Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Where is the dispute?
This section should explain where the problem is. For example, link the articles or pages where the dispute is taking place.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=13470131#Charles_Darwin_quotation_issue
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Quoting_Darwin_at_.22Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed.22
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yopienso
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_souza

For clarification: After an edit to Expelled at05:29, 6 July 2009, was disputed and moved to the article talk page, discussion continued until 01:35, 7 July 2009, at which point a discussion was opened at Editor assistance/Requests. The discussion there concluded at 11:18, 8 July 2009, and this informal mediation was then opened.

During these two days, related discussions also took place at User talk:Yopienso, User talk:dave souza and User talk:Quietmarc. User:Nerdseeksblonde made no contribution to the discussion on the article talk page, and may well be unaware of this mediation: no notice has been given on User talk:Nerdseeksblonde as of 21.44, 9 July 2009. User:Shoemaker's Holiday took part in the original article page discussion and the Editor assistance discussion, I have no reason to request that he be involved at this stage of the mediation. . dave souza, talk 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is involved?
A short list of the users involved, for example;


 * User:dave souza
 * User:Nerdseeksblonde
 * User:Yopienso (That's me.)

What is the dispute?
Original research and synthesis. I do not see how supplying the full quote from a primary resource that a secondary source has truncated is against Wiki policy.


 * The dispute is over a proposal to extend a quotation selected from the original book by reliable secondary sources (two sources, three links) to include an additional part of the original work selected by the user. The proposal completes the second paragraph cited, but the first paragraph is left incomplete, and there is considerably more closely related text in the primary source. As stated in the various discussions, policies involved include WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV with particular regard to WP:PSTS and WP:GEVAL. . dave souza, talk 21:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
I want to include the final sentence of a paragraph Charles Darwin wrote. Scientific American omitted that last sentence, and since it is the secondary source being quoted, the above parties/users say I cannot go to Darwin's original text and supply the missing sentence.

How do you think we can help?
I think you can help me better understand the Wiki policy. If it proves to be a policy that suppresses the facts, I will appeal to the higher mediators and request that they review their suppressive policy. If it proves to admit all relevant facts, I will go back and add the sentence.

Yopienso (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would hope that clarification of policies involved (including WP:V) will end the dispute, and am willing to take part in this process. Note that User:Nerdseeksblonde may be unaware of this case having been opened. . dave souza, talk 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes
I have reviewed the relevant sections of the talk page and am waiting for acceptance of the mediation by the concerned parties. Manning (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  my RSVP  : hi, I was invited via my talk page and would be happy to add input from time to time but not sure what I am committing to here :) It seemed that this dispute involves a very common problem so I found it quite interesting- the specific dispute could be construed as what is called a "false dichotomy" where there are only two choices of either excluding or including one sentence from Darwin. I was attempting to back up a bit and get everyone to focus on the original topic and objectives and decide an appropriate treatment for the movie review and follow up details. The much larger issue, AFAIK, is allowing possible implications to dominate editing decisions rather than trying to be as explicit and relevant as possible. The implicit objective of the "litigants" seems to be making an implication or conclusion about Darwin's attitude towards genocide or maybe interracial sex which I would speculate is based on a desire to not have readers walking away to a witch hunt or in disgust of the field of evolution. My strategy in this effort would be to explicitly and starkly discuss the purpose of any piece of text proposed for discussion and relate it back to the topic. My bias is to be inclusive or as much detail as is relevant and not be worried about implications or politics and I probably am more sympathetic, in a rational way, towards religion than many. And, sure, I tend to get sarcastic sometimes too. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Nerdseeksblonde - you're not committing to anything :) I'm simply an experienced Wikipedian who is offering to act as an impartial mediator, as a result of User:Yopienso requesting informal mediation. The first step is me simply asking if I'm acceptable to all parties. So far I've had no response from the person initiating the mediation, so there will be no further progress until that happens. After that I will begin to examine the issue, and attempt to mediate a consensus. Manning (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, my! And here I was waiting for everyone else to gather around the table.  I thought my presence was a given.  Yes, I want to continue.  Yopienso (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Initiating mediation
No problem and welcome to all. Yopienso, could you please draft *YOUR* desired version of the section in question at this page: User:Yopienso/Temp_mediation. I have copied the current version to that page to use as a starting point. Your editing will be done without interference or comment from any other parties. (I will delete the page at the conclusion of this mediation). This will serve as a basis for subsequent discussion, so please alert us here when you are satisfied with your version. Manning (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. Let me call attention to the preceding text: "However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the very next sentences in the book state:[1][2] [My bolding.]

Since it refers to the original source, I believe it's fair to quote from the original source and not only from SciAm's truncated version. The original footnote was to Cambridge's online version of The Descent of Man, and if I understand the revision history clearly, the footnote to SciAm was added by Dave souza on July 7.

At one point in the long discussions we've had, someone pointed out the quote doesn't begin at the beginning of the paragraph. I'm not requesting it, but I have no objection to including the entire text of both paragraphs in question. Here it is:

''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,10 and previously

''9 'The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. i. p. 309.  10 'Fraser's Magazine,' Sept. 1868, p. 353. This article seems to have struck many persons, and has given rise to two remarkable essays  [page] 168''

''by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.11 Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.''

''The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the''

''and a rejoinder in the 'Spectator,' Oct. 3rd and 17th 1868. It has also been discussed in the 'Q. Journal of Science,' 1869, p. 152, and by Mr. Lawson Tait in the 'Dublin Q. Journal of Medical Science,' Feb. 1869, and by Mr. E. Ray Lankester in his 'Comparative Longevity,' 1870, p. 128. Similar views appeared previously in the 'Australasian,' July 13, 1867. I have borrowed ideas from several of these writers.

''11 For Mr. Wallace, see 'Anthropolog. Review,' as before cited. Mr. Galton in 'Macmillan's Magazine,' Aug. 1865, p. 318; also his great work, 'Hereditary Genius,' 1870.  [page] 169''

''noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.'' ''

The format would obviously need some clean-up.

Thank you all for your participation. Yopienso (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediator question - How does the additional primary source sentence directly relate (or fail to relate) to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article? How does the article benefit or suffer as a consequence of its inclusion? (Note: I am deliberately ignoring the WP:V issue for the moment). Manning (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Response by Yopienso:

How it relates: It is part and parcel of the quote being considered. SciAm faulted Ben Stein for not giving the full quote; let's give it. From the article:

"April 18, 2008 | 1 comments Never You Mine: Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin One of the many egregious moments in the new Ben Stein anti-evolution film "Expelled" is the truncation of a quote from Charles Darwin so that it makes him appear to give philosophical ammunition to the Nazis. Steve Mirsky reports."

And so SciAm adds more to the quote, but omits the clinching sentence, "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."

Common sense dictates that the complete thought be given. The title of another SciAm article on the movie declares, "Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie Yet nowhere does the magazine reveal Darwin's conclusion:  that the weaker and inferior should not reproduce.

The article benefits by accurately publishing Darwin's entire thought rather than only the part that supports the magazine's bias. This makes not only the article but, by extension, Wikipedia in general, a more reliable, less biased, source of information. Yopienso (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediator question - directed at Yopienso: As the premise for this question I will assume that there is indisputable bias in the Scientific American article, and that inclusion of the primary source material (the extended quote) will clearly demonstrate this bias. How in your opinion would this not violate the No original research policy? (Note, a secondary source that explored the subsequent bias in the SciAm article would make this issue go away, so I presume such has not been found?)Manning (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Response by Yopienso:

WP:NOR--
 * 1) I don't think there's any question about the opening paragraph of the NOR page--I'm obviously not doing any of that. ("Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.")
 * 2) Obviously a Darwin text published by Cambridge is reliable.
 * 3) "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."
 * Of course I have my own interpretation of Darwin's text, that is, what I think he means by it. I am not injecting that interpretation into the article, but letting the text speak for itself. "Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide."  (From the NPOV page.)
 * 4. "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (Direct quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.) As I have previously stated, it is my opinion that common sense dictates the inclusion of Darwin's final sentence to give the complete thought of his paragraph. This is the consensus I’m hoping we will reach.


 * 5. There is a comment from jmunsey828 at 10:56 PM on 05/09/09 attached to the SciAm article that gives almost the full quote, dropping off "...by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=61D30BEB-A65E-7583-BB264FABBD4CD879#comments (You need to click on "Read Comments (1)" to see it.)

Mediator question - directed at Yopienso: The SciAm article that quoted Darwin (or selectively quoted, if you prefer) was directly relevant to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. How does the extended quote by Darwin *directly* relate to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article? Manning (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Response by Yopienso:

The extended quote directly relates to the article by fulfilling what the introductory statement claims to do: show the meaning of the whole paragraph. "However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the very next sentences in the book state:" Yopienso (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Questions/Backup : I might have to go read the full article or read other plot summaries of the movie but let me see if I have the issues clear. The only reason for including any of the disputed quote with significant coverage appears to be this comment from the draft page, "However, the original source shows [abbrv. since it is exactly what was quoted above]" which appears to settle a debate and is either OR or POV and of debatable relevance ( Manning can you explain "direct relevance" for us )depending on the point being made about the movie. As written, it appears that the topic is controversial and at best the wiki author could say something like "most sources agree that this makes inaccurate implications about Chuck[]" But, I would digress even further and ask how any of this matters to the intertwined if not primary point that the Nazi's were "encouraged" by Chuck. If this is the point, the relevant citations would include observations about the Nazi's, including their own comments, as this has no direct relation to Darwin's politics or other works that the Nazi's may have not even read. If the movie made notable implications about Darwin, or the selective reading habits of the Nazi's, then various citations to Chuck's own works could be relevant in that context, but I'm not sure the focus of the disputed text is clear. Certainly the Nazi's could not be dismissed as a fringe group given their notability and historical popularity. Also, I would ask the proponent for the defense of Darwin to qualify the "SciAm" source as being reliable for the claim made- is this a SciAm research article or a movie review by someone who wanted to defend the memory of Chuck? At least one person suggested that "Darwin is too complicated for non-experts to understand easily" ( quotes not literal, see comments on EAR board) If we are going to appeal to authority, shouldn't we be careful about accepting a single movie review as a source without reference to sources it used which would presumably be scholarly works on Darwin ?  Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nerdseekblonde - my question about "direct relevance" was intended to explore the dividing line between referencing "secondary source analysis of the documentary", and commenting (and potentially editorializing) on the secondary source (in this case the analytic article by SciAm). Personally I am inclined to agree with Yopienso that there are grounds to believe that SciAm is equally guilty of distorting Darwin to make a point. However I can see serious NOR concerns if we cross the line and present that opinion, plus it would seem we are starting to analyse the secondary source rather than the documentary (which IS, after all, the subject of the article). Manning (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response by Yopienso

I can't find the rules of engagement here, so hope I'm allowed to just post. Advise me if I'm off track.

Nerd, I'm sorry, but what you wrote is largely unintelligible to me. Or maybe its not for me? I finally decided "Chuck" must be Darwin.

To improve my response on how the quote from Darwin directly relates to the movie: That passage was quoted selectively. Yopienso (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Clarification  : I'm backing up to consider this entire passage as it relates to describing the movie to a curious but ignorant reader who found it on google somehow( and yes, "chuck" is Charles Darwin since his significance seemes to overshaod the movie even if the movie is only about him). I'm making some assertions, please agree, disagree, or comment where appropriate.


 * The movie has something to do with Darwin's influence on the world.
 * Examples were cited in the movie that tend to put Darwin and evolution in a bad light.
 * The movie contains some material, such as the original quote, which was cited as an example of text that supports "bad people" like the Nazi's.
 * The quote in the SciAm movie review is a direct quote from the movie with an additional quote adding more of Darwin's original work. This movie review is attempting to pug Darwin in a more favorable light than the movie.
 * The SciAm "article" is really a movie review written by someone other than a Darwin Scholar.
 * The last sentence(LS) would tend to add more credibility to the original characterization of Darwin from the movie. Your contention is that it obviously relates to the rest of the paragraph and helps us understand what Darwin really really honestly meant to say.

There are at least two issues that I think are being comingled, 1) statements the movie makes about "bad people" who themselves claimed to be motivated by Darwin's ideas, and 2) what Darwin actually supported or would have supported based on scientific and personal considerations. Given that this is an ongoing debate, and the current dispute seems to be attempting to settle it, I guess I'm suggesting the entire treatment needs to be reconsidered and focused more on the movie, not determining the true intent of Charles Darwin. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent run-down here, Nerd.
 * Further clarification

No, the movie isn't only about Darwin.

Of your six points, the first four are spot-on.

Re. the SciAm article, I've found seven by them about the movie--a big-gun full frontal barrage--all written by scientists. The one in question is entitled "Never You Mine: Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin," by Steve Mirsky. Wiki has a stub on him, and this site http://www.minonline.com/training/bio_SteveMirsky.html has a fuller bio. He has an undergraduate degree in chemistry, is a science journalist, and has been with SciAm since 1997. Not sure how technical you want to be about "Darwin scholar." Strictly speaking, no, but he's no dummy.

Re.: "The last sentence(LS) would tend to add more credibility to the original characterization of Darwin from the movie." Yes, it would, as well as providing the fuller context of his thought.

Re.: "Your contention is that it obviously relates to the rest of the paragraph..." Absolutely.

Re.: "...and helps us understand what Darwin really really honestly meant to say." Not at all. It tells us what Darwin really really did say, leaving any interpretation to the reader.

I carefully watched the entire movie five or six nights ago, and two days later portions of it. However, I have been all over the web on this subject during this past week, and I'm sorry I can't "swear in court" exactly what I'm sure the movie said in every case and what I read so-and-so said about it or was it on the video clip I found.... To the best of my recollection, though--and I could watch it again to verify--the movie does claim "bad people" (Hitler, for the most part) took the logical next step in the revolutionary new ideas Darwin presented. I can't remember that the movie speculated on what "Darwin actually supported or would have supported based on scientific and personal considerations." My sense is more that he laid out ideas from which others extrapolated harmful ideas. His writings are often called "seminal," because that's exactly right--the seeds have fallen in various soils and produced many different fruits. I don't remember the movie mentioning any of the good fruits.Yopienso (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  That helps  : OK, my confusion I guess is just how much of this is best described in an entry about the movie and how much is best left as a link to other articles on the implications of evolution and the goodness/badness of Darwin. So, if the movie merely quoted what the Nazi's quoted to show that the Nazi's cited, in or out of context, a passage from Darwin, the existence of more text doesn't seem relevant. Now, if you want to show that evolution doesn't logically lead to Nazi-ism or the Nazi's didn't have a long attention span, then additional works would be worthwhile but this may be getting a bit away from the movie itself. And even further from this topic is what Darwin would have supported. If the movie went on to discuss Darwin's attitudes, perhaps even suggesting his theory was just a rationalization for his own biases or something similar, then that would be different and the debate over what Darwin really thought would be relevant to the extent there is a debate, not that there is a decision. Does my concern on this point at least make sense, if it is only peripheral to the movie and quite involved, it may just make sense to mention " this controversy has been discussed more fully in [....]"? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comic relief :)
 * LOL, I needed to lighten up. The Nazis never quoted anything, Ben Stein did!  Unless Ben Stein is a.....never mind.  This was all by insinuation and the juxtaposition of old clips.  He intones from Darwin and old footage of ovens and marching Nazis is rolled.  Later there is serious discussion about how Darwin's words led to Hitler's deeds and Stein visits Hadamar and Dachau. I'd love to discuss this but it's off-topic.

What I'm suggesting is simply finishing the quote, never mind what Darwin thought or wanted or supported or fought or how he did or didn't influence the Nazis.


 * Question : Is the movie based largely on the Darwin quote or is it just a (small) part? As I now understand the movie, it is putting forth an hypothesis/insinuation that the Nazi's were encouraged by Darwin's words with no particular evidence that they ever even heard of him. This hypothesis, or insinuation, is part of the notability as it takes a POV regarding an ongoing controversy. The authors of the wiki article are debating about how to deal with text that either supports or "refutes" this insinuation. Would anyone object to moving the debate over merit to some other place, citing that place, and re-arranging the disputed text?... including any arguments over reading the minds of Nazi's or Darwin. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the movie isn't largely based on that one quote, but on a series of insinuations. I think I'll watch it again next weekend so I can be sure on some of these questions.  Your idea of rearranging the text sounds good to me...I think.  Someone else could come up with an idea I would prefer.  An idea I'm offering is to drop the reference to the SciAm article since the only reason it's there is to dispute the premise presented in the movie.  If it's fine to dispute the movie's presentation, why not compare it with the original quote?


 * The whole Wiki article is troubled--scan through the talk page to see. The Wiki article as a whole is biased, and there has been considerable discussion about that problem;  imho it should be tagged as NPOV disputed.  What I'd really like is to see it scrapped and have a brand new author start from scratch.  That's not a serious suggestion, though possibly a good one.


 * I'll be offline for the next couple of days; so will Dave.  Hasta luego!  Yopienso (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Yopienso checking in. Yopienso (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm back though a bit short of time with other things. Something that I think is being missed here is that WP:NPOV requires us to give due weight to majority expert views, and to avoid giving equal validity to fringe pseudoscientific views. An issue is raised by Yopienso's statements – "Common sense dictates that the complete thought be given..... Darwin's conclusion: that the weaker and inferior should not reproduce. The article benefits by accurately publishing Darwin's entire thought rather than only the part that supports the magazine's bias." That's not Darwin's entire thought, it's the opening two paragraphs of a section running from p. 167 to p. 180 of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, and Darwin's entire thought is summarised in his General Summary and Concluding Remarks pages 402–403. There's a lot there that in my opinion refutes Yopienso's interpretation, and secondary sources are needed for interpretation or analysis. In my view Scientific American's two webpages covering this issue make a reasonable selection to represent the whole, supporting their conclusion that "Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument." The same selection is referred to in Expelled Exposed and in similar terms in Desmond & Moore's 1991 biography Darwin, p. 580. It's an issue that can be discussed in depth, but that's an inappropriate digression in the Expelled article where we've only used sources which refer to notable issues in the film. There's already more detail including the disputed sentence in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, but that needs proper sourcing and improvement. Once improved, we could refer to that article from the section in Expelled for further details. .  dave souza, talk 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, hope your computer is back in order now. What a pain when they're down!
 * 1) I don't get Manning's point that the partial SciAm quote was directly relevant but the complete one isn't.
 * 2) I never did get what was wrong with including the rest of Darwin’s paragraph.
 * 3) When I say "Darwin's entire thought," I refer to breaking up a paragraph.  A paragraph, as I was taught in about the 4th grade, expresses a complete thought.  Not to say every thought in the author's mind, but the one which is the subject of his paragraph.  It "...typically deals with a single thought or topic or quotes one speaker's continuous words." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paragraph  The complete thought would be the entire volume!
 * 4) I rewatched the approx. 1 1/2-hour film, and, except for the general use of "Darwinism" in place of "evolution," Darwin as an individual is not mentioned until about an hour into the film.  The movie links him to Hitler.  "The Quote" is the only direct quote from Darwin, and comes at about 1:20.
 * 5) SciAm has more than two web pages on the movie.  They must fear and hate it something fierce.  From one: "Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the 'weak' as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes."  Then they, and now Wiki, quote only the sections that suit their purposes.  Ironic, no?
 * 6) Now that I better understand the philosophy behind Wiki, I've decided to drop this mediation.  Everybody knows extrapolations from and distortions of Darwin's ideas, however reprehensible he may have found them (had he found them), did influence Galton and his eugenics, U.S. sterilization programs, and yes, even Hitler. None other than The Panda's Thumb states, "Once again, no one is arguing that Darwinian ideas did not play a role in Hitler’s philosophical outlook."  And that's just a supercilious blog--see Hannah Arendt and Alan Bullock for more serious treatments. But Wiki reiterates that the truth is unimportant and policy is all-important;  so be it.  (I do understand that doesn’t actually mean Wiki intends to deny or suppress the truth, but that it must be presented within the parameters of the Five Pillars.)
 * 7) I’ve avoided discussing Darwin and Hitler, trying to stick to the issue at hand, but in leaving, I’ll add to the previous note that just as a twisted version of Darwin’s ideas influenced Hitler, a similar distortion of Christianity certainly influenced him as well.  These facts are equally vexing to disciples of both Darwin and Christ.  (OK--disciples is overblown, but it makes for good rhetoric.  :))
 * 8) I have done considerable “original research” this past week, and found in a hard copy of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica something at a tangent to this discussion that I include for your appreciation: “Since Huxley and Sully wrote their masterly essays in the 9th edition of this encyclopaedia, the doctrine of evolution has outgrown the trammels of controversy and has been accepted as a fundamental principle. Writers on biological subjects no longer have to waste space in weighing evolution against this or that philosophical theory or religious tradition; philosophical writers have frankly accepted it, and the supporters of religious tradition have made broad their phylacteries to write on them the new words.”  (This is also found online.)  My ignorance of Wiki’s stance precipitated this mediation; now I understand the foundation of the brick wall with which I so disingenuously collided.  I just have to say, though, the movie review is dismayingly biased.
 * 9) Nothing personal here to any of you kind participants.  Your time has not been utterly wasted since I've learned how Wiki operates.  Dave wrote to me, “As for the issue of using primary sources, our aim here has to be to use secondary sources for any interpretation or selection to avoid introducing our own interpretation. This is the opposite of good scholarly practice for historians, but makes sense where editing is open to everyone and we can't check expert credentials.”  You’ll be happy to know I actually follow and agree with that logic. And I’m being matter-of-fact here, not facetious or bitter:  I’ve learned the rules of the game, which is useful to me and helpful to all in my future participation in the audacious undertaking called Wikipedia.

Thanks again. You can give this mediation a green checkmark.Yopienso (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)