Talk:Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Response section
I'd like to make a request for a condensation of the response section, given how incredibly outweighed the positive responses to the documentary are by negative ones. I just don't think it needs to be quite that long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.232.115 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree, the current version gives WP:UNDUE weight to the Creationists's reviews. I would suggest that the Creation Safaris part be reduced to, at most, a single-sentence mention (they really aren't a prominent Creationist group), and that the other Creationist comments be compressed and the Nature review be given more space than a bare mention. HrafnTalkStalk 08:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the "Teacher's Guide Controversy" thing? That has DI POV throughout. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Neither the DI nor some unknown attorney are legitimate expert sources on constitutional law. Will move to talk until balanced. HrafnTalkStalk 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any balancing material now that a few months have gone by?--Filll (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation Safaris
I am sorry this section got trimmed back. I think they had such incredible commentary on the documentary.--Filll (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It came across as the ranting of a non-notable element of creationism's lunatic fringe to me. Who exactly is Creation Safaris? I see them occasionally ELed on Creationism articles, but I have never seen them mentioned by reliable sources. HrafnTalkStalk 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Peabody Award
The episode won the Peabody Award. That seems like a good thing to add. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk 03:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Section removed from article per WP:UNDUE; WP:RS
This section gives WP:UNDUE weight to the DI, which is a extremist and unreliable source for constitutional law. HrafnTalkStalk 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Teacher's guide controversy
The Discovery Institute has announced that a teacher's guide issued by PBS in conjunction with Judgment Day constitutes a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. The Discovery Institute claims that the guide, called “Briefing Packet for Educators”, violates the Establishment Clause of the US constitution by suggesting discussion questions like

Randal Wegner, a Pennsylvania attorney who filed amicus curae briefs in the Dover trial, opined that

The Discovery Institute has 15 attorneys and legal scholars who are experts in constitutional law investigating this issue. In addition, the Discovery Institute has issued its own guide for teachers, called The Theory of Intelligent Design: A briefing packet for educators to help them understand the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. New Scientist quotes an attorney for WGBH, who contended that the statements in the teacher's guide are covered under the right to free speech.

[End removed material HrafnTalkStalk 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ]

amount dedicated to fringe organizations
I was reading this article again and noticed we dedicate a single paragraph to the mainstream views on the movie and about 2-3 times that amount to organizations that promote pseudoscience and other fringe theories. Is this for a reason? If not I'd suggest we narrow the hostile reaction to a single sentence simply stating intelligent design and other creationist organizations like AIG, DI, objected to the film and then add brief details about the anti-Nova literature they produced. Not sure if I'm making sense but it appears we're giving quite a megaphone to fringe elements. Angry Christian (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC) What i'm trying to say is I think we could summarize their views on the film instead of giving their fringe perspective such a dominate voice in this section of the article. Angry Christian (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just condensed some of the criticism. Again, this is an award winning documentary that has been praised by mainstream critics and the science community.  Dedicating so much space in the article to fringe, anti-science groups would seem to violate WP:DUE.  That said the criticisms could still probably be condensed into one or two sentences. Midnight Gardener (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is still more space dedicated to wingnuts in the response section than anyone else but it looks better than it did. At least to me. Midnight Gardener (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in tracking the wingnuts. And keeping track of their rants. It is a bit difficult to track these loons if we keep removing information about them from Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm, given how much ranting they put out, keeping track of it all amounts to one of the tasks of Hercules. Even the Collected Idiocy of Evolution News and Views or the Unexpurgated Inane Glory of Uncommon Descent would fill hundreds of articles. I think we've got to be a bit selective, and rants on a (largely now forgotten) doco by a bunch of Creos, some of whom nobody's even heard of, hardly makes the cut. HrafnTalkStalk 14:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a long time tardologist I am with you Filll, I like tracking these weird viewpoints but It just doesn't make sense to devote the majority of the article to fringe views no matter how idiotic and entertaining those views might be. What was cut from this article could certainly be moved to the DI, AiG, etc articles.  Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WKNO-TV
The article contains the following line:

WKNO-TV, the local PBS affiliate in Memphis decided not to air the documentary because of the "controversial nature" of the subject, but has since promised to broadcast it in 2008.[13]

Since 2008 is coming to an end, can anyone confirm whether or not the documentary was broadcast on WKNO-TV? Stefan Kruithof (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)