well supported. Unless something else is suggested I think we should replace an accurate version as to evolutionary theory (I'm fine saying "evolution" for short, whether or not this is exactly gramatically correct). Mackan79 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "but saying they argue science is atheistic is original research and  a clear misrepresentation" - no matter how many times you say this and ignore the references presented to rebut it, it doesn't make it true. Raul654 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a source, then please present it. What you've presented so far is their belief that an "atheistic scientific elite" is preventing discussion about the alleged support for ID.  You've not provided anything where they say that "science" is itself atheistic.  This is the opposite of what they say, and no less a misrepresentation than they have done to others.  I'm asking for other options here, but if the discussion remains on this level we'll simply have to seek wider input about whether we can say they claim "science is atheistic," based not on their having said so, but on our assessment that this is what it comes down to.  I don't know what outside editors will say, but it strikes me as a waste of time when people should be working cooperatively to improve the article. Mackan79 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Consider, for example:Fundamentally, what Expelled wants to do is it wants to present the notion that there is this clash of world views, most specifically, a clash between, sort of, Darwinian biology and intelligent design, but more broadly one between big monolithic science, which is materialist and atheist, and then religion, which is presented as being open to all sorts of possibilities. from John Rennie, editor of Scientific American while in a podcast, for which a transcript is provided:. There are literally hundreds of other similar statements in the interviews and reviews and promotional materials, from people in the science community, from mainstream journalists, from Christian media and from intelligent design supporters and creationists. So stop arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!--Filll (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. I am normally not into ontological debates, but here I must throw my two cents in. First, the people in the film, such as Gonzales, Croker, and Marks, are scientists in terms of profession, even people who are anti-ID vehemently would agree. And saying scientists jumping up against science is just plainly ludicrous, because nobody in a profession would run against the profession itself. It is like saying computer technicians oppose the use of computers, or economists attacking the discipline of economics. Common sense. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't a coincidence that they keep saying "big science" or the "scientific establishment" or the "scientific elite" or "monolithic science." If anything, it appears they think a group of atheists are imposing their atheism onto science, not that science is somehow requiring or impelling atheism.  The latter is the view they want to pin on Dawkins (and is I believe a view Dawkins actually holds, incidentally, as it happens do I), and which the whole movie is intended to criticize.  The difference is big. Mackan79 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science" has a distinct meaning. We can't adopt neologisms invented in Expelled. Guettarda (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? The edit placed the term in quotes.  We're also talking about their portrayal, of course, which suggests we should be able to incorporate the neologisms they use if clarified that these are their terms. Mackan79 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, the producers state that "Big Science" ignores or even attacks any scientists who dares imply some sort of religious element in science. Meaning that they believe "Big Science" isn't just secular, but is actually antitheistic (a word they often use.) However that claim is not exclusive to evolution, as was argued earlier. The producers have stated, "The 'silent hand' of Big Science would today give Albert Einstein the flick. He'd simply be written off as a 'religious nut.'  No question about it." (source)  That clearly demonstrates that their "Big Science" covers far more than just evolution, since Einstein was a physicist, not a biologist.

Now, I'm not 100% certain what they think "Big Science" means, but based on what I've read from them they seem to be referring to the majority of scientists or important/influential people in science by this term. Basically some cabal of scientists who are in charge of deciding what is or isn't science and control all science employment and funding, and who use science to promote atheism and attack religion. They seem to think that they are trying to free science from this imaginary cabal and make science better, but this belief shows that they fundamentally misunderstand how science works. In short, I think they aren't against science in general, just this imaginary cabal which they have labeled as "Big Science". (They are probably also against methodological naturalism, but I think they see that as not being part of science, but rather as something that is forced upon scientists by "Big Science".) It should be noted that this definition is very different from the normal meaning of "Big Science", and so we should be very cautious about confusing or conflating the two. -- Hi  Ev  04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sources/citations of this article, specifically blogs, are not verifiable
From Verifiability

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.

Looking at the list of the sources, some of them are blogs that cannot be verified. Blogs such as from ScienceBlogs and ChristianityToday should be taken VERY lightly, if at all. --BirdKr (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So how would we take a blog lightly compared to heavily? I'm not sure what you're advocating. And which ones cannot be verified?  Angry Christian (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also would you mind providing a link to the one(s)you feel are self-published and cannot be verified? That would make it easier for folks to see what you're seeing.  Angry Christian (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are certainly verifiable. And by WP:SPS some are indeed WP:RS. So, this is wrong.--Filll (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By lightly I mean simply by looking for better sources on the same subject. You may learn something from a blog that could contribute to the article, but at the same time, you should research more to find a better source. Also, I said "if at all" at the end. One example was the section about screening cancellations in which its sources were entirely on a blog of one person which I deleted. Cripes, I've been trying to post my reply for the 4th time now --BirdKr (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, so how would you classify certain blogs as reliable sources or not? The one I used as an example did not provide any verifiable source and his profession was not relevant on the issue of screening cancellation. --BirdKr (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BirdKr you quoted "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert..." then you removed a blog by an ASU biology professor from ScienceBlogs, the largest scientific blogging network. Please do not remove such sources because as your quote shows they are okay. ScienceBlogs is a WP:RS. Paper45tee (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the author of that blog is a distinguished professor in the field of biology/evolution. However, that title does not automatically verify his claims about the screening cancellations. Had he had said something about evolution/biology or anything else in the field in which he is distinguished for, his blog entry would have more weight.

However, his position is irrelevant on what he has posted when it comes to verification. He is no different than a regular movie goer who posted the same account on his/her blog. --BirdKr (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "He is no different...," not really since a week prior to it, Expelled had expelled a biology professor. But anyway, please read wikipedia's policy. They want WP:V not "truth." Why you would doubt the professor's account is strange. Do you have any sources to doubt his claim? Do Expelled producers deny it? If not, I see no reason to doubt it. Blogs from biologists about things relating to biology (a creationist movie), which said person experiences first hand are RS. Paper45tee (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're using the argument "prove ghosts don't exist". The proper question is how do you verify his account? Despite being a biology professer, that does not make his account on a movie screening automatically verified. What he says ABOUT the movie ITSELF in the area of biology/evolution will hold some reliability, but something of a cancellation of a movie screening does not hold the same reliability since these incidents are hardly subjects of biology--BirdKr (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't understand my point. Wikipedia does not post "truth." Wikipedia posts material which is verified with sources. While you can doubt his account and the shape of the Earth, I don't care. The claim comes from a WP:RS-- an academic on ScienceBlogs talking about he experience he had in relation to a pseudoscientific movie. Paper45tee (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you are selectively focusing on this one professor. PZ Myers posts on ScienceBlogs and his blogs are cited many times in this article relating to his appearance and getting expelled from the theater. Paper45tee (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You still didn't explain how a biologist's account of a canceled movie screening has reliability simply because that movie, which he couldn't watch, was relevant to his field. Also, please watch your tone of your voice. --BirdKr (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll walk you through it: 1) The movie is about pseudoscience. 2) He is a scientist with interest in debunking non-science. 3) He wanted to see the movie and signed up for a free screening. 4) He received a cancelled notice. 5) He received a report from someone who attended the movie anyway. If this were some random person's blog you would have a point. But its not. This is a ASU professor on a professional academic blog talking about a movie that is about a scientific conspiracy. Paper45tee (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1). True 2). True 3). True 4). True 5). Now you're going off topic- His blog, and consequently the section I deleted that you reverted was about the cancellation of the screening of the movie, not about the movie. He wasn't talking about the movie either, he was talking about the movie cancellation. If this guy wrote something about a screening cancellation of a movie called "the big fat caterpillar", would his account of the movie cancellation be reliable since after all, he's a biologist? --BirdKr (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is annoying. Its about the screening of the movie! If you want to talk about "the big fat caterpillar," I suggest you go to another page. This is about Expelled. Its a WP:RS as you've been told by three people now. Paper45tee (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to selectively focusing on this one professor because my deletion of the section about him is under dispute by you and me. Once this is resolved, I will look at the other blogs from other professors. However, this one is a special case as his account of the movie screening has nothing to do with his position other than the fact that the movie is relevant to his field which his expertise and reliability does not leak over to his personal account on an incident that has nothing to do with biology --BirdKr (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, selective. So if you remove this blog then all of them go for the same reasons? Paper45tee (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, this one's a special case. --BirdKr (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, not really. Paper45tee (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually one could question the extent to which Expelled relates to biology. That is, from the descriptions it apparently is about the politics of the scientific community. which again makes biologists' opinion relevant, but also makes him no longer a third party. Rds865 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's just laughable. Biology is part of "the politics of the scientific community" then. Paper45tee (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well does the movie state any biological facts? Rds865 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What branch of science is Dawkins and Myers in? --- Biology. The movie focus on what for ID complexity? --- Cells. Paper45tee (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BirdKr said "You still didn't explain how a biologist's account of a canceled movie screening has reliability simply because that movie, which he couldn't watch, was relevant to his field. It has reliability because as a prominent member of the scientific community, he is part of the controversy surrounding the film, including its promotional screenings, and the accusation that some people, like him, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, experienced or witnessed members of the scientific community being excluded from such screenings. It is in that context, rather than science, that he is reliable. If certain members of a group are controversially excluded from something, it is they that you go to for sourcing on that. Nightscream (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the resolution/explanation --BirdKr (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is the evidence given in the movie for ID not even mentioned in the article? Rds865 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no one has added it? Angry Christian (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This begs the question, what evidence do they give for ID in the film? Angry Christian (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to write something about double standards, but I am wondering if Nina May didn't put it much better with her review not of the film but of the debate (sic)? "The great thing about this discussion, is the blatant hypocrisy when you consider the fact that this film is being vilified by the very open-minded left, who will argue to the death that alternative lifestyles should be celebrated, embraced and encouraged" writes Nina May. "Yet the alternative lifestyle of believing in a creator … is not only reviled and marginalized, but those who express this belief are condemned as not being smart enough to even engage in the discussion. We are the inner-city ideologies, while the brilliant bourgeoisie live in Beverly Hills and New York City." Asteriks (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Off-topic and wrong-headed. Why do you imagine the "very open-minded left" should therefore be happy about the promotion of outright falsehoods?  And, for that matter, why do you imagine that evolution is "left-wing"?  As previously noted, it is fact: and facts aren't "left-wing" or "right-wing".  You seem to be projecting the "right-wing" political agenda of the ID-proponents onto everyone who criticizes them.  Not everyone who opposes a specific form of right-wing politics is left-wing: to borrow from the movie's Nazism theme, that would make all the Allies in WW2 communists. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hardly an "alternative lifestyle of believing in a reator", see the #Portrayal of science as atheistic section for discussion of this false dichotomy. Perhaps more the alternative lifestyle of believing that it's ok to lie for Christ? Anyway, please comply with NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and stop trying to give "equal validity" to pseudoscience. .. dave souza, talk 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Subtle review. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tactful and informative, already cited under #General media :) ... dave souza, talk 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
An NPOV tag has been added to this article to identify the ongoing dispute as logged in great detail on this Talk page. Please see NPOVD: It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag. Let's discuss how to resolve this... --Davidp (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Robert Stevens, et al - If there isn't currently an edit war going on here, it's close. Rational debate has been avoided by some who insist on reverting very reasonable edits that remove POV. If you dispute this, please explain and do not remove the NPOV tag from the article. I am at a loss for how you imagine this article not to be in active dispute over its neutrality. --Davidp (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Tags such as this should be accompanied by specific recommendations for change.  Minor tweaks are still being made, so that's not sufficient grounds to tag the whole article as NPOV.  Major changes such as deletion of critical reviews, or similar whitewashing, won't achieve consensus (and would violate NPOV themselves, along with numerous other policies).  If you have a change to make which is specific, then list it here.  You haven't said (here) what is wrong with the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is something you are not understanding, which is understandable considering that Davidp has a grand total of 140 mainspace edits; hardly enough to know anything at all about Wikipedia. Let's face it. And NPOV does NOT mean neutral. If you think that, you are very very very wrong.--Filll (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at his talkpage edits to try to figure out what the problem is, but it's still not clear. Apparently he's the only other person who agrees with NCdave's misreading of Darwin, and he doesn't want the article to use the "science is atheistic" claim despite everything provided in "Portrayal of science as atheistic".  He has also created a previous "NPOV" section in which he advocates removal of negative reviews and removal of information regarding ID's status as pseudoscience, calling this a "red herring". --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize I needed a large number of edits to actually grasp the policy, Filll. However, I've been here quite a long time. I am sometimes amazed at how some editors have the time to do this so often. I suppose my professional life takes precedence, which not so incidentally includes deep experience implementing wikipedia-like policies across various democratized platforms, such as wikis, inside various industrial organisations. In any case, I think the Talk Page itself references an incredibly long list of neutrality disputes. I placed this here in the hope that those of us who have time will continue actively working toward resolution edit-by-edit. And, when NPOV is achieved the tag should be removed. Removing it prematurely is clearly an attempt to establish intellectual property here, since you cannot rationally argue that there aren't disputes throughout the entirety of the article. Please continue the discussion and I am sure that someone will re-add the NPOV template tag soon to accurately reflect the disputes. --Davidp (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I make one edit every 6 months for 6 years, correcting a spelling mistake, I could claim I have been at Wikipedia a long time. But I would not be able to claim that I knew anything about Wikipedia policies from that. Previous discussions of NPOV and neutrality often failed on the same point you are failing on; by assuming that NPOV=neutality, which it does not. It is in fact the farthest thing from "neutrality". And if you do not understand that, you do not understand one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia. If you want proof, look at the articles evolution and intelligent design, both FA rated. How "neutral" are they ?--Filll (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction: this talkpage preserves a historical record of current and previous disputes: including non-NPOV ones, and resolved ones. Many have resulted in actual changes to the article.  Other failed to receive consensus, or were themselves in violation of Wikipedia policies.  It is not customary to slap a tag on every page where somebody, somewhen, objected to some version of the article for some reason. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as radical as davidp or NCdave, but I will agree that a dispute is and has been going on for a long time. Just read the talk page and the archives. 50% of what we talk about is POV vs. NPOV. Saksjn (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My strong impression is that the main problem is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what NPOV actually is.--Filll (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tag removed. Again: what is the dispute?  You're supposed to TELL US what the CURRENT dispute is: not just point us at the archives (the article has changed out of all recognition since those were archived!).  What is wrong with it NOW?  How can "the dispute be resolved" if nobody will say WHAT the dispute is??? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert, I don't mean to be a problem. I don't think the blogs of person who is criticized in a movie is the most valid source. also, I said "That whole part about Harry Potter is a red herring" Harry Potter is a red herring, but when I am not questioning ID as a pseudoscience, then it is a red herring, in the debate of whether or not ID believes all science is atheistic. Rds865 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are at least as reliable as primary sources as Mark Mathis and Ruloff and Stein. In many ways, they are more reliable since their statements can be verified in other reliable sources, whereas statements made by Mathis and Ruloff and Stein disagree with other reliable sources. In addition Myers and Dawkins at least know something about the topic of the movie, where it is clear that Mathis and Ruloff and Stein do not. However, I would favor including all these, rather than trying to remove one side or the other. We do not rely only on these sources, but include a wealth of secondary and tertiary sources from all sides of the spectrum as well to make sure we do not overly rely on one side's primary sources or the others. Attempting to censor one side because WP:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to wikilawyer WP:NPOV with all kinds of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT reasoning is not going to get you very far here.--Filll (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Often the best source for the opinion of a person is that person. Note how Robert misrepresented what I said about Harry Potter, in order to discredit me. I fear that Dawkins and PZ Myers may do the same. I am not arguing that scientists are not reliable sources, however, just because a scientist says something doesn't make it scientific, such as in a peer review journal. Myers in his blog describes the Mathis as embarrassed by a mistake, yet the evidence he provides for this shows that Mathis, neither acknowledges he made a mistake nor expresses embarrassment. If Expelled uses science, such as claiming science supports ID, then a biologist can refute that. If he says he believes in a creator, a biologist can't refute that is what he believes. Rds865 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And that is why we went to PZ Myers for his opinion. And Richard Dawkins for his opinion. Not how they were portrayed in the film with lots of editing. And that is why the portrait of Darwin's theories and Darwin's quotes in the film are wrong. That is why the intelligent design definition of science is wrong and the Discovery Institute is a lousy source about science and Ruloff and Stein and Mathis have zero of any value to say about science since they have embarassed themselves by revealing their appalling ignorance. So we can go to Ruloff for his opinion and Myers for his opinion. And we go to a wide range of 2nd and 3rd party sources for balance, and diversity and verification. What is wrong with that?--Filll (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Note how Robert misrepresented what I said about Harry Potter, in order to discredit me." What are you talking about?  I was referring to Davidp's comments, in the section he created, in which he used the phrase "red herrings" but nobody mentioned Harry Potter at all. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

sternberg
When I read the journal's statement (and subsequent reliable sources) I do not read that they have an anti-ID policy which forbids publishing anything that supports ID in the opening statements. Instead I read that they have a well defined editorial policy that requires anything published to withstand the rigors of peer review. The was the article read (and all the other articles on the subject here at Wiki) the reader is lead to belive Sternberg got in trouble for publishing a pro-ID paper, yet when we actually read what the journal is saying he instead got in trouble for circumventing their editorial/publishing policy. The fact the paper was pro-ID is obviously a part of the story but it's not the reason he got in trouble. The paper could have been about healing magnets or cancer curing with runes and the end result would have been the same. So in the interest of providing a more precise summary of the event that lead to the controversy I made some changes to that section. Angry Christian (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Journal fist states: "STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process."

And then the journal goes into how ID is not science yadda yadda. So I think our article should reflect the same. Sternberg broke the rules of publication, and (or in order to) he published pseudoscience. I think the article's description of the events shoud reflect the same. Making sense am I? Angry Christian (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And for their record I have no illusions of being the next Hemingway, if you can improve the edits I just made feel free to hack away. I know I tend to be wordy if not inelloquent at times Angry Christian (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Dr. Sternberg, he followed standard protocal and broke no rules. He had already had 30 articles published that all had fallen under peer review. Meyers article about ID however, went against SI's evolutionary doctrine. From www.rsternberg.net, Dr. Sternberg writes

"In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy." SargonXii (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making a significant and worthwile improvement. One thing - we now have the NCSE source giving Stein's claims about Sternberg, and the facts of the case. Worth reviewing. ... dave souza, talk 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir and I am reviewing that NCSE link now. I've actually been looking at the other Wiki Sternberg articles and noted those seem to suggest Sternberg got in trouble for publishing a pro-ID paper, yet when you read the statement by the journal first and foremost Sterberg circumvented the journal's editorial practices.  Secondary issue is it was over ID.  I might try and bring that up to the editors of those articles as well, this is an important distinction to me (as a reader of the articles).  Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've covered the primary points without recreating the entire Sternberg Controvery (which would be easy to do, it's a fantastically interesting story) and also we now have some direct quotes from Stein/Expelled. Angry Christian (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * These articles need an update anyway, as Ed Brayton's recent article in Skeptic Magazine has provided a wealth of new details. I've been meaning to do so myself, but haven't gotten around to it. HrafnTalkStalk 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, is Ed's article online or only in the print version? If it's online I might have some time tonight to work on it. Angry Christian (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part2 The Richard Sternberg Affair Intelligent Design at the Smithsonian Institution - by Ed Brayton] Angry Christian (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, Sternberg had published ID theory, and this is against the laws of science elitists. We all know it, so why try to pretend there were "other" reasons for his dismissal.SargonXii (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He was not dismissed. He had already quit. He was infact reappointed and promoted. And it is highly irregular to publish something with no outside review, especially something controversial. And if there was some other scientist who encouraged him to do it, then why hasn't he said that in years of turmoil and testimony and legal proceedings and congressional reports and hearings etc? Sounds a bit hard to swallow.--Filll (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History dismissed Sternberg as a Research Associate. He was demoted to the position of Research Collaborator.03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What dismissal? We "science elitists" like claims to come with evidence. Sternberg had already resigned as editor at PBSW when the issue with the Meyer article hit print. He continued to have access to the collections at the Smithsonian for his unpaid research associate affiliation. His NIH paying job was unaffected. So, what "dismissal" might be at issue?


 * The article was sent out to three external reviewers. I'd bet that at least two out of the three were signers of the Discovery Institute "Dissent from Darwin" list. While Sternberg claims the article was revised according to review comments, my sense is that the article reads much the same as the previous version published in a DI anthology. I may do some original research to come up with *exactly* what changes were made. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again I say, The Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History dismissed Sternberg as a Research Associate. He was demoted to the position of Research Collaborator.03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And also, it seems there was ample evidence in the movie to suggest scientists, equally trained, equally experienced, are black balled once they dare to suggest any type of intelligent design into the world of science. If you think these claims of being shunned are without evidence, then you need to talk with the scientists who were the subjects of the documentary.SargonXii (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fabricating a "demotion" out of that title change is, well, frankly there isn't a Wikipedia-friendly way to express what that implies about the maker of the charge. A Smithsonian "Research Associate" works with a PI at the Smithsonian and has access to the materials. A "Research Collaborator" is an independent researcher who has been given access to the materials. Apparently Sternberg had plans to work with a Smithsonian PI originally, but that fellow who sponsored him back around 2004 died within a couple of months of Sternberg's access being approved. Sternberg effectively was given a default sponsor, but had no research relationship with him. When his term of "Research Associate" time was up, Sternberg was given the "Research Collaborator" title which gives him exactly the same access to the collections as before. For Sternberg, there is no other issue in his relationship with the Smithsonian other than access to the collection: he was not paid in either title, worked with no one else in either title, and is barred by general rules of the Smithsonian from using either title as indicating an official working relationship with the Smithsonian. Just as there was no dismissal, there was also no demotion. One could just as easily argue that Sternberg was promoted from being titled as a dogsbody for someone to independent researcher status, but it would be just as meaningless.


 * OK, that may be feeding the troll, but I still think others may find the information useful. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wesley most everything you said is already in the article or the main article. This guy is obviously trolling trying to get a reaction.  You guys can feed him or ignore him but what he's doing is pretty obvious.  Angry Christian (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously trolling? Please AC, your "obvious paranoia" has gotten the best of you. I like to write and share my opinions where the liberals hide out, like in this Wikipedia entry and accompanying discussion page. Perhaps you are guilty of what you accuse me of? Do you enjoy trolling conservatives via this website to get a reaction our of them? SargonXii (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Sometimes it isn't quite so obvious who is a troll, and who might be believed as having a reasonable change for the article. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear you man, and you're free to accomodate him. It's just you're a bright guy and he's obviously not.  Seems outmatched.  Cruel and unusual?  :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I conclude that since I am in agreement with Mr. Stein I am not a "bright guy"? If not, what is it that makes Wesley bright and me not? I would love to know. This isn't a troll, I really want to know!SargonXii (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is an interesting tidbit, even though Stein continues to dishonestly claim Sterberg was "fired" from his "job", Kevin Miller, co-writer of Expelled admits Sternberg was not fired on his blog. Read more here.  Interesting to say the least. Angry Christian (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dembski's "review"
Read here. The part that grabbed me most was where he said that an important part of the film is that it shows that there is no evidence that life can be "explained" (whatever that means) without a designing intelligence.--Filll (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the comment was in reference to the origins of life. There is no scientific proof of our origins, only theories. This was acknowledged by all scientists interviewed in the movie, whether evolutionists or not. What Darwin could not know about was the complexity of the simple cell. Something we now know is so complex it would be a reach to think it came into being by time and chance. We can choose to believe in an intelligent designer, or we can choose to believe in time and chance. Either one is believed in religiously by the zealots that adhere to their hope.SargonXii (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you are reading this selectively. It is of course a purposely vague statement that has multiple interpretations. And the film shows nothing about science of abiogenesis and nothing about evolution.


 * And you are just parroting the DI line like a puppet. Because evolution is not "time and chance". And very possibly, abiogenesis is not either. However you are free to believe whatever you like. By the way since your post has nothing to do with improving the article, it is not really appropriate here.--Filll (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment "whatever that means" calls for an answer, so I did my best to respond to your question. If my comments are not appropriate for the purposes herein, then I might suggest that neither are yours. If research serves me correctly, you are no stranger to making out of context statements on a Wikipedia Discussion page.SargonXii (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links part II
We'll lengthen the article by several pages if we start linking to individual film reviws. In fact you take take the 24 reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and list them individually that section will be a nightmare for the readers to wade through all the external links. This seems over the top to me. Angry Christian (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At some point we have to fork, at least into something like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Controversies.--Filll (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fork is bad. WP:SUMMARY is appropriate, and sometime there'll be a need to summarise all the reviews into a couple of paragraphs with a main article Reviews of Expelled or something on those lines. Since the reviews seem to be respected by readers who think the debunking of this lame propagagnda film is excessive, I see no need to rush at this, but what's the consensus? Another split could be the people in the film section, but again we need a summary that concisely and adequately covers the main points. Oh, and let's trim links that are used as references out of the external links section, about 3 links worked well before. .... dave souza, talk 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB?
Is this really a reliable source when they equate ID with "the biblical view of creation?" I can't find anything on the Expelled website that mentions the Bible other than paranoid postings from people who think ID is being used as a back door method to get the Bible into schools. And I've seen no one, not even critics, mention anything about the Bible being mentioned in the film. 67.135.49.78 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein interviews an evolution scientist and apologist and asks him about the Old Testament. But Stein also asks him about the muslim god, the hindu god, etc. There was no reference to the bible other than this.SargonXii (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is a well known site and I have no influence over what they write there. Probably every single movie that WIki has an article for includes a link to their IMDB. We cannot exclude this one because someone at Amazon is not paying close attention. Please read up on them and consider taking your concerns regarding their description up with the owner of that site, Amazon.com Thank you. Angry Christian (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And could you provide a link where IMDB says "equates ID with "the biblical view of creation"? At first glance I saw nothing like that.  Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out the intelligent design article for sources where leading proponentsists Dembski and Johnson describe ID as "the logos of St. John" which is kind of, um, biblical. Think theistic realism. Not that it's religious, oh no, the design could have been done by aliens from utter space – but wait a minute, the film ridicules Dawkins for exploring the logic of that idea, so they must have disowned that one now...... dave souza, talk 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Positive reviews
I think they should be added to balance out the negative tones. RC-0722 247.5/1  19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * what positive reviews? this doesn't even refer to the movie, the "great piece of viral satire" is the Dawkins rap (which is brilliant). The page also claims the movie is in fact a parody. That's not a "positive review", it's a debunking (if accurate) to the effect that not even the makers are serious about it. The "parody theory" (the movie is so bad, it cannot be serious) would deserve separate treatment. dab (𒁳) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that there really isn't anything that could be considered an especially positive review. You could go fishing for one on Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes, but even amongst the conservative critics the pickings are pretty slim. I'm not sure an even 'balance' of good and bad reviews is appropriate here since the reviews are almost universally negative. The reviews don't really get any better than 'so-so' even among conservative critics.AdRem (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a more positive review. I don't think the review was precisely positive as it was mostly backhanded compliments, but it's what I managed to find.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistency with other articles, one last time
Hello again,

First, I would appreciate any feedback on whether my ways of communicating my discontent with the current situation is effective, or is it just causing unnecessary WikiStress on an article that is hard to keep accurate as it is. Please comment on my User:Merzul, especially those critical of my actions and views. I'm taking a short break from editing, so I can think about what you say.

Second, I would like to engage just one more time, the editors here, who are committed to ensuring consistency and neutrality across Wikipedia in a discussion about the lack of space given to the documentary expressed in its own terms. Quite frankly, I am worried about the stark contrast in exposition between:
 * The Root of All Evil?, where almost the entire article is a paraphrase of the documentary.
 * Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎, which with the exception of one paragraph, is entirely based on critical sources.

I will give an overview of the reason for this imbalance that I have seen on this page together with my reflections on these points. There are enough facts against ID, so that they can speak loudly for themselves. This is how all articles on creative works are written. What am I missing? Merzul (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Because Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community at large, the article should be extremely negative and should present all the rebuttals that have appeared in reliable sources.
 * 2) * I think this is absolutely true. There is nothing to argue about the above statement. That intelligent design is an attempt to subvert science by attacking the underlying foundation of methodological naturalism, and many much stronger statements, are almost universally attested to in reliable sources.
 * 3) * The point is that even in an article about a documentary presenting a fringe view, we can present the fringe ideas in their own terms. The documentary itself is an excellent example of failing to present the opposing view in its own terms, the trailer will tell you that the opponents of intelligent design hold that "we are no more than mud and created by lightning" and refers to evolution using the phrase "by chance" or that we are a "random mistake". Well, you don't need to watch any further than that. Thus, the ability to characterize the opposing position, has just as much of an impact on our credibility as our use of reliable sources.
 * 4) WP:NPOV. This section states that we should be wary of the segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. For example, pro- and con- sections are discouraged. This implies that we should not split the reliably sourced statements that refute the arguments or expose the factual inaccuracies in the film from where these statements are first made.
 * 5) * This is a wise policy statement, we should not split sections based on the POV they contain. However, the converse is not true. For example, this article has a natural split of reviews based on whether they appear in scientific sources, Christian media, or the mainstream press. Is this a segregation based on POV? No, I think the sectioning is based on a reasonable subject-matter classification, which simply may or may not result in each section having a different POV. If they would have all ended up with different POVs, then WP:NPOV does not require that they must be kept together.
 * 6) * Similarly, it is natural for articles on non-fiction to contain a section expressing the story as told in that piece of work. Different interpretations of what exactly occurs on the screen can be given in an NPOV fashion, but whether what is being said has anything to do with reality is not the subject-matter of a synopsis or overview of a creative work. The exposition of the real facts will be all the more credible, if we first show we understand the work in question and are capable of expressing it in its own terms.

So what are you suggesting here? Guettarda (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting the slight restructuring of the overview into:
 * Background (WP:DUE)
 * Synopsis (WP:WFTE) (without "junk science"
 * Argument in the film (WP:DUE)
 * That's basically it, Merzul (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "What am I missing?" Well The Root of All Evil? article contains ALL the critism about factual accuracy and misrepresenting what the interviewees say they said. For that documentary thats a short section, for this one its most of the page, that is due to the quality of the documentary and is not of our doing. (<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We must be not seeing things the same way for some reason. When I expanded this article considerably in December, I did a check on how much of it was pro-film and how much was anti-film. About 90 percent at that time was pro-film, and more pro-film material was added after that. Then the reviews began to come back, and most were negative; particularly in the mainstream press. So it is only appropriate that the article reflect that. Sorry, but what else would you have us write instead? A puff piece or a religious tract? The number of views of this article per day has exploded from about 100 to over 15,000 and it is now just starting to relax downwards again. We get several new editors a day, all of who do not know, or who purport not to know what NPOV etc is. Most of them are furious at us, and it is not easy to deal with this contant onslaught. As a result, the article has become more and more mangled; it just is not possible to keep it orderly under these circumstances. Then I looked at the article about the BBC Television documentary The Root of All Evil?. Let's face it; that has a far smaller target audience and recieved far less publicity and far less money was spent on public relations firms (Expelled had 4 public relations firms working for it) and there was far less money involved etc. It was a completely different situation. However, I do not see its article as just a paraphrase of the documentary. There is negative review after negative review in that article, which has some intense criticism of the program. You did not see that part? And you do not see all our sections which are neutral discussions of the films claims, or even positive paeans to the filmmakers? Wow. Just wow. I hardly know what to say. If I had the energy, I would quantitatively compare the two articles. But I really think it is a good thing you are taking a break, because I suspect your personal views are effecting how you perceive things here. I even came across a review from an evangelical today that complained that we were too kind to the film and far too positive since it was such a duplicitous piece of crap.--Filll (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. And I will indeed let it rest hopefully on more peaceful terms, Merzul (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - still too vague to be much help to me, but a step forward. Am I correct in assuming that you consider Background = Promotion_of_intelligent_design_as_an_alternative_to_evolution, Synopsis = Claims_that_intelligent_design_advocates_are_persecuted, and Arguments in the film = Portrayal_of_science_as_atheistic and Claims_that_Nazism_was_inspired_by_acceptance_of_evolution?

So:
 * 1) You cited WP:DUE with regards to the background.  To what does it give undue weight, and what do you believe should be cut from that section so that it is no longer undue in the weight it gives?
 * 2) What do you consider to be the synopsis at present?  Currently the term "junk science" is mentioned in the background, not in the synopsis.  While ID has also been described as pseudoscience and non-science, "junk science" is perhaps the most succinct descriptor.  Why do you believe that it is inappropriate?
 * 3) Again, you cited WP:DUE with regards to the Arguments in the film.  What, in your opinion, is given undue weight in these sections.  Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your equalities are more-or-less accurate, but we could think more specifically about that, if we reach the conclusion that general idea is good one. Currently, there is no consensus for it, and this time, your views, and those by Filll and HiVe below, are expressed very succinctly in a way that I find quite convincing. So thank you for taking the time to do so.
 * Let me still clarify, because I wasn't clear with what I meant by the policy names after each section. I meant WP:DUE not as a something the article fails, but that's what this article does well. I didn't use it as a policy, but as the general flavour that the section in question should have. I could have said that I would like the overview to be clear that
 * Background information (the truth)
 * Synopsis (whitewashed propaganda, maybe about 4 paragraphs without debunking)
 * Factual analysis (the truth)
 * Is this more clear at least? Merzul (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To Merzul: I already explained in the Layout section above my reasons why comparing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to The Root of All Evil? and some other films is like comparing apples and oranges. Rather than repeat myself, please see my earlier comments.  The short version of my criticism is that this film has several times the number of criticisms, not just in content, but also in its method of production, as those other films, thus attempting to use same format as those other films would not work in this case, and would only make the article worse. --  Hi  Ev  08:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, this goes a long way in alleviating my worries about consistency. Just one caveat, having myself helped summarize reviews of The God Delusion, I have to admit that on the subject of existence of God, which falls in the field of the philosophy of religion, Dawkins is almost WP:FRINGE. And yet, I do insist on that page that we use Dennett, who is not a philosopher of religion, and PZ Myers, who is not even a philosopher; because they understand much better the gist of Dawkins argument than say someone like Alvin Plantinga. However, I think I can accept that you have every right to present the article in this form.
 * I'm not yet completely convinced that this gives is the most effective way of conveying the facts. I'm not sure, whether because something presented in a film is universally declared as bunk, we still shouldn't devote at least 3-4 paragraphs to describe it properly in its strongest possible formulation before the truth is presented.
 * Your points about the methods used in the documentary setting it apart from that of Dawkins' is well noted. It is one thing to remove someone, e.g. McGrath, from a documentary, it is quite another thing to portray someone as saying "As a scientist I am hostile to any opposing doctrine [cut]".
 * Ok, thanks for all the replies, I'm letting this rest now, Merzul (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see that "Root of All Evil" provides the sort of chronological synopsis that's lacking from this artice, but I'm not sure what we can do about this yet, lacking a transcript (unless those who have seen it have very good memories?). --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked at The God Delusion article here. However, The God Delusion, even though it has sold well over a million copies and has generated over 20 books written in response to it, has not had anything like the publicity that this film has, or the controversy. Are there reports in the press of Dawkins obtaining interviews under false pretenses for his books, say in the New York Times and elsewhere? Did Dawkins threaten to arrest any prominent clergy for daring to try to read his book? Did Dawkins violate copyright and plagiarize sections of someone else's work without permission, and is now being sued for it? Did Dawkins launch a preemptive lawsuit against someone else who suggested that Dawkins might have plagiarized, to shut them up? Did Dawkins tour the United States promoting his book in front of state legislatures and use it as part of a campaign to have laws passed to force churches to include atheism in a positive way as part of their ministry and preaching? Did Dawkins make repeated announcements that this was just the start of a massive campaign to turn the United States into a mainly atheist nation? If Dawkins did any of those things, I must have missed it. Because the producers of this movie did actually do comparable things. And you know, that might actually change how the article in Wikipedia is written a little bit, don't you think?

Also, my impression was that none of the arguments in The God Delusion are novel. They have been known and debated for decades if not centuries in philosophical circles. Many scholars sniffed that Bertrand Russell's presentation of some of these arguments was far better. However, Dawkins wrote in a publicly accessible manner, and his book has sold at a far greater rate than Russell's books on the subject (perhaps it has even sold more copies by now). So as a piece of scholarship, The God Delusion might be trash. As a cultural phenomenon, it is something else.

And we have similar situations all the time in Wikipedia; the relevant experts are disgusted with something, but the general public loves it. Look at alien abduction or tarot cards or ESP or 911 conspiracy theories; the public is far more open to this stuff than the experts are. Suppose that Expelled had done what the producers predicted; it had outsold Fahrenheit 911 and sold over 30 million dollars worth of tickets in its first weekend. And suppose it became a cultural phenomenon like Passion of the Christ or Star Wars even. Suppose it changed public perceptions and policy the way An inconvenient truth did, and recieved far more positive mainstream reviews from the New York Times and the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post and Variety and Entertainment Weekly and so on. Then this article would be written very differently. We would still have the response of the "experts" to the subject matter, but the reviews would be mainly positive. Wikipedia does not do more than reflect what is found in the world. It does not set its own "tone"; or at least it shouldn't.--Filll (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll, you are very convincing when you patiently explain things. I'm willing to accept that I was wrong. My case rests then merely on my personal conviction that this page would be more effective, if it gave some more room to just describe the assertions of the film. I'm thus giving up any pretense I may have had above that this objection has any grounds in WP policies, I also admit this is not an issue of consistency or double-standards being applied.
 * While conceding these points, I state then merely as my personal opinion that the article would benefit from WP:WFTE due to some people being sensitive to how well you first describe the content of a work, before analyzing its validity. And it is also my personal opinion that a more neutral choice of words, WP:WTA, would lend more credibility to the facts. Merzul (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes things that much more difficult when the overwhelming view in the mainstream media is the movie is garbage/propaganda and also the science community considers it garbage/propganda and for the most part the primary people who embrace the film and its message are fundamentalists/IDists/creationists. That makes it very difficult to write an article that does not look slanted.  All but a tiny minority recognize the movie as a dishonest propaganda piece.  Oh and I agree, Filll is pretty good when he patiently explains things.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another really bad review from Entertainment Weekly
See here--Filll (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you notice our article was linked to, its under "exploited the memory"(of the millions whom Hitler murdered) and points to our "Claims_that_Nazism_was_inspired_by_acceptance_of_evolution" section. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda'
Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda -- probably deserves a mention in the 'Richard Dawkins' and/or 'Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution' sections. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very noteworth I think. Angry Christian (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
NPOV does not mean "balanced". If something gets 99% critical coverage, the article about it should be 99% critical. If its horrible, illegal, or any other negative words - as stated by reliable third party sources - then that is how the thing is described in the article about it. We do not describe someone as they describe themselves, else an article about some poor deluded person who thought they were God would say "so-and-so is God". Now, this is the boiled-down version of NPOV, but its accurate. Any questions? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for the NPOV banner has been laid out by myself and others in many places on this talk page, noting a large number of issues which have not been resolved. Among these, the article discusses the movie in a consistently "pejorative" manner, in violation of the first paragraph of the body of WP:NPOV. It mischaracterizes the movie's positions, for instance by representing them as claiming that "science" is atheistic, despite their never having done so, no source being provided, and it having been pointed out that in fact they criticize rather than support this view. It includes significant original research in violation of WP:SYN that is not sourced to anything which discusses the movie. The way this is presented also violates WP:NPOV; see the lead of the policy stating that these policies are complementary and need to be considered together. The issues are very significant, have been noted by a rather extraordinary number of editors, and have not been resolved, which is why I support the banner until more serious efforts are made to improve the article with respect to this policy. Mackan79 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV means "multiple or conflicting perspectives" are to be presented fairly. Most actual perspectives are negative, but there's a good deal of "piling on" to the negatives and little in the way of allowing anything else. This is not what's done with say America: Freedom to Fascism or Man of the Year (1995 film). (Two documentaries/mockumentaries that received mostly unfavorable reviews)--T. Anthony (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * However, there are numerous sources supporting the claim that "Big Science" is atheistic, this has been extensively discussed, and the article has an entire section devoted to exploring this aspect of the movie. Furthermore, the facts require us to reflect the manner in which the movie has been received, and any unwarranted perjorative language can be (and is being) cleaned up: so where's the dispute? --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The source of the claim that science is atheistic is here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/id


 * Expelled’s main theme is that intelligent design is under systematic attack by “Big Science” – the scientific establishment – which refuses to recognize its scientific validity because of a previous commitment to atheism and materialism. In truth, the arguments of intelligent design have been examined by the scientific community and found to be lacking in both utility and accuracy. If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates, who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.


 * Can you point out the section of the article that you believe has original research? Before you point them out however, check the citations and read, if possible, to what they reference--BirdKr (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph of the "Overview" is primarily taken from sources that don't discuss the movie. I am not insisting that all of it be removed, but it does violate WP:SYN and should be improved. Mackan79 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Big science" was just reverted back to "science" when I returned to the article. This tipped the scales for me. I also want to reflect how the movie was received, but I don't want our own tone and approach to reflect the opinions of critics. The passage I referenced: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." This is the issue we're failing, not our representation of critics, which I think is fine. Mackan79 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Science is atheistic: Mackan79, I gave a source from Scientific American stating that this movie claims that science is atheistic. You have a quote also from NCSE that makes the same point. We could find hundreds of similar statements from interviews and reviews on all sides of this issue.
 * If you have it, you haven't presented any such source. The sources so far show that the movie portrays Dawkins and others as believing that evolutionary theory leads to atheism, in a way that it clearly critical.  The film similarly argues that "big science" or the "scientific elite" or the "scientific establishment" is atheistic.  The way it is presented now is inaccurate, and pretty close to saying they support a view that they try to argue against. Mackan79 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV As pointed out over and over, and now by KillerChihuahua, NPOV does not mean neutral or positive or sympathetic. Do you deny Mackan79 that most mainstream reviews are negative? Because if you do, I want to see the evidence for it. Do you deny Mackan79 that most scientists think that the case that this movie makes is very weak? Because if you do, I want to see the evidence for it.

In both the case of "NPOV" and "Science is atheistic", your objections have been answered repeatedly. Do you not read the responses?---Filll (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe your statements about NPOV are accurate. NPOV does mean a "neutral point of view."  You are correct it doesn't mean that points of view are excluded, and that a "neutral point of view" is a point of view.  To simply deny that the article should be "neutral" seems to be some sort of equivocation, if unintentional.  I want the kind of neutality described in WP:NPOV, not other kinds of neutrality that it doesn't describe. Mackan79 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mackan, you're not just trying to give "equal validity" to the pseudoscientific extreme minority view, you're trying to frame the article heading in their deceptive term, which they don't use all the time. Stein complains about "science", I've toned it down to refer to mainstream science but that's evidently a concession too far. . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to give "equal validity" to anything, wherever you keep getting that phrase. In reference to the specific heading, I suggested that it say "Portrayal of evolution as atheistic," or that the heading be removed.  If people insist that it refer to science generally, then "Big science" is accurate, whereas "science" is not.  People here are so concerned about framing a topic in their terms that they are switching it into something that is plainly inaccurate.  I can let some things slide, but that's not the kind of thing to just let slide. Mackan79 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense Mackan79, but this is starting to verge on WP:DE and WP:TE.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, you make this claim too many times. When editor after editor says the article is not NPOV, when I list the issues in detail with specific reference to the NPOV policy, and when editors nonetheless insist that the banner be removed, that is indeed a problem that should be recognized by editors on the page. Mackan79 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, you have made the claim that this article violates NPOV too many times; that is what makes your behavior approach WP:TE. Tell us, do you deny that most of the mainstream press has panned this film? Do you deny that most of the scientific press has panned this film?--Filll (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it has, as I've said countless times, including in the article. Nor would I have anything sympathetic to say about the movie or anything in it.  But of course this has nothing to do with the specific problems I have raised.  I could explain these again here, but since I've just laid them out in detail in the section above I'd like to avoid repeating myself. Mackan79 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of these disagreements should be easy to fix. Now that the movie is out and there are TONs of reviews, can we all agree we should use sources that discuss the movie rather than ones that don't? This would make some of these disagreements go away automatically. Friday (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively". Apparently the "other view" in this case is that the movie is actually good (from Rush Limbaugh etc).  Where is this fact mentioned perjoratively? --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote from the NPOV articles.....
 * NPOV is one of three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."


 * "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."


 * "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.


 * Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."Restepc (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tracked down the policy page from which that quote was apparently taken, WP:NPOVD, and discovered that the very next sentence has been omitted. Here it is: "However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag."


 * If the NPOV dispute is about whether the article should be tagged, then it is pointless and the tag is inappropriate. The tag should only be used to indicate a dispute about something else.  If there is no specific "something else", the tag is inappropriate.  Note that WP:DRIVEBY also goes there, and driveby-tagging is inappropriate behavior. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense Restepc, but placing a dispute tag up repeatedly like that when there is no valid dispute is a violation of a variety of Wikipedia principles and can result in sanctions. It is better to discuss why you think there is an NPOV violation or dispute, because according to consensus of experienced users, there is not. --Filll (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My strong impression from Mackan79 and others debating this issue on this talk page is that they want to ignore NPOV and remove all negative content from the article, or to minimize it. There are very few mainstream positive reviews (like Limbaugh's, if that could be called mainstream), and a few extreme fundamentalist positive reviews (the Catholic review I read was negative for the most part, and most mainstream and liberal Christian reviews probably would be as well, since this film appeals to a crazed extremist minority only).

The Wikipedia article has become more negative about the film as more reviews have appeared, because most reviews are negative, especially from the major reliable sources. However, even when the Wikipedia was measured to be about 90 percent positively disposed towards the film, editors similar to Mackan79 were furious that it was too negative. Well...not much I can do at that point. It is just a misunderstanding of what NPOV is. Possibly willful misunderstanding, frankly.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am no mind reader, but I suspect that isn't it. If 9 out of 10 reviews are negative, then the wikipedia article should mention or reflect this, I don't think that's the problem, I think the problem is a lack of letting the facts speak for themselves. For example, you just said "since this film appeals to a crazed extremist minority only", while  I am not suggesting that saying that on the talk page is in anyway wrong, and I personally would endorse it as an accurate statement, such sentiments shouldn't creep onto the article itself. The article is changing rapidly, probably with more heat than light, so I'm not exactly sure whether I feel the article is NPOV myself at this moment in time, but when I have gotten involved in specific phrases/sections of the article I have indeed found it unbalanced, and it is clear that many editors do feel that the article is biased. Restepc (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is of course the issue, not the points raised by Filll, which are plainly inaccurate at least in regard to my position. Mackan79 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Look even though I believe that the film only appeals to an extremist group, when I rewrote this article in December it was 90 percent pro-film. NINETY PERCENT. Way more positive than it deserved, frankly, by NPOV. And people who did not understand NPOV complained it was too negative then.

Now we have reviews. As you say, maybe 9 out of 10 are negative. So, about 90 percent of this article should be negative by NPOV.--Filll (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "when I rewrote this article in December it was 90 percent pro-film. NINETY PERCENT." This is a little bit misleading. The December version was too positive, but line-by-line it was maybe 70% positive more than 90. The earliest substantive version, the one of September 27, was essentially just negative. The current version is 152 kilobites long with at least 47 kilobites essentially declaring it illegal, immoral, and fattening. And for me this is what makes it "POV", its engagement to what can only be called "overkill." It's bloated with a cacophony of quotes, including at least one by a Wikipedian, most of which do denounce it. Although to be honest even the quotes that defend it aren't very useful. So it might be better to have something equivalent to Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy to keep this article from becoming a bloated choir of academic disdain. Granted I'm actually not as emotionally invested this. I think ID is mostly goofball, but it doesn't offend or upset or scare me. However I do several articles on musicians and films and this one is just too much. It's really too much of everything, but since negativity is the main part of the "everything" that's what I've mentioned.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite what I said in my edit it's really more like the length of Resistance (V TV series). Nevertheless it is the 132nd longest article when I checked.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll I suspect you either do not understand or are ignoring the actual points being made, the dispute is not at all over the proportion of positive/negative reviews to include. Restepc (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you do not understand NPOV. For some reason or other...--Filll (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my case I have apparently been at Wikipedia longer than you. I've also worked on articles with the "NPOV" tag on them before you ever came here. Your belief that your interpretation of NPOV is more correct than mine would be is not going to convince me. This article is clearly piled-on and POV. It is treated worse than other documentaries on fringe theories would be because this fringe theory is deeply offensive to Wikipedia's core/founding demographic. (Tech-savy atheists and agnostics) The fact that even putting a "NPOV violation" tag is seen as a hostile act is a very clear indication of how biased this place is, For the record I do not believe in Intelligent Design, which is often bad theology as much as anything, and I think this movie is probably hack. However this article does not really give "multiple views" except multiple negative views some of which are extraneous to the film itself. Still I have reason to hope the article will improve so I will not put the tag back, for now. If after a week it gets no better I may do so. And again I think I know NPOV well enough. (Also I will delete unread any message, from anyone, about this film placed on my page)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The source of the claim that science is atheistic is here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/id I read that page, and couldn't find any reference to that claim. Nightscream (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this comment posted in the wrong section? Perhaps you missed the link I gave above which I show here. And that is not the only source; we can get many many more from all sides of this issue. --Filll (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, that link is a better source in the claim that the movie tried to portray science as atheistic. I'll be replacing the current with that one. --BirdKr (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, that's been done already

Yes, I know, Filll. That's why I was pointing out that that one wasn't a good one to use as an example. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For other sources showing that the producers of the film think that "Big Science" (a vague and silly term, IMO) is atheistic, see here where the producers say, "The scientists and educators in this film who are being kicked around and whose lives and are being destroyed by a cadre of elite 'antitheist' scientists [...]" (in fact, that whole blog entry by the producers makes the absurd claim that religious scientists are automatically ignored), and this page, which implies that atheism is an inherent part of "Big Science" that none dare question without suffering the consequences (which I also find amusing since a majority religion in the US is trying to play the part of a beleaguered minority under the thumb of atheism, when the reality in American society is much more the reverse). They use the phrase "cadre of elite antitheists" in other blog entries such as this one as well when talking about scientists, suggesting that they believe that scientists are not only atheists, but are actively trying to destroy theism.  All in all I'd say those statements clearly indicate that they think science is ruled by atheism and is a threat to religion. --  Hi  Ev  01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Florida legislators question
I think we should remove the following passage from the Florida legislators section:


 * The legislation tells instructors to teach the "full range" of "scientific information" about biological and chemical evolution. During the press conference John Stemberger of the evangelical Florida Family Policy Council, one of the drafters of the bill, said that intelligent design could not be taught, though "criticisms" of evolution could, and the teacher would have to follow the curriculum. Stein said it was the teacher who would decide what was "scientific information", and Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, said that intelligent design constituted "scientific information", but that the bill was not intended to settle that question. The Miami Herald saw this as acknowledgement that the bill would make it easier to bring up religiously tinged intelligent design in public-school science classrooms. Wesley R. Elsberry considered that this would enable the Discovery Institute to recruit sympathetic teachers to introduce religiously-motivated antievolution arguments, and lawsuits would depend on someone with standing being willing to become a plaintiff. John West of the Discovery Institute said that "scientific information" would be determined by science teachers themselves in consultation with their science curriculum staff and their school boards. This would bypass the Florida education standards identified by science domain experts and education experts.

Here's why: 1. This information is not related directly to the film. After stating Stein said the film is evidence of the necessity of the bill (the sentence directly preceeding this passage), it goes off on a tangent when the link to the bill, and the description in the first paragrapgh is enough to let readers know what is going on. 2. It is already in the Academic Freedom bills article where it should be. 3. Starting to get into the issue others have raised about using sources not related to the film (in this case sourcing something not fully relevant to the film. 4. The article is long, and this tangent is something easily removed without hurting the article.

Alternatively, the passage starting with "The Miami Herald saw this as..." to the end could be removed. So what do you think? I came to the talk page first so we wouldn't just get into another blind edit war. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this addresses your question/concern (probably does not) but I think the story about how Stein is using Expelled to influence lawmakers is perfect fork material. We'd still cover the high points in the article but it could probably be its own page. Angry Christian (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

what happened to the ref formatting?
Angry Christian (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Already been fixed. --Ali&#39;i 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Using quotes to reflect the consensus among critics
The consensus among critics on Rotten Tomatoes notes that Expelled is "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, [...] a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary"

It's clear that the movie Expelled has been raped to oblivion by critics as it should be and that the general consensus is that this movie is poorly researched, propaganda, one-sided, etc. However, the quoted block above raises some questions:

1). How do you know those quotes, written by one or two critics, ARE the consensus among critics? I'm sure we know what the consensus of these critics are in general, but those quotes try to lay out more specific details of this consensus which might not have been said in a similar manner from the rest of the critics. 2). Is it okay for Wikipedia to try to state the specifics (in this case, quotes from one or two critics) of the consensus of one group (in this case, movie critics) despite the fact that there's no reliable source showing these specifics ARE the consensus?

Some may read these two questions asking the same thing.

--BirdKr (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed those. A 90% negative speaks for itself and there's no need to claim that specific statements are "consensus."--T. Anthony (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not actually specific statements or "consensus", but a useful paraphrase by Rotten Tomatoes of the overall critical view. Worth using, but not to be "quoted" directly. .. dave souza, talk 09:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV added again
I see someone added the NPOV without leaving a reason nor making any changes. This is getting old. If there really are serious NPOV issues then use the table below to show us. Paper45tee (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but the article does appear to be very slanted and negative toward the documentary. Maybe only quoting negative reviews, or quoting multiple times from a negative source called Excelled Exposed, etc. The NPOV message that was here yesterday just flagged this article rightly I think as not having a neutral point of view. Anyway, hope to add to this table later today. Benrice8919 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Benrice8919
 * I agree with you Benrice8919, I think a lot of us with degrees in Science don't have hours to spend arguing with full-time Wikipedia hacks. I have seen a number of medical and scientific articles on Wikipedia that were dominated by individuals with absolutely no qualifications or sometimes even knowledge of the subject(even admitting such on their comments) because they simply had loads of spare time. Believe me, if you have enough time to argue, you can rewrite history on Wikipedia by just referrencing a couple of odd papers. There are plenty of intellegent critics of this movie. Still, In My POV, this article reads like a blog. Realscience (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Realscience


 * Your opinion on NPOV appears to differ from the Wikipedia policy which you can read at WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. See  below for further explanation. The positive reviews are greatly outnumbered, bu can of course be shown in due proportion. The Expelled Exposed resource is used to quote the words used in the film, as well as the response of a major science teaching organisation as required by NPOV. More sources will of course be welcome. ..  dave souza, talk 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a matter of more sources one way or another. I read this entire talk page just now because after hearing a friend talk about the movie I checked out this Wikipedia article to see what the movie is about, and I agree with Realscience that it reads like someone's negative Blog entry, which happens to cite/quote references. It's not about disputing the fact that this movie was very poorly received by scientists and critics en masse, it's about the negative language, and the fact that this article is LONG. I've seen wikipedia editors chop down all kinds of documentary and film articles that weren't NEARLY this long. Going on and on and on about why this is a horrible movie and turning it into an article that reads like someone's anti-NIA manifesto doesn't make it a good article even if it WAS a horrible documentary, and even if it IS chop full of psuedoscience and lies. I really think it needs cleanup AND the NPOV tag back. It's been there a million times, why not keep it?

The case for templates
Articles should have templates to avoid the type of flagrant bias that is evidenced in this article. Compare and contrast the opening paragraphs of this article to say Fahrenheit 9/11. There are no "reviews", no mention of conservative or liberal or other reception of Michael Moore's work. Oddly enough according to WP Michael Moore produces films, but Ben Stein produces propaganda. And you have the gall to take yourselves seriously! BAH HA HA AHA HA! 72.205.37.144 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because another Film article is written a slightly different way means nothing. And the original article had no reviews in the LEAD; this was done in response to people just like yourself who visited the page to complain and wanted the reviews there. This is not written by one person; there have been more than 220 different contributors to this talk page, and 275 different authors of the article mainspace page. So when people like yourself come by and want to make a change that others agree with, they are obliged. And if we wanted to place templates on articles, every single article on Wikipedia would have 20 templates since everyone disagrees with something. --Filll (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:DFTT, please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from insulting other editors, Raymond. NCdave (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * These editors have insulted the readers if they think that anyone is stupid enough to see through their blatant disregard for fairness. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever.--Filll (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, really, Filll, we're not being fair to the intellectually challenged. We must work on that problem. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

screening controversies
Are Moore and Whipple out of place? They're in the ...\Reaction\General Media section but as it is written now their stories are primarily screening controversies. All the others in that section are comments from the general media who are reviewing the movie, so they seem out of place. Should their stories be moved to the ...\Screenings section? That would seem like a logical placement to me. I would favor the general media be limited to reviews/comments by the general media. Angry Christian (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK with me. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 22:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well...Reading it again it seems like Whipple is giving a lengthy review and finds irony in the non-disclosure document. Moore is the one who had the controversial experience so maybe Moore should be moved and Whipple could be condensed. We originally had quite a bit of Whipple because he was about the only one who'd seen it.  Anyhow, my main point is Moore's screening would make better sense in the screening section and maybe we should condense some of Whipple.  Angry Christian (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims that the film misquotes Charles Darwin
Hi lovebirds, I have a question. Should we come up with a better title for this section since it is not a claim but a fact? And it's not a fact that anyone could argue, it's pretty black and white. The film quote mines Darwin to portray something completely different than what Darwin actually said and meant. Just curious if calling the fact he quotes mined Darwin a "claim" makes sense? The film does in fact quote mine Darwin. Angry Christian (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and for the record, I am not suggesting we say "Ben Stein is a quote mining prick". I'm just curious if anyone else thinks the title is less than precise and if so does anyone have a good suggestion. Angry Christian (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am with you on this, clearly a fact and not a claim, it cannot be argued that the film doesn't implies the opposite of what Darwin was impling. Section title should read "Misquotation of Charles Darwin:. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk)02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Misquotation of Charles Darwin" is OK with me. Also I think we should bold or <font color="green" size="2px">change colors on the missing text in the quote since the italics don't show up very well. Paper45tee (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But is a quotemine technically a misquote? I'd prefer "selective quoting." If the quote has been elided without acknowledgment then it is not just selective editing, it is a misquote. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's one big problem with that: the film did not misquote Darwin. Nor did it take his words out of context to change their meaning.  The quote was perfectly accurate.


 * Rennie and Mirsky's SciAm complaint was simply that the film did not also note that Darwin mentioned the downside of neglecting the weak and helpless. Here is what Darwin said about that:


 * ''"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy... Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. ... [If] we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.


 * Rennie & Mirsky's SciAm article misinterprets those words as meaning that, "Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the 'weak' as dehumanizing and evil." But that isn't what Darwin said:
 * Firstly, Darwin's words were about "neglecting," not "eliminating," the weak.
 * Secondly, Darwin's words reveal ambivalence, not opposition, to the idea neglecting the weak and helpless. Does anyone doubt that the NAZIs thought their eugenics programs had "contingent benefits?"


 * In light of what Darwin actually said, Rennie & Mirsky's complaint is spurious, because most eugenics programs did not work by neglecting the weak and helpless, and the movie does not claim that they did. Even the NAZI's eugenics and extermination programs did not work by neglecting the weak; they worked by sterilizing and murdering them.
 * Most eugenicists thought of themselves as humanitarians. Instead of neglecting the weak and helpless, they used "humane" methods to "improve the breed," such as forced sterilization of "defectives," and Margret Sanger's practice of putting birth control clinics in black neighborhoods.


 * The current version of the Wikipedia article calls the movie's use of this quote a "misleading selective quotation." That is simply untrue.  The movie's quote was neither misleading nor inaccurate.  NCdave (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC), 04:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version also arguably plagiarizes John Rennie and Steve Mirsky's SciAm OpEd piece, rewording their argument, but duplicating it in its essentials, and even duplicating their use of italics to highlight the material that the move elided from Darwin. NCdave (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, Rennie & Mirsky didn’t read Darwin carefully. What Darwin called "evil" wasn’t neglecting the weak & helpless.  That was Darwin’s description of problems that could JUSTIFY neglecting the weak & helpless.  Intentionally neglecting the weak & helpless, in Darwin’s view, should be contemplated only if it conferss a real "benefit," and combats an "overwhelming present evil."  NCdave (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...You FAIL at reading comprehension. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, do I? Then explain his use of the word "present."
 * (BTW, if you find his use of the word "contingent" confusing, an old dictionary might also help with that, too.) NCdave (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to being a quotemine (carefully removed from its context to create a misleading impression), it was also an actual misquote, because chunks of text had been excised from the quote itself with no indication that this has been done. To quote NCdave himself (from the above contribution): "the film did misquote Darwin.  The movie's quote was inaccurate.  The movie's use of this quote is an overwhelming present evil". --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the unambiguous "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." which comes before it, what he is saying in that last sentence is that if some benefit for the future was achieved by such a means, it would require [be contingent on] great evil in the here and now [present]. This is the plain-language interpretation, NCDave's type of reading is one I have hitherto only seen in the convoluted logic of the most committed advocates for biblical inerrancy in the midst of trying to twist contradictory parts of the gospels, etc, into something - anything! that makes them compatible with each other. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You may validly call this a selective quote in the heading and it may be a misquote of some sort by not following technical convention (using ellipses or what have you). I don't really care about that.  Substantively, however, Darwin is, in fact, a bit disturbed in his narrative that sympathy is getting in the way of genetic progress.  In any case, it is incidental to the actual affect of Darwin on eugenics and the Third Reich, which implemented ideas related to this.  The fact is that eugenics and the Nazis took Darwin's research and applied it to their ends.  It doesn't really matter what Darwin may have felt about the poor, sick, etc.  That is irrelevant to the premise here.  Get it? --Davidp (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein misuses this selective quotation to give viewers the idea that Darwin sanctioned Nazi murders. Get it? As it happens, the SA article doesn't note one aspect of the selection - the omission of the start of the paragraph, which says "Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.—In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind...." This is Darwin summarising the views of other authors, then in the next paragraph, as shown, he shows their problem with the "noblest part of our nature". In corrspondence, Darwin described Galton's ideas as too "utopian", as the voluntary schemes both thought the only proper use of the science would be unlikely to succeed, and enforced schemes were morally wrong. The eugenics enthusiasts in the US discarded that part. ... dave souza, talk 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the Nazis took the name "eugenics" but disregarded Darwin's research, preferring de Gobineau's ideas of "master race" and "corruption through racial mixing". Hitler was a creationist who believed he was doing the will of the Creator, defending the pure created races from corruption by mixing with lesser created kinds. That doesn't mean that creationism is wrong, any more than his misuse of biology means that Darwin was wrong or that evolution is "wrong". this series is quite interesting. .. dave souza, talk 12:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Nazis took Darwin's research and applied it to their ends" That's like saying the guy who pushed his wife off of a bridge applied Newton's research to his end, or his wife's end actually.  Nonsense.  Angry Christian (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is the nonsense I'm afraid. --Davidp (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey NCDave, based on your opinion the Spartans also applied Darwin's research to their ends. Were they time travelers?  How the hell did they do that?  At some point we should consider allowing at aleast a little common sense to take root on this talk page.  Angry Christian (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hitler uses evolutionary concepts in both Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch to make his points on struggle and race. He more directly draws on Ernst Haeckel, who promoted Darwin in Germany.  Embrace fact!  It doesn't discount evolution.  It was simply used to justify his intellectual perversions.  --Davidp (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ...What "evolutionary concepts"? Hitler was advocating artificial selection, which certainly wasn't invented by Darwin.  How could he have "used" natural selection?  As previously noted, that "master race" stuff was from de Gobineau.  I think you're using a very elastic definition of "evolutionary concepts" there.  Species is a concept used in evolutionary biology: so does that make it an "evolutionary concept"?  If so, was Linnaeus (who died 72 years before Darwin published Origin of Species) using "evolutionary concepts" too? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf Um, if you read Mein Kampf you'll note Hitler argued they should exterminate the weak to glorify god. He also railed against athiesm. And everyone back then thought Haeckel was on to something, until they realized he wasn't.  Again, common sense is not our enemy Angry Christian (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the introduction to Zweites Buch, Hitler deals with the "the compulsion for the struggle for survival" and how this, in turn, contains the "precondition for evolution." The master race moniker was Gobineau, yes.  Linnaeus was about classification, not about adaptation or the Will to Power (to inject some FN).  The evolutionary concept here is natural selection, not unnatural selection.  Society had/has subverted natural selection.  Darwin provides the ammo.  Gobineau loads the gun.  Hitler shoots.  It doesn't logically follow that Darwin is to blame for Hitler and the film only draws the line between them.  In the Gobineau wikipedia article, it states:


 * When the Nazis adopted Gobineau's theories, they were forced to edit his work extensively to make it conform to their views, much as they did in the case of Nietzsche.


 * This does not disconnect the line between Gobineau and Hitler, however. --Davidp (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with misquote, though I don't think it was a terrible misquote, the film version and the original mean exactly the same thing! Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Darwin provides the ammo" Made me smile :-) Hey I have to run, I'll miss the show!  Angry Christian (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard Dawkins takes up this very subject here. Angry Christian (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The movie did not misquote Darwin at all. It is a perfectly accurate quote.  The movie did not take Darwin's words out of context or "create a misleading impression."


 * The movie did elid some of Darwin's words, but there is no pronunciation for ellipses, so it is not a distortion to fail to pronounce them, so long as the intended meaning is preserved, which it was.


 * Darwin noted that neglecting the weak and helpless would result in "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature," which he said should only be contemplated if two things were true: 1) if there were likely ("contingent") benefits from doing so,  and, 2) if it were done in response to a great existing ("present") evil.


 * Note that Darwin used the word "evil" in reference to the problem that might justify neglecting the weak and defenseless. Rennie and Mirsky apparently didn't read the paragraph carefully, because they wrongly claimed that Darwin used the word "evil" to describe "the idea of eliminating the 'weak.'"  Darwin did not use the word "evil" in connection with the idea of neglecting the weak (and he said nothing about "eliminating" the weak).


 * Rennie & Mirsky seem to think that the words which movie elided n some way negate the words that they movie quoted. They're wrong.  There is no incompatibility between the two sentiments that Darwin expressed.  Darwin worried about coddled weaklings reproducing, but he had reservations about neglecting them.


 * However, most eugenicists did not advocate neglecting the weak and helpless, anyhow. They advocated surer ways of making certain that such "defectives" did not reproduce.  In the same way, a dog breeder might sterilize a puppy with a genetic defect, but still seek a loving hope for him, and still be horrified if such a dog were the victim of neglect.


 * (Aside to AC: sorry, I don't understand your reference to the Spartans.) NCdave (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article I linked to, NCDave? Angry Christian (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent analysis, NCdave. After re-reading this and doing a little language research, I'm in full agreement that Darwin was, in fact, conveying his point as you have said.    --Davidp (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Davidp. <blush!>


 * AC, I skimmed, but Dawkins' nasty attack on Stein doesn't seem to have anything to do with the issue here, which is whether the film's quote of Darwin was accurate and fair (it was).


 * Dawkins makes some really silly statements there, though. For instance, he absurdly claims that Hitler (who ordered the murder of thousands of priests and nuns) was Roman Catholic.


 * Dawkins also wrote that, "Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind." But, then, what are we to make of this paragraph from Darwin's Descent of Man?


 * ''The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe. Secondly, powers of reasoning insufficient to recognise the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe.  Savages, for instance, fail to trace the multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, etc.  And, thirdly, weak power of self-command; for this power has not been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit, instruction and religion.


 * It is hard to imagine that Dawkins, himself, has never read Darwin, but perhaps he assumes that his readers haven't. NCdave (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker's Holiday, you have it almost right. You wrote, "...what [Darwin] is saying in that last sentence is that if some benefit for the future was achieved by such a means, it would require [be contingent on] great evil in the here and now [present]. This is the plain-language interpretation..."


 * Based on your personal attack which followed, I'm guessing that you didn't notice that your reading is very close to mine, and contradicts that of Rennie and Mirsky. You see, Rennie & Mirsky misread Darwin's sentence to mean that Darwin was using the word "evil" to refer to neglecting the weak and helpless.  But that's wrong.  Darwin was actually using the word "evil" in his description of the circumstances which could justify neglecting the weak and helpless.


 * Rennie & Mirsky's summary of what Darwin said was, "Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the 'weak' as dehumanizing and evil." That is wildly inaccurate, in part because, as you noticed, that is not what Darwin called "evil."


 * What's more, Rennie & Mirsky omitted the final sentence of that second paragraph, probably because it repeated the sentiments of the first paragraph, that the effects of "the weak surviving and propagating their kind" were "undoubtedly bad," and that it was to be hoped that "weaker and inferior members of society" would "refrain from marriage."


 * Your interpretation of Darwin's words is much more nearly correct than Rennie & Mirsky's, but it is just slightly off, because you assumed the most common modern use of the word "contingent." As Darwin used it, it meant "possible or likely, but not certain."  It did not necessarily imply causality.


 * My guess is that Rennie & Mirsky's erroneous claim that Darwin called eliminating the weak "evil" resulted from a careless reading of 19th century prose. But I'm surprised that nobody caught the mistake before their editorial was released.


 * Intentionally neglecting the weak & helpless, in Darwin's view, should be contemplated only if it confers a likely "benefit," to combat an "overwhelming present evil." But that wasn't an expression of reservations about eugenics, because eugenics programs didn't work by neglect.  Most eugenicists considered themselves humanitarians, and they didn't advocate neglecting the weak and helpless.  Eugenics programs commonly used much surer and more "humane" ways of ensuring that "defectives" did not reproduce, such as forced sterilization.  Even the NAZI's didn't neglect "inferior" people, they sterilized and murdered them!


 * The bottom line is that the film's quote of Darwin accurately reflects Darwin's stated views, and Rennie & Mirsky's paraphrase of Darwin badly misrepresents those views. I am struck by the irony of Rennie & Mirsky's criticizing the film for supposed inaccuracy, while being far less carefully accurate than the film which they criticize. NCdave (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you have time to explain this clearly. I, unfortunately, do not. The important question is that, if you disagree with this interpretation of Darwin's quote, why is that? And, specifically, I think careful parsing of the sentences in question (with an eye on cohesive thought across paragraphs) is warranted, however tedious that may be. --Davidp (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's made quite clear in the article already, especially with the italics and the bolding. Darwin clearly does NOT approve of the neglect of the helpless: it would involve "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature". The context should clear up any ambiguity regarding "overwhelming present evil" (it's the evil associated with this neglect and deterioration). He's saying there are two consequences of this neglect, a "contingent benefit" and an "overwhelming present evil" (contrasting the possible long-term benefit with the immediate evil, in the present). The notion that he would actually approve of murdering the helpless is plainly absurd, if mere "neglect" is so bad. The notion that he would approve of sterilization is completely unsupported (and quite out of character for him). Stein's misquote was both incorrect and out-of-context. NCdave is mistaken: the evil is not what "justifies" the neglect, it is a RESULT of the neglect. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Davidp, your argument is in a way amusing, and it's telling that you try to augment it with a standard creationist quotemine accusing Darwin of racism. However, it's original research, and far from us having to disprove your "interpretation", it's up to you to verify it with a reliable source directly related to the film. And a hint – Answers in Genesis or the opinions of right wing politicians don't count as a reliable source. .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Robert, you did not read it carefully. The "overwhelming present evil" was Darwin's reference to an hypothetical justification for neglecting the weak and helpless, it was not descriptive of the result of doing so.  A "present evil" is one that is already in the here-and-now.  An anticipated policy of neglect cannot be the cause of an evil already present.


 * Darwin expressed ambivalence about the idea of neglecting weaklings, but he was emphatic in his desire that they not breed. His words gave great encouragement to the eugenics movements which followed.


 * The Expelled film's quote of Darwin was perfectly correct. Rennie & Mirsky's summary of what Darwin said was wildly inaccurate, and their accusation against Stein and the film's producers was false. NCdave (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. you are entirely incorrect. The "neglect" could only be FOR a contingent benefit, but this comes WITH an overwhelming present evil.  The "neglect" is not to COUNTER the evil, it CAUSES the evil.  And Darwin uses the example of surgery, where again the actual performance of the operation CAUSES the "evil" (suffering of the patient) that the surgeon must harden his heart against: but then goes on to declare that (unlike the surgery) the (future) benefit is merely "contingent" while the (present) evil is "overwhelming", thereby indicating that the procedure should not be followed (i.e. the pain outweighs the gain here).  And nothing here says that Darwin was "emphatic in his desire that they (i.e. humans) not breed" (even if this is good policy for animal breeding, a fact that had been known for thousands of years).  Unfortunately for you, he says pretty much exactly the opposite in his "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature" comment.  Your inability to read English is insufficient grounds for changing the article (are you even English?  I am, and I even have a qualification in English English). --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the creationist dishonesty is also evident in the removal of the specific measures Darwin was discussing: poor-laws (welfare), medicine, vaccination. Not eugenics of any sort.  Stein used this dishonest, edited misquote: this fact is beyond dispute by any rational person. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Robert, you have not understood what Darwin wrote. It is true that 19th century prose can seem a bit odd to the modern eye, but if you read it carefully I think you will understand it.  Shoemaker's Holiday understands it, and I am confident that you can, too.


 * After pointing out what he believed to be the problem that results from coddling weaklings and allowing them to reproduce, Darwin was discussing the pros and cons of an anticipated possible response to that problem: implementing a policy of neglecting the weak and helpless. The word "present" (in the phrase "overwhelming present evil") means "already existing," which cannot be the result of an anticipated policy of neglecting the weak and helpless.  (His usage of the word "present" was exactly the same as in the more familiar phrase, "clear and present danger.")


 * A result cannot antedate its cause, so a "present" evil cannot be the the result of an anticipated action. Rather, the "evil" Darwin mentioned was what he believed would be required to justify a policy of neglecting weaklings, in spite of the fact that such a policy would have the downside of "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."


 * Robert, you are correct that Darwin did not use the word "eugenics," but he repeatedly and emphatically expressed the opinion that, for the good of the human race, the weak and helpless should not reproduce. That is eugenics.  Please do not call people who understand that irrational and dishonest.


 * Nor was there was any dishonesty in the film's failure to list the specific examples which Darwin listed, of how weaklings are protected, to the detriment of the vigor of the human race. The film's quote of Darwin was fair and accurate.  Rennie & Mirsky's criticism of the film was misplaced, and their summary of what they claim Darwin said was grossly inaccurate. NCdave (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're still dragging this up? Well, you're still wrong: but as this wrongness won't be allowed into the article, I suppose it's irrelevant.  I am well aware of how both "contingent" and "present" were used (apparently unlike yourself): what seems odd is your ongoing misunderstanding of the word "with", which is pretty much the same in any English dialect.  "The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient;" (sets up an analogy) "but" (explains that the real situation differs from the analogy) "if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless," (hypothetical scenario) ""it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil" (links future incidental benefit with immediate evil).  If I go to the park with my kids, this doesn't mean that go to the park in opposition or in response to my kids: it means that the whole linked package goes to the park, together. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Robert, the word "with" is used to tie the circumstances justifying the policy (the present evil) to the policy being justified (neglecting weaklings), not to the noted downside of such a policy (ignobility), as in this simpler example: "We will launch our missiles only with severe provocation."


 * Your confusion is understandable, because "with" is an unusually complex 4-letter word. The definition Darwin used is " 19. As a result or consequence of ," in this dictionary.  NCdave (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ...Hilarious! Did you even read that before posting it?  "19. As a result or consequence of: trembling with fear; sick with the flu"... contingently benefiting with the overwhelming present evil???  In complete disregard of the context?  Amusing, but I think WP:DNFTT applies at this point. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Robert, those are just examples of the usage of the word "with." The definition of "with" which Darwin used is "as a result or consequence of."  The dictionary uses short examples, and so what?  The context provided by those two examples is irrelevant, because the definition is not specific to fearfulness and illness.  Examples of this usage include:
 * She is trembling with fear.
 * She is trembling as a result or consequence of fear.


 * He's sick with the flu.
 * He's sick as a result or consequence of the flu.


 * We will launch our missiles only with severe provocation.
 * We will launch our missiles only as a result or consequence of severe provocation.


 * If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
 * If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, as a result or consequence of an overwhelming present evil.


 * Does that make it clearer?


 * If you still doubt that was the intended meaning, then look to Darwin's use of the word "present" for proof. A "present evil" is one which is already in existence.  That is the only purpose of putting the word "present" in that sentence.  Your supposition that the "present evil" is a result of the anticipated policy cannot be correct, because a result cannot antedate its cause. NCdave (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ri) Whatever you do, don't go into linguistics or philology. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Overview section
I'd like to discuss this edit, and why I feel Orangemarlin's edits are POV, and not NPOV, as he insists, taking each passage from his version, one by one, and highlighting the contentious portion:

""...used to symbolise the supposed barriers to intelligent design being accepted as science.""

My version uses the word "alleged", because that word is more neutral. An allegation can be a well-founded one, or an unfounded one. But "supposed" is a word that tends to be used by one who is skeptical of the idea, often to denigrate it or its plausibility. "Alleged" does not carry this connotation.

""...he gives a talk in a lecture hall, and through the film he provides narration.""

Not a POV matter, but I believe that "throughout" is the more appropriate word. I'm not positive that "through" is incorrect, but would be interested in others' thoughts.

""He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution""

It is clear that this wording is meant to emphasize subjectivity on the part of the producers. If it isn't, why insist on this wording that than simply "who support evolution", as I edited it to read? ALL producers of ALL movies "select" the people that appear in it. Orangemarlin's insistence on this implies that there is something more particular to this fact in Expelled than in any other film. What do you feel would be understood by the reader if it did not include this passage? That the interviewees grabbed the cameras away from the cameramen, forced an interview that the producers didn't want, and then broke into the editing room to make sure that their interview was snuck into the film's final cut? In addition, the article is already too long; why use the longest possible wording?

""Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities "face in hands, bemoaning the nightmare he claims Darwin wrought", ...""

First of all, the above passage is from the Overview section, which is supposed to be a summary of the film. It does not need this level of detail, let alone a quote from a reviewer. Why indeed would you have to quote a reviewer when merely describing the film in summary overview? Simple. Such sections should contain only factual, dispassionately and formally worded descriptions of such scenes, and Orangemarlin may think he can sneak an opinion into the article by citing it as the opinion of a reviewer. But opinions and other subjective imagery are only appropriate in sections describing reaction to the film. An Overview section merely describing it should not have emotionally-charged scene-setting, and certainly don't require it.

""...followed by a "triumphal" scene of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall...""

Again, same problem. There is no reason for "triumphal" to be in quotes, as this is a literary device used when the writer is doubting the appropriateness of the word in question, and again, in a merely descriptive section, the word itself (which comes from the same source as the "face in hands" quote above) isn't even needed.

""then returns to the lecture hall for his closing statements.""

Not a POV issue, but I believe the word "and" would be appropriate before the word "then". Orangemarlin says "We're keeping it NPOV." Really? Okay. Please tell me how "alleged" is POV, and "supposed" is NPOV. Please tell me how emphasizing the producer's selection of the interview subjects goes to NPOV, but concluding that this is unnecessary detail is POV. Please tell me how those "face in hands" and "triumphal" quotes actually makes the passage NPOV, and that removing them is POV. Not having "triumphal" there makes it POV? Really? How? Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I love being attacked by admins, so bring it on dude. It's an attack movie.  It attacks science.  There is nothing more to say dude.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No. There is much to say, since your personal opinion on the movie and the manner in which an encyclopedia describes it are not the same thing. If you could refute a single thing I just said, then you could've done so. But the anti-intellectual rant you instead responded with will only make it clear to others that you do not understand the NPOV policy, and the fact that you see an attempt by me to discuss this dispute here on this Talk Page (as opposed to engaging in an edit war with you) as an "attack", raises the question of whether you're able to work with others in a civil manner. Nightscream (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever dude. You're going to block me I suppose, since you enjoy blocking people with whom you have had involvement.  I've got some business travel this week, so I don't mind the block, because it apparently increases your cred with the Fundies.  Oh, calling me an anti-intellectual is a personal attack--I am so far from that I wouldn't even know if it's on the same planet as I.  Well, slap me silly with my anti-intellectual hand, maybe I can get you blocked for making a personal attack!!!!  What a thought.  Nevertheless, this article is accurate, well-sourced, well-written, and clearly states, in a neutral manner, the rottenness of this movie.  Perfect. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice you're canvassing. Excellent news, because I would trust many of these editors.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, edits like this are totally unacceptable:
 * Orangemarlin may think he can sneak an opinion into the article

To begin with, it's a total mischaracterisation of the actions taken - OM was undoing an edit of yours - how can you call that an attempt to "sneak" something into the article? Worse yet, he is undoing an edit which has serious POV problems by an editor whose editing history on this article includes a history of POV edits and abuse of admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Given your history here, you have shown that you are far too involved in this article to abide by Wikipedia policy. Please take a break from this article for a few days so that you can calm down. This sort of behaviour is totally unbecoming of someone the community has given the privilege of admin tools. If you can't control your behaviour, you need to step away. Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to block you, since this is an content dispute, and admins are not supposed to block people for this reason. I have no idea what you mean by "cred with the Fundies", as I'm an atheist, and have little sympathy for fundamentalists. And I did not call you "an anti-intellectual". I said that your response was, which it obvious was, and which your responses continue to be. A constructive response would be to remain polite, and discuss the passages in question. Saying, "It's an attack movie.  It attacks science.  There is nothing more to say dude." is not an constructive response. You are essentially saying that you cannot or will not respond to the individual points. That 'is an anti-intellectual response, and is a sign that you know that you're wrong, and can't refute the truth behind my assertions, and saying so is not an insult or attack.


 * I have not engaged in canvassing, since that requires that I contact people who I somehow know or think will respond favorably to me. If you don't believe me, just read that policy page. I have not done this, of course, since among the people I contacted were those that disagreed with my block of Angry Christian, which I did in part because I wanted objective people. You yourself prove this point when you stated that you trust the people I contacted.


 * Guettarda, I explained in detail above how the edit in question was an attempt on his part to sneak an opinion in the article. Please respond to that reasoning. As for your assertion that this cannot occur in a revert, this is obviously not true, since whether the material is being inserted for the first time or reinserted on a revert is irrelevant to this intent. The overview should explain the film in summary, and not use loaded language, which is unnecessary for that section. If you disagree with this reasoning, then why not explain the basis for doing so? Why would you instead ignore it, and then ask me "Hey, how does is this an opinion?" Isn't refuting the reasoning of the person disagreeing with you the proper way to go about a dispute? Or do you prefer OM's anti-intellectual refusal to discuss these points, his incorrect citation of WP policies, his deliberate distorting of my words, etc.? You have not established any history on my part of POV edits, much less admin abuse, as the record both on this page and the article's history shows the opposite, that I've been trying to remove POV edits. If this is not true, then why not respond to my reasoning regarding the passages I listed above? As for admin abuse, I responded to the discussion on Angry Christian on that notice board, by pointing out the three warnings I gave for on this Talk Page for inappropriate comments, and the fourth final one to AC and others on their own Talk Page, thus disproving the notion that my block of him was legit. Even if this were to be judged to be uncalled for, this hardly constitutes a "history" of admin abuse.


 * I await your responses to the passages I listed above.Nightscream (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nightscream's characterization of the edits is perfectly accurate. Most obviously, OM's "supposed" is a scornful, POV-laden characterization, "alleged" is neutral.  Nightscream made the article a little less POV-biased, OM made it even more so.


 * Also, OM deleted the tag, even though we all know that the neutrality of the article is disputed.  That is not acceptable behavior.  The tag is not supposed to be removed until the dispute is resolved.


 * OM says, "the article... clearly states, in a neutral manner, the rottenness of this movie. Perfect." That says to me that OM does not understand what "neutral" means.  (It also says the article is far from neutral.)  Please, OM, consider editing articles about subjects in which you do not have such a strong emotional investment.


 * Also, I wish that everyone here would refrain from personal attacks. Nightscream's opening comment was good, but OM's goading "I love being attacked by admins, so bring it on dude" reply seems to have set the tone for the rest.  Really, OM, how was that constructive?  Nightscream wants to talk about the article, let's do so.  NCdave (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please. . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. NCdave (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From a quick read of the talk page, it seems in general NPOV is not brought into question, simply wording of several sentences that revolves around NPOV of the current perspective/stance of the article. The rational seems to be that since almost all major reviews and media is criticizing the film, the significant view is that the movie almost crosses the line of propaganda, with the article reflecting that and the significant opposing view by following a rebuttal in almost in every sentence about the movie. --BirdKr (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As requested, I've had a look at the section. I've made some edits relating to the points raised by Nightscream. To avoid edit conflicts I'll post commentary on these changes in a minute. .. dave souza, talk 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also NCDave, looking at your talk page and reading your message to one of the users saying:


 * Be aware of the fact that Wikipedia is a very left-of-center institution. The admins here are overwhelmingly leftist, and you will discover that Wikipedia's rules tend to be very strictly enforced against conservatives and Christians, and often not enforced at all against liberals and atheists.  In fact, some admins just invent totally fictional offenses by people with whom they disagree, as excuses to "punish" them with blocks and bans.  Get used to it, that's just the way it is.


 * seems to give the perception that your opinion is already fixed on this matter and the editors who "contributes" (take it however you read it) to this article. If possible, try to detach away from such view on this article. I don't mind you contributing at all however so long as the article improves. I myself will be contributing soon after all my college work is done--BirdKr (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on changes as promised:
 * I've changed "supposed" to "what it alleges are", making it clear who's doing the alleging. I've left "through the film he provides narration" alone as, though I might use "throughout" as a word outwith Wikipedia, Tony1 has a thing against old fashioned terms a bit like this so that's uncertain, and I don't know for sure that he does all the narration though that seems probable.
 * These changes: Regarding "He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution", I've clarified this to "He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists who are atheists, selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution" which is the essence of a major plank of the film, that evolutionary scientists are atheists. At the same time it must be made clear to uninformed readers that scientists who are Christian support evolution. As shown at above, well meaning people with no axe to grind still get the mistaken impression that evolution is only supported by atheists.
 * "Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities "face in hands, bemoaning the nightmare he claims Darwin wrought" " is rather poetic, I've I've changed that to "Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities emotively bemoaning the nightmare he implies was due to Darwinism.", and have changed "triumphal" scene of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall" to "symbolic".
 * Hope we can agree on these points, .. dave souza, talk 09:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the original ones were quotes - I don't really think that your renditions are better, in this case - the one about Stein facing the Nazi atrocities might go a bit beyond the sources: "emotively bemoaning" has some connotations of intentional melodrama that aren't in the original. Do you have the New Scientist review the quotes are from? I could mail it to you if not. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also "triumphal" in this case is a quote from that review. If I might:
 * If paraphrased, we'd be open to accusations of Original research, but this is a movie which several reviews point out uses strong pulls on emotions in order to create its arguments, and hence the emotions are an important part of the summary. By using quotes, we make it clear that it is NOT original research - it's what a notable reviewer said! And that's fine, so the emotional content is dealt with in an NPOV manner, and all is well. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise the "selected by the producers" bit was, as I recall, because the original phrasing implied that the people interviewed were representative of evolutionary biology. They are not - Shermer and Eugenie Scott are not biologists in the first place (Shermer is a historian of science, and Scott is an anthropologist (which has overlap with biology, of course, but is not quite the same)) and no theistic evolutionists appear [Or, at least, as far as I know - this article doesn't even have a full list of people interviewed - we really, really need to fix that.] Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this brief outline should paraphrase sources rather than quote one, other sources are available and the wording can obviously be reconsidered. .. dave souza, talk 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but we'd really need to be referencing anything that looks like OR with a ref listing quotes that support it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not OR, nothing new is invented that isn't in the source, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the poetic "face in hands" and the more encyclopedic "emotively". It is a great paraphrase. Dave Souza's mild changes are much appreciated, Merzul (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd have read "face in hands" as descriptive, e.g. his face was in his hands in a significant part of the scene. "Emotively" seems a judgement call on the effect of this on the viewer. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing: for the record, I added "supposed" - I think the original phrasing was suomething like "shows scenes of the Berlin wall, used to symbolise the barriers set up by science against Intelligent Design" or something like that - that seemed to be presuming the barriers existed as described in the film. I think it's gone through several tweaks since then. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I checked, and while I did add it, I evidently added it at the same time I added the rest of the phrase and a ref showing it's meant as a metaphor for barriers to ID. I think I was confusing it with some other edits. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is not OR, and is the type of summarization of which most of the prose content on Wikipedia is comprised. Most of its text, after all, is not direct quotes, and certainly that is the case in this article. Again, the Overview is simply a summary description of the film, and I don't see why such a section would need quotes in the first place in describing it, let alone two. Then again, given how huge this article is, and how it'll eventually be pared down, I have a feeling that the Overview section will eventually be merged with the Intro anyway, but that's a separate issue. Nightscream (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not OR, but can give the appearance of OR if not done with care. In thics case, I'm worried that a paraphrase will not easily be identified as consensus of reliable sources, but instead be viewed as OR and removed down the line, unless we provide, in the refs, the quotes that support the statement. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the following:


 * It is clear that this wording is meant to emphasize subjectivity on the part of the producers. If it isn't, why insist on this wording that than simply "who support evolution", as I edited it to read? ALL producers of ALL movies "select" the people that appear in it. Orangemarlin's insistence on this implies that there is something more particular to this fact in Expelled than in any other film.

The issue is exactly that the "Expelled" producers did select a biased sample from the population of scientists who support evolutionary biology. They selected only people noted for making public the fact that they are atheists. They either discarded interviews with those who were theists or repudiated the premise that IDC advocates are locked out of academia, or chose not to pursue interviews with them. It is completely accurate to note that the selection made by the producers was one that served their agenda, and failed to inform the public of the true state of affairs. It is misleading to whitewash that action on their part. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point. Instead of merely describing the film in summary, which is what the Overview section is supposed to do, those who favor this "selected" version of the passage are trying to make a point about the biased nature of the selection. You can't do that. It's a direct violation of POINT. Any criticism of the manner in which the producers handled the interviewees should be made A. in sections devoted to such criticism, and B. by properly attributing those accusations to those sources as an accusation on their part. NOT as a matter-of-fact description in a summary of the film. This is what I'm talking about when I mention editors using weasel words and other such phrases to sneak POV into the film. The fact that the filmmakers and their advocates obviously have one position regarding these aspects of the film, and its critics have another, is a CONFLICT. WP editors cannot take sides in that conflict, even if we happen to know for a fact that one side is clearly wrong. Look at the article on flat Earth and the Flat Earth Society. Their idea is completely bonkers, but the article does not say this. It only states documented facts, and where it mentions criticism of their ideas, it only does so by attributing that criticism to its sources. Failure to do this gives the impression that Wikipedia itself is taking a position against the idea. Wikipedia cannot do that. It only REFERS to what each side says. That's why an encyclopedia is called a REFERENCE source. The same holds true with this film. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to note the producers' selection served their agenda. It is our job to cite CRITICS who do this, and only in the proper SECTIONS for that material.


 * I edited the article to remove such editor POV. This includes the Darwin quote section title, the "evolution as atheistic" section, and the material on the Scopes monkey trial, which has nothing to do with the FILM. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the POV edits are still being reverted into the article, with Orangemarlin complaining that my NPOV reversions are actually "POV" edits. Let's try and discuss them:

Disputed edits
Here are the following edits that are still being disputed:

Portrayal of science as atheistic Does the movie actually portray science as atheistic? Because the lead sentence in that section makes it clear that it only does this with evolution. Indeed, this is a common creationist argument. So why is "science" a better word for the title? How is my version POV?


 * From my impression, it seemed the movie portrayed itself as going against "big science" and its "supposed prejudice", the epitome of it supposedly being evolution. It's quite easy to talk about the battle between religion vs. science (even though both are not categorically the same) simply by pointing out the political and religious incidents of evolution surrounding it. For the article itself, reading the section, it seems "evolution" seems a better fit than "science". If the movie directly claims that science itself or the current state of science and its community is atheistic, then the editors need to write more on that section that is beyond evolution to reflect the lead title. --BirdKr (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Misquotation from Charles Darwin I get it. Stein and the filmmakers misquoted Darwin. I'm not disputing this. But this is an accusation/criticism from the film's critics. As such, it's a conclusion that the article itself cannot make. By doing so, it gives the clear impression that Wikipedia itself is concluding that it's a misquote. WP article's can't do that. It is best to title that section something neutral, and then explain what the critics are saying regarding it. What exactly is wrong with titling that section "Darwin quote", and then explaining that Stein falsely edited the quote? How is changing the section title to something neutral a POV edit? Guettarda argues in his Edit Summary that "quote mining is misquoting". Yes, it is. But that's a personal observation on the part of the editor. Only the critics you cite can be quoted as such in the section's text. Putting your own observations and conclusions into section titles is a direct violation of WP: NPOV and WP: POINT. In what way do you dispute this?

Scopes Monkey Trial The same passage makes mention that the same misquote was made by Bryan in the Scopes trial. Can you please explain to me how this is relevant to the article about Expelled, and not simply an attempt to embellish your point about the quote?

Failure to represent theistic evolution Same problem as the Misquote section. Describing the criticism that the film does not mention theistic evolutionists is valid. But to title the section as such again gives the impression that Wikipedia sides with these critics. This is unacceptable. Again, please explain how simply mentioning Theistic evolutionists in the title, and then elaborating in the section itself with the critics complaints, constitutes a "POV" edit. Nightscream (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, I'll chime in on this one and I think I see where you're coming from. To me the fact that they purposefully excluded Christian or religious biologists who do not have their panties in a bunch over "Darwinism" is a very significant part of the story.  However, I share your concern that we should not "write the story" so to speak.  What comes to my mind is we look at changing the title to something more encyclopedic and find some additional sources that will tell the story for us.  As a starting point, how does that sound to you?  Additionally, there is currently so much hostility on the talk page that it's really difficult to dig very deep on any of these subject (simply an observation).  Anyhow, do you have a take on my initial suggestion and do you have any solutions for the "theistic evolution" section?  Angry Christian (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fair suggestion (don't you have a name to uphold?). Anyway, I'm discussing the science issue above.  I think the Scopes thing digs a little deep, but was pleased to see that at least it comes from a site about the movie.  In terms of the "misquotation," I think we'd need some better option, like "Alleged Darwin quote controversy," except that's worse than the original.  Otherwise "quote" is perhaps misleading, whereas I think it's basically fair to call it a misquotation unless we have a better option.  I could try to comment more specifically, but that may require that we split the points apart. Mackan79 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Last comment from me tonight. This article is becoming more like gridlock traffic. I see very good editors reverting other very good editors - endlessly. We seem to be arguing over and over and over about petty points and reverting one another over stuff that in the grand scheme of things seem pretty meaningless. We've already lost several good editors with good ideas because they cannot stomach the talk page. Compromise is not a naughty word and it can be done without violating policy. I really think we should request a peer review and keep our fingers crossed that we can get someone who will be helpful. Worst case is they'll get their ass kicked too. :-) What's one more person to beat up on?  Seriously.  Where do you go to request a peer review.  And note I am not so naive to think a peer review is going to solve all that ills us, but a fresh perspective *might* help get us past certain obstacles.  I mean how many more weeks are we going to argue about the exact same points?  How many more editors are going to throw their hands up and walk away.  I'm all for requesting the opinion of some fresh eyes.  Night night you crazy people. Angry Christian (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "Misquotation from Charles Darwin." The film's Darwin quote was accurate.  It's Rennie & Mirsky who rewrote Darwin.  NCdave (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the =atheism section appropriately, merging in and deleting the Failure to represent theistic evolution section. See the references and note that we should not be giving "equal validity" to the claims of pseudoscience. The source, Rennie & Mirsky, made the point about the Scopes Monkey Trial, which is their way of noting that this is a longstanding example of creationist quotemining. Their interpretation is accurate, and supported by expert historians whose books I have to hand. . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Dave and how you combined the sections is much more effective and seems to eat up less space. Angry Christian (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

AC, thanks for participating. I hope that despite our previous conflict we can work together on this. And yes, I agree with you that the titles should be more encyclopedic. This is why the Darwin quote section should something like "Darwin", and not "Misquotation from Darwin". I notice some people here are arguing whether it really is a misquote, but to me, that's not the point. As I read the original quote and the filmmaker's version of it, is does seem to be a deliberate misquote. My point is simply that the article should not take a position on that point ITSELF, because it would violate NPOV and WP: POINT. The title should be something neutral, and then the critics' pointing out that it's a misquote be included in that section. The readers don't need us, the editors to conclude that the critics are right via the section title.

Similarly, the last part of that section, which mentions that Bryan used the same quoted in the Scopes trial, should read, "The Expelled Exposed website also pointed out that the same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used..." Instead, the only the non-bold passage is used, which poses the same problem. I edited that passage to include the attribution. What does everyone think? Nightscream (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nightscream, I'm sorry, but could you reread WP:POINT? Because I don't think it means what you think it does. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I mistakenly remembered POINT as being a NPOV-related policy. I was probably confusing it with Biased Writing or weasel words, or something. Putting that aside, the point still remains that an article cannot present as its own conclusion regarding a point of conflict. It must instead attribute the positions of the participants. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's alright, but it was making you look a bit silly. I understand your concerns, but it may be difficult to address them very well while the article's in so much flux. It might be best only to worry about egregious stuff for now, and once things settle down a little, then deal with language issues. That said, you are being a bit anal about this, getting very very upset about very minor things, and you might want to calm down a bit and try and put the problems in perspective. Complaining about trivial issues in the middle of it being thrown into chaos by new editors who have watched the film and now want to fight for ID, but who have no understanding of Wikipedia at all, really is bad timing on your part =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yoko has filed a lawsuit
See it here. It would appear Yoko is not fond of Ben Stein portraying John Lennon as someone who advocates a world that embraces Nazism. This is a fascinating development. Angry Christian (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! I was wondering why she wasn't down like a ton of bricks on this slur on Lennon's beliefs before now, guess the law takes time. Damages bit will be interesting..... dave souza, talk 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I watched this movie and the portion of "Imagine" used in the movie was in relation to Stalin and Communism and its intolerance of religion. The words "and no religion too" from Lennons song were written at the bottom of the screen to emphasize the point. There was no direct implication given between the song and its support of Nazism, only an implied one generated by those with a conspiracy theory mindset against anyone they disagree with.SargonXii (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The movie did talk about Nazism and it's possible relation to Darwinist theory but the song was used in relation to Communism far more than Nazism (both of which are socialist type governments).SargonXii (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yoko Ono may be offended by the use of the song, but she is no stranger to courtrooms and past copyright violations.SargonXii (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Damages"? Yes intersting but I think the depositions will be the stuff legends are made of ;-)  All we are saying.....is why break the law?'  Angry Christian (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And BTW, this deserves a properly formatted ref with all the details for which I am a complete dork at so I'll let someone else do the honors of including this in the article. It will be interesting to see if Ben and them claim Yoko is persecuting them for their ID beliefs and that the conspiracy to silence ID now included the music industry.  Funny, had Ben and them followed the same laws and standards that everyone else is expected to follow they would not be in this situation.  Grabbing someone's music and claiming you have the right to it via fair use is begging for trouble.  The Killers probably don't have the cash to file a suit themselves but obviously Yoko has enought money to buy the state of New York.   Angry Christian (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I read that the Killers did license their music, but were mislead as to the nature of the film; lied to.--Filll (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If The Killers licensed their music, then where is the copyright violation? I don't understand.SargonXii (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently The Killers were told by the producers of the movie that the movie was going to be a satirical documentary exploring academic freedom in public schools and government institutions. It was certainly satirical, it was absolutely a documentary, and the entire premise of the movie was regarding the persecution of those scientists who were willing to give an open hand to Intelligent Design theories even in those situations where the open handed scientist didn't adhere to an Intelligent Design theory. Where is the deception other than from those who oppose the suggestions of the movie?SargonXii (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're both right, I forgot the manager (spokesman?) for the Killers said they were mislead by the Expelled folks and gave them license to use the music. Angry Christian (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtful defence. Of course Yoko might try suing for defamation or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 10:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the PT discussion and what I've seen, it's at the end of PZ's "interview" where Ben Stein says “Dr. Myers is just ripping a page out of John Lennon’s songbook,” then they play the 15 seconds of music, with film clips of Stalin and marching Chinese communist troops, and at first "and no religion too" shown at the bottom of the screen. The US Copyrights Office advice outlines possible fair uses being "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research", and factor affecting whether it's fair use including the question of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Not going to help the advertising use of the song if those who've seen Expelled get flashbacks of Joe Stalin and commie troops. Since it's not comment about the song as such but a sideswipe at Myers, this looks a shaky defense. Of course lies and indoctrination could be claimed to be educational ;) . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be funny if Yoko Ono wins Ben Stein's Money :-) Angry Christian (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's funny. :)

The complaint filed by Yoko can be found here. Angry Christian (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV poll
I am aware that wikipedia is not a democracy, and polling has no official power, however since some editors are claiming that only one person is trying to add the NPOV tag, I feel having a vote on whether you personally feel the article is neutral will help to illustrate whether or not there is consensus on this matter.

So, vote here is the article in its current state neutral, yes or no Restepc (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, reasonable explanations of what the problem is, specifically are way more useful than explanations of how editors feel. People are trying to talk about reasons in the section above.  A poll is not useful in my opinion.  Friday (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that that would be helpful, but right now there is an edit war going on with the NPOV tag, despite the extremely clear policy that the tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. I suspect it will be hard to discuss in any meaningful way what the problems actually are while a significant number of editors deny any dispute even exists Restepc (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. The article is supposed to be NPOV. NPOV IS NOT NEUTRAL.--Filll (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Um. . . Maybe I' in the wrong. Please inform me. What does the "N" in NPOV stand for? Benrice8919 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Benrice8919


 * When I wrote "is the article in its current state neutral" I meant (and I think this is rather obvious) "Is the article in it's current state written from a neutral point of view" Restepc (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes The aritcle violates NPOV. Saksjn (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes This article clearly violates NPOV. User:BenRice8919 I'll be adding to the table at the top of this discussion. Benrice8919 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)BenRice8919

Another option is to follow the path that has been given for disputes. Arguing back and forth is a huge distraction, endless revert wars is no fun. If someone feels there is a dispute that is not being resolved there are formal steps you can take to address those disputes. Initiating that might be more productive that taking polls or indulging in endless arguments. I'm not saying that will end in what you might personally wish, but it would seem to beat the heck out of raising the same points over and over and over and over and over and over. Just a thought. Angry Christian (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the best method is to address specific disputes, and the biggest dispute I see right now, in being both the current one, the most important one, and the one at the very top of the article, is whether or not the NPOV tag should be on the article. I'd suggest that we agree one way or the other to stop warring over the tag, then work down the article on one section at a time. Restepc (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The only violation of NPOV it displays is that it might be overly positive and sympathetic to the movie. For those of you who think the movie violates NPOV, what do you think NPOV is?--Filll (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed immediately above, please see my second post in the above section. We currently have a fairly long policy laying out what NPOV is, which I don't believe is helped by trying to reduce it to one or two sentences. Mackan79 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that you cannot say it succinctly speaks volumes, doesnt it? I can, in one phrase: "Describe the dispute".--Filll (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will also add another phrase: views are presented in proportion to their prominence. That is all. Easy huh?--Filll (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the banner for now. I am not opposed to other means of improving the article, but they appear to be either mediation or arbitration. The former seems unlikely to succeed at this point with the number of editors and other issues, while the latter seems overdone and premature. Are there other options? I hear about Peer review, but I wonder if it wouldn't have the same problems as mediation. Mackan79 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think (hope) that if we simply work on one section at a time we can sort many of the problems out ourselves, the bigger objections (like should this article be debunking ID) might be harder however, perhaps demonstrating suggested alternative phrasings etc for sections on the talk page and arguing on here until either we agree or one side has 'won', would be better than editwarring and arguing on the article Restepc (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Several editors seem not to have read or understood NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". We should not be giving equal validity to an extreme minority viewpoint among experts on the subject of science, and should not be framing section headings in terms of ID neologisms. Scientific American and the NCSE give a good indication of the majority view, and that's what this article should reflect overall. ..dave souza, talk 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I think the article should say that 'NCSE and all these other people have said that ID is a load of crap [source here]'.


 * Not 'However, ID is a load of crap [source here]'


 * I know the article doesn't actually say that, but when I was editing it a few days ago I found a few problematic things along those lines Restepc (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The danger of "so and so says that" is that it fails to be clear that the overwhelming majority view is as expressed by these sources, and as found in a detailed court hearing, that ID can be legitimate as a religious view, but it isn't science. A view which leading ID proponents have recently effectively agreed with, by saying they don't have a theory as such. So, we seem to be in general agreement, why the NPOV tag? If you've detailed specific proposals, please raise them here and we can discuss them. .. dave souza, talk 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am personally undecided on the NPOV tag, I'm just about to go out, but will read through the article myself tonight and try to make concise points then. I Think that we can avoid that particular danger relatively easily, there must be many strong sources saying that ID is viewed as bollocks by all scientific institutions etc Restepc (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's bollocks, it's simply that ID is essentially based on changing what's been called the 'ground rules' of science, so that if no explanation is found it says that's evidence of supernatural intervention rather than simply saying "we don't know" which is the scientific approach. The linked references to the Kitzmiller trial go through this in some detail, and it's simply put by the NCSE. There was a telling statement by the so-called father of ID, Phillip E. Johnson, in an inteview in the Spring of 2006: "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." .. dave souza, talk 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem? What is being disputed? The article is very long and if we don't know what the issue is we can't fix it. Also it seems a little intellectually dishonest to ask people to "vote" without giving a specific example. If you can't provide an example then there shouldn't be a tag. Paper45tee (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason he asked for a vote, I imagine, is because people were saying that it was only one editor, etc., when it clearly isn't. The specific reasons are laid out in detail in the section immediately above, see for instance the second post in the section by me. Mackan79 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think people are claiming its "one editor." But rather that is a few (three or so) highly active editors who are screaming NPOV without valid reasons. No, there are not clear issues of NPOV "in detail in the section immediately above." Consensus is clear and the minority who want to expand the influence of a minority view (pseudoscience) has been addressed. Paper45tee (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One reversion specifically characterized it as one editor. I haven't seen any "screaming," but the post I was referencing is here.  If you'd like any further details, please let me know.  Your statements about motives are incidentally very wrong, but I think it would be helpful if we stayed focused on content issues rather than getting into each other's motives. Mackan79 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To avoid further edit warring over this, I raised the question of the banner on WP:AN/I. Mackan79 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK... Paper45tee (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One major NPOV issue is that the overview section, which is effectively a synopsis, is interjected consistently with counterarguments. How absurd is that? Move out the criticism into its own section or into the reaction section and it would look a lot better. --Dodo bird (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in that by limiting the overview to only discussing the movie itself in the most neutral terms we would not be breaking Wiki policy, would not hurt or mislead the reader, and would probably read better. Oh, and it could end a significant amount of fighting on the talk page. Angry Christian (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But I do not think the "criticism" should be limited to some criticism category. Every single claim made in the movie has been criticized so if we did that there would be two cetegories.  Over view and criticism.  Angry Christian (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, I just read the overview and all of the critical/reactions have already been removed so I don't see any issues with the overview section.
 * I meant the whole overview section, including the subsections. --Dodo bird (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood you. I think the lead is fine, including the brief mentions from the NY Times, etc, and I just moved the Sci Am description from the overview to the science section.  Now the overview section is nothing but an overview of the movie without any criticism or commentary.  I think the lead and overview are nicely done at this point Angry Christian (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * More - the 1st para in the lead says "this is what the movie is about" the second para says "this is how it has been received" that makes sense for an article about a movie.  The overview section now simply goes into details about the movie without bringing up any controversies (or back patting).  This is as neutral as it gets.  My hat's off to whomever has been working the overview section.  Again, my understanding of Wiki NPOV and all the rest leads me to conclude the lead and overview are golden. Angry Christian (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He probably means the "Promotion of ID" subsection of the overview section. I see what was "synopsis" is now the first part of the overview, which is good, but that leaves the other issues in the following sections.  I haven't recently read through all of it, though, and I think the changes have been an improvement.  Mackan79 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well for clarity my comments were only concerning the lead and overview section but not the sub-sections of the overview. Angry Christian (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Um. The overview includes the four subsections. Now what we have is a very short summary of the film, followed by more detailed description, followed by counterarguments, followed by more detailed description, followed by counterarguments, and so on. The detailed description itself should be part of the summary, and commentary should not be put in the same section. Dodo bird (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes This article clearly violates NPOV. NCdave (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * nunh-unh. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please close this poll
Whether something is NPOV is not judged by a poll of Wikipedians. Maybe that misconception comes from people quoting the policy out of context. The full statement of the NPOV policy is
 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

The balance of facts and how much weight is given to each fact is decided by listing all sources and that is the poll. This is what Angry Christian is doing, looking at Rotten Tomatoes, and so on.

I suggest closing this section as it gives newcomers the wrong impression of how things are decided on Wikipedia. They may think ID is debunked here, because that's what we have chosen to do, or because we have some personal grudge against the movement. We don't. I certainly don't. But there is a real world out there we simply can't deny. Merzul (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Norris
Have everyone seen this yet - Win Ben Stein's Monkey - Chuck Norris Angry Christian (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A martial artist & notoriously bad actor -- that certainly qualifies him to venture an opinion on science and science education. This pretty much confirms my suspicions about townhall.com's editorial standards. Who will they have next, an interior decorator on global warming? <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow that review is so confused I hardly know where to start. It misunderstands observational science and scientific evidence. It conflates abiogenesis with evolution. And then attacks the current interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And then somehow confuses promoting courses on the bible in school (which many support, including Richard Dawkins) with using the bible as a science textbook in science class in publicly funded secular schools. It is just misrepresentation and lies from beginning to end.--Filll (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's refreshing that the ID/creationism pushers are no longer pretending ID is not religious. In this case Norris is obviously very open about using ID as a justification for teaching the bible in public school rooms. Hopefully the days of "it could be a space alien" are over and  other ID advocates will be just as open and honest about their religious motives and they will drop the "ID is science" charade.  So should this be mentioned in the article somewhere?  Norris is the second movie star (second to Stein) to jump on the ID creationism bandwagon and he uses Expelled as a launching pad to start his bible in the classroom advocacy.  Seems highly relevant and noteworthy to me.  Angry Christian (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Chuck Norris may be the very most notable person in america (at least the most well known) who has written anything positive about the film. He also uses it as a springboard to launch his ID/creationism/bible in the classroom advocacy.  Highly noteworthy I think,  I added him to the article.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike Huckabee's plan for border security is two words: Chuck Norris. On a side note, good idea putting that in the article. <font color="#CC5500">RC-0722 <font color="#0000FF">247.5/<font color="#FF0000">1  16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda -> Category:American propaganda films
So how is everyone's favorite movie? I just have one problem. The propaganda category should be changed to one of the Category:Propaganda examples subcategories, probably Category:American propaganda films. Any problems with this? --Merzul (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's most specific category it reasonably fits in.
 * Category:Propaganda is more meant for concepts related to propaganda.
 * I have no problem with that change. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think either category choice above is appropriate, as well as the Pseudoscience category that's been added. (My views were previously expressed here, without much of a rebuttal.) While Wikipedia should be presenting both POVs about this movie, it shouldn't be endorsing one POV by placing the article in a certain category.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already addressed somewhere on this page) that this film meets the Wikipedia definition of propaganda. Thus, it should be categorized as such.  Personal feelings have to be kept out of this, and as for presenting both points of view, that is not what an encyclopedia is here for.  This cite is here to present verifiable information.  There have been numerous cited, third party expert sources that have called this film "propaganda".  While we are all entitled to our opinions, this film has met the necessary definitions to fit into this category. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor NPOV change in intro - 'documentary' to 'film' a la 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Both sides would freely admit that Expelled is a controversial movie. It is in a category of films such as Fahrenheit 9/11 that are not quite documentaries, since they contain such obvious biases and such prolific fact-twisting. Even to call such films "documentaries" is controversial. The Fahrenheit 9/11 article has devised a sensible solution to this potential NPOV classification problem. The Fahrenheit 9/11 intro does not use the term 'documentary' to describe the movie--as the Expelled article does as I write this--but instead opts for the vaguer term 'film' in the interest of fairness and NPOV. Therefore, in keeping with the precedent set by this similarly controversial film of opposite political origin, I will change the term 'documentary' to 'film' in the Expelled introduction. I think both sides monitoring this article can agree that this is a minor, honest, appropriate, and entirely necessary change. If you feel differently, I would ask that you please make an explanation here first before making any further change to that term. AdRem (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Michael Moore-style documentary" would be better. (I think it already says that in the article.) --RenniePet (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I originally felt that "documentary" was not controversial, but I just checked dictionary.com, and it defines the word to mean a recreation that does not contain fictional elements. Thus, I think I was wrong that the use of the term is not controversial, and agree that "film" should be used instead. Nightscream (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AdRem and Nightscream. A "documentary" it's not. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The "does not include fictional elements" phrase (or similar) in some (but not all) definitions of "documentary" is to distinguish "documentary" from "docudrama."


 * This film is a documentary because it is factual, not fictional. It does not include fictional elements, it is not a docudrama.  It has a strong POV, with which some folks here disagree, but that does not make it something other than a documentary.  It is more factually reliable than Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11, both of which are called documentaries by Wikipedia.


 * Anyhow, what matters for Wikipedia is not whether I think it is factually reliable or Aunt Entropy thinks it isn't. Here's a reliable source calling it a documentary, as does IMDB.  Even reviewers who hate it are calling it a documentary.  Basically, everybody calls it a documentary. NCdave (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The comparison with Fahrenheit 9/11 stands as a reasonable compromise, with the sources calling it a documentary properly shown in the body text as they are. From a film buff's viewpoint it's clearly a propaganda documentary, but these terms carry emotional baggage for a wider readership. .. dave souza, talk 09:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and I just noticed the absurd claim that "It is more factually reliable than Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11, when just for example it includes well documented lies about whether Sternberg lost any position, or whether Caroline Crocker "simply mentioned Intelligent Design [and her] academic career came to an abrupt end." .. dave souza, talk 09:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We could call it a mockumentary. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A mockumentary is entirely different. (if this was supposed to be a play on words ok ha...) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)