Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 2

message: I am still astonished at how POV the wording of this article is. Very little of it is about the film (unsurprisingly, since it hasn't been released yet); the vast majority reads like an essay written by someone dedicated to rebutting and discrediting intelligent design. One of the claims made in the film is described, for instance, as an "frequently-used and often-discredited creationist charge", and intelligent design itself is described as not being a "credible scientific alternative" to evolution. 
For the record, I am not a supporter of intelligent design and I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-ID views expressed in the article. But it still shouldn't be there. Wikipedia is dedicated to the principle of NPOV. We are not here to take sides, or to determine that ID is not scientific. That is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
The article needs to be trimmed to about a quarter of its present size. The only criticism needed is criticism about the film (e.g. the controversy over lying to interviewees). Using other sources critical of intelligent design to source criticism of the film constitutes original research by synthesis.
Ironically, the only other place I've seen an encyclopedia article this biased is on Conservapedia (albeit in the opposite direction). However, I have been working on the Conservapedia counterpart to this article and I think it's actually more neutral than this one, for the time being at least. It can be found at , and demonstrates what I think this article should look like. WaltonOne 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want to split the "this is an opinion" hair, we'd say that in the opinion of anyone who understands what science is, ID is not a credible scientific alternative to evolution.  It's not wrong for the article to make this clear, but of course we have to be careful how.  I do agree that the conservapedia article is decently balanced.  I just re-read this one, and I don't see that it's astonishingly biased, but I do think it possibly gets a bit off topic.  Some of what's here is more suited to (and, I'm sure, is already covered in) other articles.  We should look for ways to make this article link to others for detailed explanations, and stay as tightly focused on the film as we can.  Friday (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the Conservapedia article. It is not very informative and wildly biased. Sorry. It reads like a right wing anti-science piece of propaganda and hate literature. If that is your view of NPOV, dream on. However, this is not unusual since Conservapedia is a piece of trash by and large and completely unreliable and full of hatespeech and Christofascist nonnsense.--Filll (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. NPOV much, Filll? :)  But seriously, this isn't an article about ID. It's an article about a movie that has something to do with ID, evolution, censorship, discrimination, humor, Ferris Buller, Ben Stein's money, academia, etc. "Both sides have to be presented here," but that would mean "both sides" of the movie (whatever that means).  This article really needs to get away from all of the POV stuff within it, and focus on the film itself. Like Friday said, if there's additional info that some think is somehow relevant and ought to be included but it's not focused on the film itself, then link to it. That's the beauty of the tubes that make up the internets. Goo2you (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Raul654 has just proven the point that is being made here by saying that this article should be "an accurate exposition of the movie and ID" -- this article should be an accurate exposition of the movie, period. This isn't an article about ID -- we already HAVE one of those, to which we can link. Please focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When the movie (or the promotional material thereof) makes patently false claims about ID and the surrounding issues, it is our responsiblity to debunk them. So when it claims that ID is legitimate science, was must say that no, it's not; when it says ID explains the evidence, we must explain that no, it doesn;'t when it says that Guillermo Gonzalez was persecuted for believing in ID, we need to explain that no, he wasn't - that he had raised no research money, and so fourth. For every canard the film trots out, we need to show in THIS article why it's false. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That, Raul, is the very definition of POV (or at least a good paraphrase). I have yet to see any WP policy that would make it a duty to debunk every claim made in a controversial documentary. Point out the claims, yes; direct readers to relevant opposing links, yes; but a duty to debunk every claim made in the movie? Come on. Seriously. Let's focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, as I said above - non-critical media is exactly what ID's marketing strategy is based on. We will not be playing into it. They want to make a movie full of bullshit - we'll expose it for what it is. And you can say "focus people!" all you want, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *"we'll expose it for what it is". Sadly, this is the definition of agenda driven POV. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor truth (WP:NOT). We can expose "Expelled" using sources about Expelled, as these are relevant. Sources that are about Intelligent design, particularly pre-"Expelled" sources, should be avoided. Any editor concerned with exposing "Expelled" as the fraud that is, more than they are about simply informing the public of the relevant information already available about "Expelled", should take a good long hard look at WP:COI and WP:POV. In detailing what "Expelled" is, its fraudulent nature will be obviously detailed; however if we simply detail its fradulent nature we will overlook other relevant information, and possibly lose focus.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, there's a balance to be found.  As an educational resource, Wikipedia has no business letting the ID crowd spread their silliness here.  But, I can see how Raul's statements might sound fishy.  I suspect that you're probably both in agreement on any practical issues, and you're probably mostly disagreeing over how things are being said.  It might be worth leaving this abstract disagreement alone, and focusing purely on practical issues of actual content.  Friday (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Raul is correct in the following sense; for any major documentary if we have  reliable sources saying that major parts of it are bullshit we should do so. It isn't any different from for example noting scientific and other problems with some details in An Inconvenient Truth for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree here. Focus should be paramount. We do not need to debunk all claims, and the best way to slim the article is not to list every silly claim the film and/or its producers make. Any which gain sufficient media attention should be focused upon.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at the expense of completeness, accuracy and NPOV. "Slimming down the article" is far too often an excuse giving one view undue weight. Let's keep in mind that ID stakes it's claim in the field of science, making the view of scientific community on ID the majority view. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not seeing the bias you allege, but I do see that you don't seem to understand how the core policy regarding bias at Wikipedia actually is applied; please take the time to read and better understand WP:POINT before raising any more complaints about bias please. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still horrifically biased 

message: "Stein stated that "There's no doubt about it. We have lots and lots of evidence of ***it*** in the movie. And you know Einstein worked within the framework of believing there was a God. Newton worked within the framework of believing there was a God. For gosh sakes Darwin worked within the framework of believing there was a God. And yet, somehow, today you're not allowed to believe it. Why can't we have as much freedom as Darwin had?"[6]"
I've marked the "it" in "We have lots of evidence of it". It really isn't clear what the "it" is. Does he mean evidence for Intelligent Design? evidence that scientists competently operate within a theistic framework? evidence of persecution/restriction of academic framework?--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No doubt about it 

message: This article needs rewriting.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_%28film%29 .  That's how it should be done, not an attack piece on the film or a glowing review.  State what the film shows then describe the controversy, not rip up the film. Fairchoice (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can appreciate your aims in terms of layout, but the example you cite is of a film notable as a film – this film is notable solely as a controversial propaganda exercise promoting an ideology which has to be carefully described in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, and the article has to be summarised in the lead in accordance with WP:LEAD. Oh, and it's not "a documentary film about intelligent design", a subject apparently not described at all in the film, but rather a documentary presenting claims of persecution by creationists who happen to promote intelligent design. . .. dave souza, talk 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "this film is notable solely as a controversial propaganda exercise promoting an ideology"
This comment sounds like POV.  Let's be nice to each other and do a neutral piece on the film highlighting the controversy, not slamming the film.  Note that some want to slam the film and others want to sugar coat it.  I want neither. Fairchoice (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually I did a little calculation and found out that this article is 88% pro-creationist and about 12% anti-creationist, not counting the footnotes. So you are claiming we should put a lot more anti-creationist material in this article? Well I see. Interesting. I will see what I can do to find more negative things  about this film and what sources I can find about how ignorant and stupid and dishonest the creationists and in particular those involved in this film are. I am sure that those sources will not be too hard to find. Want to help me? Let's find some stuff saying all creationists are dishonest creeps and jerks. I look forward to seeing your suggestions.--Filll (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please demonstrate to me how 
is "anti-film".--Filll (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs rewriting 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth  In the slide show Gore reviews the scientific opinion on climate change, discusses the politics and economics of global warming, and describes the consequences he believes global climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly reduced in the very near future. 
It doesn't say:
In the slide show Gore claims there is scientific opinion on climate change, claims that there are politics and economics of global warming, and alleges that there are consequences he believes global climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly reduced in the very near future. 
So let's act fairly.  Claims of the film has been re-titled "Topics presented in the film".  All these slanted words like "claims to" and "alleges" should be removed and the film described in a neutral, not slanted way.  Then you can have all the attack you want.
This is the fair way rather than to have paragraphs with subtle attack and then overt attack.
Fairchoice (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With a little moving of paragraphs and minor rewording of the plot details, the article is better and less slanted.  See, nothing to fuss about.  It's not done but if we can agree on this temporary version then we have progress.  I just want the article to be a fair and NPOV article, not every sentence ridiculing the film.  Just state what the film says and THEN state why you hate it, not try to smear the film then state why you hate it. Fairchoice (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I follow WP MOS, if not please tell me what is in violation.  We have consensus for NPOV.  IF you violate NPOV, you violate consensus, even if you have a mob of POV warriors.  Let's make sure we don't violate NPOV.  What's the opposition to my edits as I have added nothing pro-film, just removed NPOV.  I have kept paragraphs and just moved them around so the anti-film stuff is together.Fairchoice (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fairchoice, you don't seem to have read the NPOV links I put on your user page, in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity". No one seriously doubts that there is scientific opinion on climate change, politics and economics of global warming, and that Gore believes that global climate change will have consequences. Indeed, his presentation is close to majority expert opinion. In contrast, Expelled presents a misleading image of some cases which have been well analysed, notably the Sternberg case where the "victim" lost nothing but the esteem of his peers. Gonzales and Crocker were not granted tenure, but then most others in their job situation don't get tenure, regardless of beliefs. Presenting these as "persecution" is an extreme minority view amongst experts, and has to be shown as such. Under WP:LEAD the introductory paragraphs have to summarise the main points of the article, including the majority view of the claims made in the film. You evidently want to shorten that section, and in my opinion there's a possibility of summarising points more concisely, but your edits clearly fail to meet the NPOV and LEAD requirements. To make progress, please discuss your proposals instead of acting and edit warring, which constitutes disruptive editing and can lead to a block. Please study these policies carefully and come up with constructive proposals on this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose is very accusatory 

message: Orlando Sentinel review, but in its movie critic's blog Adam Cuerden talk 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: Under Promotional interviews with producers, paragraph two.
:"Stein asks questions of scientists who subscribe to evolution "Colombo-style""
should be 
:"Stein asks questions of scientists who subscribe to evolution "Columbo-style"
assuming the style is one of false naïveté rather than a Sri-Lankan manner. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor correction required 

message: Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. I  tried to put in the correct hyperlink for the writer of this film in the cast and crew section. But since then it has been removed. This clearly reflects bias, not a desire to provide others with information about this film.
----
This is not a storybook. It's a doco. A plot section would not necessarily be appropriate. Additionally it would be almost impossible as the film has not yet been released. Material covered in the film is appropriately divided into People and Claims presented in the film. These have been taken from press releases and reviews available regarding the film. Once full viewing or synopsis reviews are available to editors an overview of the film section may be appropriate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast and crew information

message: Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers.  
Fairchoice (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: The below appears in the section "Claims presented in the film." As much as I might agree with it, it sounds like a rebuttal to a claim made in the film, not an actual claim. Someone went to a lot of effort to footnote all this but it's getting away from the purpose of the article.
However, at this time, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Contrary to charges that evolution is equivalent to atheism (or associated with atheism) by many promoters of intelligent design and creationism,[25] scientists commonly hold religious faiths,[1] while using the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which looks to nature to answer questions about nature and ignores supernatural explanations which are by definition "not within the scope or abilities of science."[1] Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[13][26] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific[15] and instead is pseudoscience.[17] and therefore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science,[27] but as creationism.[17] This position was upheld by the outcome of the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, when a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",[28] and that claims by proponents have been "refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[29]
Kuk1640 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ever post anything on this talk page and get a non non sequitor response. I never said that focus on intelligent design as opposed to generic creationism was a bad idea. I've been a supporter of that from the start?--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I put those new sources in there. It is clear that this film is at least roughly aligned with the intelligent design agenda, although they obviously have screwed it up in a few spots.--Filll (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I know we have a reliable source on this matter. The problem is this material is elsewhere in the article. It is not in this section under scrutiny by this complaint. Sections should be capable of standing alone and not rely on statements from teh introduction to just zip off and carry over from. As I pointed out this particular paragraph/section leaps from Stein discovering a scientific conspiracy of dogmatic Darwinism, to ID is not a credible theory without any linkers. This information is relevant, and I really don't see it going away (and would complain if it did) but if it not introduced with any context in the appropriate places, it needs reconsideration.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, one of these sources describes Dembski as featuring in the film to present ID, not as a martyr. Will come back to this as soon as poss, but rather tied up just now. ... dave souza, talk 11:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a "Claim presented in the film" as signified by the section? 

message: There is no reason to link to people's blogs who participated in the film as evidence that they did in fact contribute.  We already link to the Expelled website which clearly shows who wrote the film (Ben and Kevin Miller).  There is no reason to link to Kevin Miller's personal blog.  The article is about the movie and not the screenwriter.  The fact he co=wrote the screen play is clearly evidenced on the Expelled website.  To do otherwise means we'll have to link to every blog for every person who worked on the film.  I don't think we want that.  Angry Christian (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  link spam 

message: . Interestingly, it discusses the dimuitive size of the Discovery Institute.--Filll (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, Tom Bethell in The American Spectator, February 19, 2008, as reviewed here with suitable responses, and a link to the original article. Yes, it's amazing how they manage to get all the ID research labs and organisation into a single office in what presumably is the disco building. ... dave souza, talk 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another review 

message: Make sure we keep this in mind as we talk guys. Saksjn (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure everyone is keeping it in mind. What were you thinking of? .. dave souza, talk 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly some of the comments by Angry Christian. See the archived debate. Saksjn (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I have several hobbies, and I can't help my age. As far as get a clue, I believe I have one, but won't ever be able to convince you of that. Unfourtunately it seems like we have similar interests and can't help but run into each other. About the archived results, the comments about christians eating babies was totally rediculous, and had know reason to be brought up. Saksjn (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I am older than you. Probably older than your parents. You might have 11 years of schooling. I have more than twice as much. And a bunch of graduate degrees that you probably do not even know exist. So realize when you come here to lecture us, it is like trying to lecture your teachers, or your teacher's teachers. --Filll (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, please stop stalking me.  I've asked you three times now.  Stop telling me what to do, stop accusing me of attacking you, and stay off my talk page.  Thank you. Angry Christian (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My last comment on your talk page was before you asked me not to comment on it, sorry about it. Saksjn (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You're probably right about not letting myself get roped into a pointless argument. I'm not even going to comment on this thread after this.
 For the record, I respect the degrees you have Fill, and I'm not trying to lecture you. The last thing I will say is this: I know you want me to leave because I'm a  high school student and you assume I know nothing about the subject. My age has never scared me away from talking to those older than me, adults are a heck of a lot easier to talk to and generally more respectful. Besides, I learn more from you guys. ID and Evolution are two ideas I've studied independently away from school immensly. I see strength in both, I see flaws in both. I do not prescribe to one or the other entirely. When I talk here I don't try to act like I'm an expert on the subjects. We shouldn't even be talking about ID and Evolution here. The purpose of this page is to discuss the article on the movie. I'm sorry I have let myself get roped in to pointless arguments at times. So lets just archive this thread and move on to something more important. Saksjn (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you "see strength" in ID then I suggest that you need to have your eyes examined. It is a vacuous argument that is contradicted by reams of scientific discoveries in the fields of complexity, emergent order and evolutionary biology. Likewise, while the Theory of Evolution, like any scientific theory, will indeed contain genuine flaws needing to be patched by further research, they will most probably not be discernible without a PhD in the subject, so any "flaws" that you think that you have seen will almost certainly have been mere creationist charades. HrafnTalkStalk 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm going back on not editing this thread again to say this: telling me I need to get my eyes checked and asserting that my doubts are based only on "creationist charades" are the kind of things that provoked me to start this thread. Saksjn (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will say this: wikipedia policy values content created on the basis of facts and opinions of genuine experts, none of which supports the views you expressed above. You can therefore expect wikipedia to be more than a little dismissive of such views. Show some genuine evidence of genuine strengths of ID or of some genuine flaws in evolution and people might take you a little more seriously. But I think you'll find that all hope of achieving the former has already been eviscerated on intelligent design & associated articles, and of the latter on objections to evolution. HrafnTalkStalk 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Civility]] 

message: On the Crossroads Expelled website they claim "Our goal is to stage a series of nationwide student-led debates on Neo-Darwinism and intelligent design at high schools and universities"  Have they scheduled any of these intelligent design creationism "debates" yet?  I haven't seen anything so far.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. They list that as a goal, the chances of it actually happening are rather low. Are you considering putting this in the article? Saksjn (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is all kinds of stuff that we could put in the article. But at some point, you have to draw the line. Stuff that they plan to do, or meetings they tried to have with Baylor administration that did not happen, and so on, are probably not particularly worthwhile for an encyclopedia article. We do not need a 300 K article on this movie, which might be a complete dud and close as soon as it opens. Intelligent design crashed and burned badly as a strategy in the courts, and the subject of this movie might not quite grab the public's imagination; some academics that supposedly were discriminated against because of their views, but there is no evidence that there were discriminated against because of their views? Does not sound very exciting, to be honest.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was curious if these so-called "debates" (tent revivals?) were taking place.  That could be noteworthy but I agree with Filll that if it aint happening it's not yet noteworthy and the article is already getting stretched.  We'll see if these Crossroads Expelled "debates" take the country by storm.  Angry Christian (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If any happen we should mention them, but only if. Saksjn (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recruiting efforts 

message: A Meeting of Minds -- may give some indication of the crowd Expelled is targeting. HrafnTalkStalk 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stein and [[Answers in Genesis]]' [[Ken Ham]] team up to hype Expelled 

message: Has any documentary on evolution been described as controversial? 
Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article. Kookywolf (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, back in 1859 Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, was considered quite controversial.  But after about 150 years of independent research by thousands of scientists around the world, it has been long and well confirmed.  All evidence supports it, no evidence is against it.  Thus, if you are a scientist and you are against evolution and you don’t have anything but the bible to back you up, you will be laughed at by your peers and rightly so.  Science is about independently confirmable facts, not blind faith. Bluetd  —Preceding comment was added at 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like you to pull together a little of what you speak of.  You're confusing the concepts of macro evolution and micro evolution.  Micro evolution has been accepted like you say, but macro evolution is still a strong topic of debate in the scientific community.  Please distinguish which one you are discussing in the future. Infonation101 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Infonation101, you may be setting a sprat to catch a macro, but your statement is both confused and off topic. Please confine discussion to ways to improve the article, and note that the "controversial documentary" statement is cited. .. dave souza, talk 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would ask you to read more carefully.  The above opinion "if you are a scientist and you are against evolution and you don’t have anything but the bible to back you up, you will be laughed at by your peers and rightly so" is equally off topic, and borderline personal attack.  The citation you speak of is nothing more than a news article that should hold no merit on WP.  Though I won't dispute the article is controversial, but I feel the sources on this page are falling away from what should be used.  Don't deal me improve the article.  So far this article is anything but up to par with WP standards.  It requires a cleanup, improved sources and disputed NPOV. Infonation101 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Kookywolf, what does "Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article" mean? Angry Christian (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The film makers themselves describe their own film as controversial, so it should probably stay. Make sure its sourced. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how the controversy itself is the center of the film, it seems appropriate to denote the matter as controversial.  It's not about ID theory in itself, distanced from prevailing evolutionary theory.  Dolewhite  —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: You can pretend otherwise and feel free to debate this fact elsewhere but we need to quit misleading people by saying otherwise in the article. Every science agency in north america recognizes ID as creationism and we have at least one federal court case that concluded the same. Angry Christian (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Angry Christian, your over generalization make your arguments weak, and this specific section is based off your opinion.  "scientific creationism is distinguished from biblical creationism in having 'no reliance upon biblical revelation'..." (Evidence for Scientific Creationism? Roger Lewin, Science, New Series, Vol. 228, No. 4701. (May 17, 1985), p. 837.) Here is made the distinction.  Creationism in linguistic pop-culture is synonymous with biblical creationism while intelligent design is synonymous with scientific creationism.  This page has allowed a few pros for Expelled, but for the most part has become destructive propaganda.  The page needs to be taken back to a review of the movie, and needs dismiss the creationism argument.  That argument needs to be reserved for a page on creationism. Infonation101 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Infonation101, you can say he is over generalizing and has weak arguments all you like but that doesn't change the fact that he is 100% correct. The only evidence needed is: Wedge strategy. Infonation101, you are just another wedge user.  -Bluetd  —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I have been labeled, attacked and my my post denied proper translation.  Your argument is easy to dissect.  Nowhere above have I supported creationism, but sited a source to explain the difference between the two.  A source independent of ICR.  Your reliance on the wedge strategy is nothing related to the topic.  Your opinion that "...he is 100% correct..." is not supported by anything but your own belief.  I'll ask you to contemplate what you post before you post.  WP is a highly navigated source of information,and as such we should take greater care in what is posted. Infonation101 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Wedge strategy proves that intelligent design is creationism (biblical or otherwise).  This was proven in a federal court of law. Bluetd  —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Intelligent design is a form of creationism.  Even Ben Stein knows this.  The article is about the movie and the movie is a propaganda piece for creationism.  Ben is on record that he does not care if the movie makes money or not, all he wants is a change in policy.  He wants to see IDC taught in high school.  ALL of this is relevant for the article. Angry Christian (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to debate.  Talk pages are for suggesting improvements to the main page, which should be verified through the use of reliable sources, and not based on original research.  Regards Mr. Stein, be wary of violations of our policy on living persons.  If a reliable source justifies your point, add it to the page.  Otherwise, it may be removed without issue.  WLU (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On this note, I would like to suggest the removal of at least the following lines, "However, at this time, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth." (for having no citation) and "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community, it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution." for misquoting the source, and using a report that is date back to 1987.  In the end I believe all disputes concerning creationism should be removed, and a link to creationism and intelligent design be posted in it's place.  There, substantial research and participation has been collaborated to make excellent WP pages. Infonation101 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Um arent you the guy who just posted an article from 1985 supporting your mistaken notion that ID is not creationism?  :-)  And read the cites and sources, ID is in fact creationism and the claims in the article are well supported.  I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.  What amazes me is the people here who know the very least about ID and creationism are also the ones who know the very least about Wikipedia policies, and they won't stop yapping about being persecuted.  Telling someone they are flat wrong is not persecution.  Asking someone to familiarize themselves with the subject matter and Wiki policies is not persecution.  In fact one guy has been saying thbis talk page is violent.  WTF?   That might explain all the misguided shit (nothing else to call it) that keeps showing up on my talk page.  I fully support you christian teenagers contributing to this article but you have to learn and abide by the freaking rules whether you like it or not.  Angry Christian (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is a difference between posting an article showing linguistic definitions, and posting a survey that was used 11 years ago. Historical linguistic changes are different from using an 11 year old survey to define how the current scientific community feels. As for whether intelligent design is creationism, this cannot be determined by any State. State rulings should never be considered in science. Politics and policies have nothing to do with experiment and research. The paper written by Barbara Forrest was not published in any PR journal as far as I can see, and is not a reliable source. In any case, this should not be the place for such discussion. These things need to be reserved for the page on creationism. Infonation101 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Infonation101, a federal court ruling on intelligent design is highly relevant on an article about intelligent design.  Every science organizarion in North America recognizes ID as creationism.  This is not a secret.  Barbara Forrest is probably the leading expert on ID in North America, she was an expert witness in Kitzmiller v Dover.  She has published numerous articles, and books on the subject.  Your belief that she is not a reliable source does not jive with reality and I cannot help you on that count.  Your lack of accepting reality and the continuous claims of being persecuted are not going to work in your favor.  There are policies here that we all have to abide by.  This movie is about creationism so talking about it on the creationism page does not make much sense. Angry Christian (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: <reduce indent> Infonation101, as far as reliable sources go, here is a link to the Wiki policy on the subject -  WP:Sources  I hope this helps.  Angry Christian (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Now be fair. Cdesign proponentsists is even better evidence of IDcreationism than the wedge. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "...third-party published... peer-reviewed journals..."  As far as I can tell the paper written by Barbara Forrest hasn't been.  As for not trusting government decisions in science I would relay you to this article and this article (just FYI, nothing more).  Politics can make some stupid decisions when it comes to science.  Filll, I haven't heard of those sources, and I'll look more into them.  If anything then, they should be cited in place of what is currently up. Infonation101 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Never again refer to me as "young man".  The "quote-mining" was what I believed to be the simplest overview for the article, which I did read.  Going further "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  The article still has not been published by a third party.  If this isn't straight forward enough, please give me your take on WP:Sources. Infonation101 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given you my take, did you not read it?  I've given you a link to the policy and you claim you read that. We are supposed to assume good faith, until proven otherwise.  You'll need to ask someone else because I am now convinced you are a disruptive force on this talk page.  The fact you think B Forrest is not a reliable source makes me question what exactly you do know about intelligent design, if anything.  But no worries, I'm sure someone else will make time for you to explain in great detail why Barbara Forrest is a reliable source.  Angry Christian (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your question of my knowledge of intelligent design is really irrelevant.  And as for your take, I did get: "Your belief that she is not a reliable source does not jive with reality and I cannot help you on that count."  Really, my belief is irrelevant as well.  I'm just calling into question the sources being used on this page.  Sources from published third-party journals should be the most sourced, but they are not. Infonation101 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  like it or not, intelligent design is in fact creationism 

message: The NCSE has produced a web page for links to resources about Expelled. So far it gives sources we've used, plus The Screengrab: Screengrab Exclusive Preview: EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED which gives another review from someone who's seen it, Encyclopedia Britannica Blog: How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin) which gives the views of a respectable named writer on the publicity for the film, and The New University (University of California Irvine): I.D. Rakes it in and Gets Rake in Face which is essentially an essay by a second-year English major, so not a reliable source. . .  dave souza, talk 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dave.  Great resource.  Angry Christian (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, a useful story. This mp3 includes an interview with Dawkins which discusses Expelled towards the end, and gives some details such as the point that he was expecting to be interviewed by Mathis, who'd presented himself as pro-science, but instead was interviewed by Stein. Perhaps excessively detailed for this article. .. dave souza, talk 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's a tidbit from someone who attended one of these advanced screenings http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=540#entry100826  It's nothing that can be used in the article but the cop action and night vision surveillance is funny.  Angry Christian (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource 

message: Any news when this is finally coming out, my guidance councler said April, but I haven't seen that anywhere else. Saksjn (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have repeated announcements of April 18, 2008, as you can see from the article, but whether this actually happens or not we will have to see.--Filll (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening 

message: Infonation101 doesn't seem to have grasped various aspects of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, both of which are policies. In particular, NPOV: Pseudoscience – "any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." A film promoting pseudoscience has to be described in that context For additional guidance see WP:FRINGE. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I understand.  I do agree that the macro evolution of life is the dominating opinion in the scientific community, but it hasn't been indisputably accepted and lines like "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community..." makes it sound that way.  These are the things I would like to have removed.  Those do fall into WP:FRINGE. Infonation101 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Although the macroevolution of species has become widely accepted by the scientific community...  Again I do think we have to define what type of evolution we are discussing.  The arguments behind macro and micro-evolution are different, and we can't make the mistake of over generalization. Infonation101 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And by a remarkable coincidence, only creationist pseudoscience proponentsists seem to think that macroevolution and microevolution are different processes, or that one magically can't happen. .. dave souza, talk 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Again I do think we have to define what type of evolution we are discussing. The arguments behind macro and micro-evolution are different, and we can't make the mistake of over generalizatio" Actually we have an obligation to NOT perpeturate that sort of thinking in the article.  We're not here to advance the creationists/pseudoscience agenda.  There are plently of creationism blogs out there for that. Angry Christian (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was only proposed because of published articles like this:Darwin realized that the fossil record fails to corroborate his theory, according to which evolution proceeds through the accumulation of endless series of minute changes, "micromutations" according to current terminology. The evidence available at the time rather suggested that evolution proceeds by extensive leaps... (Macroevolution and Punctuated Equilibria, Soren Lovtrup, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 30, No. 4. (Dec., 1981), pp. 498-500.)  From a completely scientific standpoint, I honestly believe the two have to be separated. Infonation101 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From a completely scientific standpoint, that looks exactly like creationist quotemining, a very old reference which is completely off topic. This page is for proposing improvements to the article, and is not a forum. See also NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. ... dave souza, talk 23:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Science is not a democracy. 99.9% of scientists used to believe that there were less than a dozen elements. Then we discovered atoms and created the periodic table. This worship of scientists is fascinating, but misplaced.  —CobraA1 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that this hasn't been true for over two centuries. Applying of fallacious religious adjectives to science ("worship", "dogma", "fundamentalist", etc) is a sign of anti-intellectualism. HrafnTalkStalk 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Science hasn't changed in two centuries? Somehow, I doubt that.  —CobraA1 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This could be applied to many areas of the Wikipedia. Sometimes we forget to see the forest through the trees. Sometimes we get too caught up in the "science vs religion" discussion, and fail to see that we really know very little about the past. Educated, scientific, or otherwise, we can never achieve 100.0% certainty. If quantum mechanics is correct that our universe contains inherit randomness at a low level, then 100.0% knowledge about the past is not just impractical, but impossible. Yet we shun the occasional outlier. In addition, we often fail to see the trees through the forest as well. We attack large theories, but fail to see that no theory is completely scientific or unscientific. It is the details of the theory that are scientific or unscientific. "Evolution" is often used to describe a large set of theories, including biological and astronomical theories. "Creation" likewise also encompasses many smaller theories. Both of the larger sets have smaller sets that may succeed or fail within a scientific framework.  —CobraA1 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not merely about crystal balls - it is also about hasty generalizations and oversimplifications.  —CobraA1 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Kind of fascinating though as I have never seen anyone actually worship science.  Sounds creepy.  Angry Christian (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you've not come across IDproponentsists then! They appear to worship science as their faith needs to be propped up by empirical evidence :) .. dave souza, talk 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not overtly, but I when find people who are putting the scientists on a higher pedestal than science itself, it's not uncommon for me to see religious elements appear. Do we believe in genetics because a group of people said genetics is true, or because we can see the genes through a microscope? It's easy for a skeptic to deny the words of others - but not so easy if they can see it for themselves.  —CobraA1 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we have people "worshipping science" (whatever that is but it seems strange indeed and I suspect "science" hears no ones prayers in spite of what these so-called science worshippers might claim) and now we have people putting scientists higher than science itself (which begs the question, just how high is science in the first place and who the hell cares I suppose) and asking why people "believe" genetics.  No offense but what the hell are we talking about?  None of this makes a bit of sense to me and sounds like social commentary coming out sideways.  Nothing wrong with that but I just need some clarity on what exactly are we talking about and how does it relate to the article.  Sorry to be so dense but I am not tracking any of this conversation very well. I'm sure there's a point being made but so far it's going over my head. Angry Christian (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm trying to say is that science is not a democracy, and that sometimes people just follow the crowd.  —CobraA1 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: The opening of this article is inappropriate. I agree that the statement “What a reviewer describes as four or five examples of ordinary academic back-biting…” may be perfectly factual, but it does not, in any sense belong in an articles abstract (though it could be mentioned after). Similarly the lines “…the scientific community the theory of …but is viewed as creationism…” and “Promotion of religion … be presented in science classes” are too specific in scope, too detailed, and too indirectly connected to the article itself to be mentioned in the introduction, if in the article at all (There exists article fully dedicated to these subjects). 
On a personal note, I do agree with the article. I do think intelligent design is false and this movie does look silly. But I shouldn’t be able to tell that this article was written by someone who agrees with me. And frankly, it’s quite easy to deduce that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.200.56 (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the article. NCdave (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the introduction 

message: Rather amusing, actually. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See this edit .. dave souza, talk 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Oh, well. Beaten to the punch again! =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s.  not too useful, but fun if you know the background..... dave souza, talk 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A fair point in principle, my only reservation it that readers are more likely to have heard about Myers being made to leave than about the location. Any others have views on this? ... dave souza, talk 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what to call the section. I am reasonably sure we will be getting some nice "Christian" media articles on the incident fairly soon. And maybe Mathis or Ruloff will issue some more statements or give some interviews and possibly say some more "interesting" things. This will be good to flesh this section out.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. It appears that the online booking of free screenings ended abruptly yesterday. I was wondering if the lack of future events was to do with where my browser was coming from, but a simpler answer. Looks like they didn't plan this episode ;) ... dave souza, talk 21:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New News report 

message: Hey folks, remember what it says at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."  If someone veers off into general commentary on academic freedom and such, just ignore it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, the topic of the film is academic freedom (or its lack), at least according to the film's promotional web site.  The digressions into creationism, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are all off-topic for this article, but academic freedom is not.  NCdave (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NCDave: "Academic Freedom" has long been a creationist codeword for "permit illegitimate attacks on evolution" -- see Academic Freedom bills, the Santorum Amendment and even the purported rationale for the legislation struck down in Edwards v. Aguillard. Your claim that creationism is a "digression" is simply flogging another dead horse. HrafnTalkStalk 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Leaked? Pirated?--Filll (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the juicy Nazi parts? Angry Christian (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little piece of the movie 

message: I know this was disscussed earlier but I have a new update. I'm going to look into whether it was directly related to Expelled or not, but some of the seniors from my school went to UCF for a evolution ID debate. I was kinda ticked off I didn't get to go. Any ways, we now have an example of a debate that actually has happened in the time frame sorrounding the movie's controversy. Saksjn (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information, trust you appreciate that we need verification from a reliable source for anything added to the article. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an aside, these evolution-creationism debates have been going on for a long long time; well over 100 years at this point, with many famous ones over the years (maybe we should have an article listing some of the more famous ones?). But debates do not really settle anything or mean very much. For example, the Flat Earth Society had many debates with learned academics, and never ever lost a single debate. They also offered prize money to anyone who could prove the earth was not flat, and never paid out the prize money (something like Dr. Dino and his fake prize money). So although these debates are great theatre, they have almost zero relevance for anything aside from entertainment and propaganda for creationists.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Saksjn, let us know what you find out.  So far I have been unable to find any evidence of an Crossroads Expelled sponsored debate but they claim they're going organize them so eventually something should turn up.  You would think they'd promote something like that from their website and email alerts.  I visit the site fairly often and get the alerts but not a peep so far.  Angry Christian (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates 

message: Rather than arguing back and forth over something we probably can't hope to resolve, let's talk about real stuff, specifics.  Do you (Pm) have any clear sense as to how you think the article should be improved?  Why don't we discuss concrete proposals?  Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some good general advice in WP:Writing_for_the_enemy. NCdave (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual proposals instead of vague hand-waving, please. Hence the use of the word "specifics". --Calton | Talk 13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a specific proposal. NCdave (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Specifics" as is "This is the current version" of a section, and "This is how I suggest it should be phrased".  You know, something concrete that we can work with and discuss.  Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We were discussing one such improvement, here, but Hrafn deleted it from this Talk page. NCdave (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, good idea.  I've mentioned a couple general ideas, and I'll try to sketch this out more concretely to see what you all think.  This will take me at least a couple days to get a sketch together because I want to go through and become better versed about all the refs first.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals?

message: I see that two discussions earlier closed because they had deteriorated into personal opinionating have been reopened.  I am going to urge that editors stay firm on this.  This is not a forum to express our own views on the topic of ID, creationism, academic freedom, US courts, scientists, believers, or the importance (or lack of) in this film.  Everyone needs to stay off the soapbox, all the way off.  Meaning, nobody---none of us are welcomed to sneak in "one last word" before closing such discussions.  It means zip it shut as soon as we see the telltale signs appear, or whenever we ourselves should feel the urge to raise our arms to the heavens and bellow a sermon about Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  Each editor is fully empowered to shut off such wayward discussions immediately.  That's it.  It policy, and we're all much more effective editors that way.  Live with it.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Detailed proposals for improvements to the article, with sources for anything new to the article, are welcome. While a reasonable amount of discussion is in order, general discussions have to be kept in check. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I've ever seen such a POV-ridden, worthless article on all of wiki. All this is is a place to attack the film, it seems like. I say you just wipe the whole thing and get some neutral writers on board, this reflects very poorly on the point of wikipedia! 128.252.78.81 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soapboxing 

message: I haven't been here since thursday and it looks like armagedon has happened or something. I hope no one missed me. Anyways, I think an interesting point was archived earlier and I want to bring it back out, without reviving the argument it was made during. Michael Moore's movies all mention the controversies over them at the end. The bulk of this article is about the controversy. One or the other needs to be fixed to match each other. Please, people on both sides, don't make this have anything to do with science, or religion, the constitution, etc. Just discuss which one should be changed and how. Saksjn (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I will make this simple. Who cares what the articles about Michael Moore's movies do. We wrote this the way we wanted to, and have worked on it for months, and this is the result. So I don't think we need to change that. The only thing I would change is to clean up the text, which has become a mess through repeated attacks, but I am in no rush to do it.--Filll (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, Saksjn!  And I'm with you, the more we can focus on improving the article and the less debating here on the talk pages would be a welcome step in the right direction! Angry Christian (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Moore films generally receive more non-negative attention (I don't fully understand why). In that regard we have a Kent Hovind type problem; most of the coverage in independent sources is negative. Hopefully after the film is actually released we'll have enough content to consider switching to such a format. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Point Made 

message: In the People Presented in the Film section, would it enhance the readability if we either bolded
 each individual's names (Sternberg, et al) or even gave each person a sub-heading in that section?  Angry Christian (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for sub-headings -- all the names are wikilinked, which tends to make bolding of them generally less effective. HrafnTalkStalk 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, done.  I think it flows better now.  I did not do a sub-header for PZ, et al.  I think we need to add more content (not tons) and then add a sub-header for them.  I don't have time at the moment to do that, perhaps someone could chip in.  Angry Christian (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  question/suggestion 

message: This whole opening series of paragraphs is a mess and is near impossible to read with all the footnotes.  Couldn't we cut the background down, say something really brief about the ID/evolution controversy, and just put a link to the ID/evolution controversy page?  90% of that "background" is a big argument embedded in the opening paragraph while each side is fighting to have the dogmatic upper hand.  It's unnecessary and inapproppriate.  THis page should be about the film.  It does not need to be a whole expose on a matter that's already thoroughly discussed elsewhere. Dolewhite
:Well we have tried that in the past for such controversial articles about controversial topics. And you know what happens? We get hit with challenges and templates and people belligerently claiming that all of the statements we make have no proof and demanding references. And so, slowly but surely, these sorts of articles get more and more boilerplate and footnotes and citations. It happens to all these controversial articles. People are not willing to accept anything even if it is heavily cited in a linked article. --Filll (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's exactly my point.  Since we know that it's going to be a fight (it clearly already is a fight), we should just redirect it to an existing debate.  I see absolutely no sense in having this huge struggle in the middle of the article.  IT MAKES IT ILLEGIBLE.  Perspective aside, this is not the place to hold the debate, period.  It's totally irrelevant to the summary of the article about the film whether Ben Stein or the whole movement is right or wrong, and no matter where you stand, if you step back for a few seconds and thinks from the perspective of a person aiming for standards of objective journalism that this is NOT the place to be having this discussion.  You just put in that it's about the ID/evolution controversy, put a link to that article which already exists, and focus only on the FACTS of the FILM, not the facts of the film's CONTENT, which is only relevant to a lower paragraph under a seperate heading. Dolewhite  —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dolewhite, the film is not about the ID/evolution controversy, it is an attempt to demonize scientists as persecuting anyone that tries to advocate ID/evolution.  The sad thing is that it is the creationists that are doing all the persecution.  I have never heard of any scientist persecuting a Christian but there are many documented cases of creationists persecuting people that support evolution with acts of violence and death threats.  I wish there were a good place in this article to state that the persecution is actually happening in reverse! Bluetd  —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You are not making a lot of sense. Relevant to the film but not its content? By the way, the LEAD has to summarize the entire article. So we cannot just relegate stuff you do not like to the lower paragraphs. Sorry. Also, we do not subscribe to "objective journalistic standards" whatever those are. We have our own principles we follow here like RS and NPOV etc.--00:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: All the reliable sources I've seen say the film is about ID vs. evolution, and take care to spell out what that means. While you may want to hide that, the article should show the context clearly for readers who shouldn't have to research other articles to find out the significance of the film. .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is a big surprise coming, the film that has been shown in sneak previews and that has been reviewed and all its promotion point towards an ID vs. evolution theme for the movie. It is also sort of confused, since the film links ID and God, which the true intelligent design movement does not, so they can maintain a "big tent" and for legal reasons. If the film is not about intelligent design and its conflict with evolution, what is it about? And do you have a WP:RS which describes it otherwise? --Filll (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's pretty clear Ben Stein is anti-science, anti-evolution, pro creationism and believes creationists are being persecuted for their religious beliefs by nazi loving darwinists.  He also hopes that his creationist film will result in policy/social changes that will include creationism will be taught/discussed in public science class.  He is also profoundly stupid on matters of science, he cannot seem to distinguish between cosmology and biology and makes other astonishing claims that are grounded is ignorance.  To ignore those subjects in the article would be pretty dumb. It is both necessary and appropriate to cover these subjects in the article.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That is the significance of the film, together with education standards, as shown by reliable third party sources. Do please provide such sources for any other significance the film has. (remember, primary sources such as publicity stuff by the film producers, the DI or Stein can't be used to assess significance, see WP:NOR). .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Doesnt Michael Shermer appear in the movie? Should we mention this?--Filll (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, if he definitely does,  though how much we can say about him in it, given current sources, I dunno. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, even if they plan to put certain people in the film at the moment, it is not clear that they will appear in the final cut.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Shermer's experience and a well written review here.  It appeals Shermer is not a Ben Stein fan at all.  According to the review Kitzmiller is in fact mentioned in the movie.  This is well worth reading and also incorporating in the article Angry Christian (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I dug around on the web but so far I haven't found Shermer's column on Expelled. I suspect that it has not been published yet. Perhaps Dawkins et al got ahold of a preprint of the column. We could as well I suppose, but we probably couldn't use it until that edition of Scientific American is officially published. --Filll (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent him an email asking when it's scheduled to be published.  We'll see what he says. Angry Christian (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shermer 

message: It's a minor fine tuning but first of all I read the cites given and did not see any obvious link of the producers claiming "evolution = societal ills"  I know the film does in fact claim this so we need a better or additional cite that clearly supports what the article is saying.  Secondly, I believe they are not blaming evolution for alleged societal ills but actual societal ills.  I could be mistaken.  If they are legitimate societal ills then I think we should remove the "alleged".  Angry Christian (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the NYT article touches on the point, Whipple is a better reference – "After a half hour or so, "Expelled" wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood." It's certainly a matter of POV whether atheism and Planned Parenthood are a bad thing, and I'm sure there are many who think communism is a good thing, though obviously some of the implementations fell at least as far short of the ideals as, say, the Spanish Inquisition did of Christian ideals. So, suggestions for rephrasing would be welcome, and probably best to move references [2] and [3] a phrase earlier to cover the preceding points, then cite Whipple for that specific point. Dawkins's review could also be cited there. .. dave souza, talk 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I get it now and the "alleged" makes perfect sense. Angry Christian (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, maybe purported would work.  Or maybe just not use any qualifier, and just list some of the (alleged) ills.  "blames the theory for a range of modern phenomena from Nazism to Planned Parenthood."  How does that sound?  Perhaps the word phenomena shouldn't be used though.  JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry none that I can think of but I just removed the duplicate instance of this so now we only need to worry about the mention of it in the opening para Angry Christian (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  alleged societal ills