Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 1

message: The Guardian have done a piece entitled Dawkins rails at 'creationist front' for duping him into film role on the deception surrounding this film. I don't know if it adds any new information, but it does add another WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 07:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of them are particularly good. The first looks like a precis of the NYT article, and the second is more of an  op-ed with nothing really new. They might be worth citing as supporting refs though.  – ornis⚙ 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piece in [[The Guardian]] 

message: ID debate to continue in new film -- it pretty much only covers the pro-ID side of the story, but may be useful. HrafnTalkStalk 07:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems pretty crap. Looks like they let Mathis/Stein pretty much write the article, and then right at the end have a little disclaimer *oh they are lying here*. I hate this movie and everything it stands for already. --ZayZayEM 14:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. This sure is fun to watch. :-) --profg 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baylor student newspaper on 'Expelled' & EIL 

message: One thing that's interesting is that expelledthemovie.com was registered on March 1th, PZ Myers was contacted in April for an interview. So this wasn't about deciding to change the name of the movie. They used Crossroads and Rampant Films as tools to deceivingly obtain interviews.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.214.27.172 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed name defense 

message: Someone cut this, perhaps rightly - it isn't directly related to Ben Stein. I NPOV'd the rest of the description of the film, mainly by not describing it. Adam Cuerden talk 06:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text cut from [[Ben Stein]] 

message: From the Producers
My head seriously hurts after reading this. I'm agreeing with one commentator that it does sound more like angry teen angst (or just William Dembskiish) than serious film documentarians.
There rationale for the *name change* may be relevent:
:The release references “Crossroads,” as a “tentative” title, if that’s OK? So just to set the record straight, the film was titled EXPELLED only after we began to see the disturbing pattern and shocking information that the footage reveals! So, thanks for the title guys, we couldn’t have done it without you! And we’re still considering using “Crossroads” for something else! Watch out.
They also say of the original film synopsis as "We think that the information is very clear. Do we need to provide a course in English grammar before conducting an interview?", which I think is a fair cop. Mildly deceptive as it was, it wasn't exactly false, and it really isn't up to these guys to explain it to the assumptive.--ZayZayEM 06:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that expelledthemovie.com was registered before the interviews, as mentioned above. Adam Cuerden talk 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I believed a word of it. My "fair cop" comment is directed that the Crossroads synopsis could still be legitimately used as a synopsis for Expelled. Producers: "The information is very clear", I wouldn't say very, but it is clear enough. It's a bit deceptive about the motives/direction the film was going to take, but it does outline the expected content.--ZayZayEM 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The stupid burns... 

message: See Richard Dawkins' site. It's rather apparent that they've spliced together two different statements where Dawkins is supposedly saying that, as a scientist, he is hostile to a rival doctrine. There's a cut both within and at the end of the obviously cobbled together sentence. (90.196.219.155 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective editing in trailer 

message: The wording of this article is clearly unbalance: "Stein relies on arguments about freedom of speech and teleology", Relies? Like, a crutch or a cop out? That sounds like opinion rather than knowledge. "with the enticement that a winning stor" (sic) Enticement? Like you know for a fact they're bribing people? What on earth? And the overly frequent use of the word "claim", where "fact" may actually be applicable (while they can only "claim" Intelligent Design is real, the stifling of scientific questioning of Darwinism in general is a provable "fact". But due to that very stifling, this is the first time it's really been brought to light so people refuse to believe it and slap it in the "claim" category. It's like saying I merely claim people have jobs.)
Then this very talk page is filled with three separate commentaries about how Stein is an idiot, and the movie will be crap, and other sentiments that interestingly echo those of the very people exposed in the film trailers; nothing to do with the article itself! And they remained undeleted. Any other talk page I've been on, if your entire comment is off the topic of improving the article, out it goes.  For these reasons I have labeled this article as unbalanced. I'm hesitant to make the needed edits myself as I have known about this film from an inside source (and interviewee in the film itself) for some time, before its public unveiling, and do not want add to the problem by hypocritically, though unconsciously, adding my own slant. I feel that would only add to the problem, rather than balance it out.
But for those who are willing, step back and realize you've been systematically spoon-fed Darwinism and anti-First Amendment sentiments for the last several decades. Whether or not you believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism (which are two similar, but different things, FYI) is actually beside the point. Those theories being "wrong" does not automatically make Darwinism "right". With that in mind, look at this article objectively, and within the very guidelines of Wikipedia, and you'll realize that the way it is written is biased, practically for the sake of it simply to discredit this film as a hoax. I can tell you for a fact, fancy editing aside (which I do find resorting to that disappointing after hearing about this for so long), this film's message is very real, and to paint as otherwise is inexcusable for anyone but the closed-minded. 68.167.251.165 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a nice rant that probably should be removed as offtopic. First, get an account if you want to be taken serously. 
You also did not give one specific example of something you want to reword. Let me look at a few of your complaints:
*"Stein relies on arguments about freedom of speech and teleology", Relies? Like, a crutch or a cop out? That sounds like opinion rather than knowledge. What would you prefer instead?
*"with the enticement that a winning stor" (sic) Enticement? Like you know for a fact they're bribing people? What on earth? What would you prefer instead?
*And the overly frequent use of the word "claim", where "fact" may actually be applicable (while they can only "claim" Intelligent Design is real, the stifling of scientific questioning of Darwinism in general is a provable "fact". Those are indeed claims as I read them. Mere advertising "puffery". Like what someone might say to promote any movie or a breakfast cereal. By the way, using the word "Darwinism" brands you as a backward drooling uneducated creationist and its use is highly offensive in many quarters. So try to keep that in mind next time or you will make yourself look even worse. And in a certain way, yes questioning evolution based on no data and no reasoning is frowned upon, just like claims of alien abduction and ESP based on no data are discouraged in academia. So what? This is news?
*What talk page material so offends you that it must be immediately removed?
*You sound like you have a WP:COI problem, so probably should not even be editing this page.
*You violate WP:SOAP in your post
*We have multiple WP:RS WP:V sources that indicate intelligent design is creationism. Including the ruling of a republican federal judge. Care to file an appeal of the ruling to get it changed? Be my guest. But until then, go cry somewhere else.
*Evolution is based on genetic evidence, DNA evidence, laboratory evidence, field observations and fossil records. Hundreds of millions of pieces of data all agree. It is not based on "brain washing" or "Faith" or "religion" or "atheism" or some other horse manure. Take your complaints to a religious website. We don't need to hear them here. Thanks.
* The movie is not a hoax; it is a real movie, as far as I can tell. Its premise is just pure nonsense and the material on its website is just plain wrong and misinformed, based on a completely idiotic creationist interpretation or misinterpretation of the data. But other than that, it is fine. I am sure the film will do fine, so stop panicking. And relax.
--Filll (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually thought I'd be accused of promoting the "let your voice be heard" *contest* with those edits. I've changed "relies" to "utilizes", it is a more neutrally worded way. I'm not gonna suggest anything better than "enticement", I thought it was far better than labelling it as bait or a bribe, or promise/offer.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant of this very article 

message: Filll removed the word "documentary" from the intro, stating in the edit summary "this is not a documentary but a polemic pushing a certain agenda".  However, documentary is a genre of film, like comedy or drama.  It does not imply that it is a completely neutral presentation of facts, or even that it's entirely accurate.  All documentaries reflect the bias of their creators in some way.  Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine are described as documentary films, even though they clearly push an agenda.  (Moore's newest film Sicko is described as a movie in the intro, but is in the documentary film category.)  Expelled is correctly categorized as a documentary film.  Eseymour (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (By the way, in Filll's edit summary the second time he removed the word "documentary," he implied that I was edit warring when I undid his first removal.  However, one revert does not equal an edit war.  Filll him/herself reverted my first edit on this article without even leaving an edit summary. Eseymour (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, I am shocked, shocked at your failure to assume the assumption of good faith.  :-P  Seriously, though, what made you think I was not assuming good faith?  I'm not taking offense to you at all, but when you revert my edit and say in your edit summary "Do not edit war," I take that to mean you're implying that I was edit warring.  Which is ironic, because the very edit which you summarized with that admonition would have been an extension of said edit war.  Anyway, do you have a reply to my argument that this film should be classified as a documentary? Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Documentary implies that it will present at least a nominally objective presentation of facts. Whereas in actuality this film presents a totally partisan view. In that sense, neither film nor documentary are particularly accurate, but promo is. Film is at least neutral, documentary is not. Odd nature (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that documentary implies a journalistic style of nominal objectivity.  for the film genre of documentary, what is meant is that people are identified by name, and only regular interactions are filmed (i.e., fictional scenes are not set up and shot piecemeal like regualar films).  If this is not what the makers of this film have done....then we should do away with documentary as a descriptor.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting up fictional scenes in order to gain the participation of the interviewees is exactly what the  makers of this film have done according to the source in the "Claims of deception by interviewees" section of the article. Genuine documentaries don't dupe their participants into participating. And if a lack of fictional elements distinguishes a film from a documentary while duping it participants, then Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is a documentary. This movie is a partisan promo film promoting a single viewpoint at the expense of other views and facts. That's not a documentary. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not personally put March of the Penguins in the same category as An Inconvenient Truth or Expelled or Michael Moore's films. I think you are comparing apples and orangeshere. --Filll (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a documentary. You're confusing propaganda with documentaries. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Films can be both. I used MoP because while it's message isn't strong, it still has one. Quite a many Nature documentaries are hippie environmentalist (sometimes worse, like transcendalist, reincarnationist, or creation-based glorification) mouthpieces. Documentaries are films that document stuff. This film is not fictional, it does not rely on actors filling a role. It is a genuine documentary. It will also most likely turn out to propoganda as it will be censored and pushing a message.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary film vs. movie 

message: Expelled is about:
#alleged (religious?) discrimination by the scientific community against cdesign proponentists (Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns#Campaigns_claiming_discrimination)
#*(focuses on?) Sternberg peer review
#*(focuses on? mentions?) Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)
#asserts intelligent design is within reasonable freedom of inquiry
#*history shows scientists believed in creator/God
#alleges science is a dogma
#*dangerous dogma (Darwin=Hitler)
Nothing I have seen attempts to assert intelligent design is science. (It actually brings ID closer to its religious roots)
Nothing I have seen attempts to encourage "teaching the controversy".
And it certainly does not proclaim "Intelligent design is not creationism". (seems to be asserting opposite)
Counters from the scientific view should focus on what "Expelled" is about, not general replies to ID. We should include counters that evolution is not dogma, Darwin=Hitler is a poor and fallacious argument, and the consensus on the outcomes of Sternberg, Gonzalez and general claims of discrimnation against IDists. Aswell as countering any false portrayals of fact found in the documentary (eg. if it mentions any Banned books).
Again, I ask that I not be hated here. And certain brother-in-arms against creationism treat Wikipedia is not your battleground a little nicer.
By bringing up irrelevant rhetoric here we play into the hands of these self-vilifying losers.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presenting relevant arguments 

message: ::Don't hate me...
I really don't think that belongs here. It is far too much pushing an agenda.
This article is about Expelled not Intelligent-design-as-a-theory. That is discussed in great detail throughout the relevant pages of wikiepdia.
:I agree wholeheartedly here.  ID vs. evolution is outside the scope of this article.  It's easy enough to link them, and we don't need redundant material all over the place. ~ethana2
We can bring out specific criticisms of the film itself, but not generalised criticism or reception of intelligent design in general.
This film doesn't seem to be pushing the official line of ID as the DI (used to be) pushing it. Although they do seem to be not-camoflaging their religious motivationa s much lately. I think we should stick to topic and focus on criticism of the film directly, and not open ourselves to accusations of UNDUE weight or SYNTHetic OR.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you and think it's necessary. WP:NPOV is very clear when it says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Leaving out the status of ID gives the films producers, who are all ID promoters, undue weight. The reception of ID in the scientific community, which the film seeks to portray as hidebound and censorous, needs to stay to add balance to the viewpoints of the promoters in the opening sentences, which they get in by the necessity of having to describe the thesis of the film. Otherwise those views are left standing as if fact. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is any perspective presented in the article. No ID perspective is presented, therefore no counter is needed. Once the movie is out and we can get some content in here, we can counter it. So far its a preemptive counter, and that's POV. We are countering what we are expecting is in the film, not what we know is in the film, so its OR. Now, granted, I'll give a million dollars and BJ to anyone who wants one if this film is a biased propoganda creationist POC, but we can't verify that just yet, so we can't put the counter in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 06:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what points of view the movie pushes, this article is not the place to re-hash those debates.  If the movie brings forth unique claims, those could be discussed here.  Otherwise, just summarize the claims (which look to be more about academic freedom than the details of ID per se) and briefly note the counterpoints.  This particular paragraph especially doesn't belong in the intro, which should remain as brief as possible while still giving the reader a basic description of the subject. Eseymour (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree, according to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc.--Filll (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing, eh? So even though WP:NPOV says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" .... "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" he wants us to leave out the viewpoint of one-half of the controversy. Is he serious? I have to wonder if he even bothered to understand that policy and consider how what he proposes jibes with it. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Filll, do you think that any article about any work of art which deals with a controversial subject should have the arguments over that subject repeated in the article?  I don't understand the need to shout down any mention of ID in Wikipedia.  Seriously, are people so afraid of ID that they can't allow it to be mentioned in any context without a paragraph-sized disclaimer that ID is not science?  Can't we just keep it simple with something like a wikilink to Intelligent design and (if necessary) a few words like "which has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community"?  BTW, simply posting links to WP guidelines isn't a valid argument.  Please explain why you think those guidelines support your position. Eseymour (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, consider this: would you rather have ID argued about in one place, or in dozens?  Every article in which you reproduce the argument is going to attract people trying to edit that paragraph to suit their own viewpoint.  Surely it's much better for WP to keep that sort of thing to one (or very few) articles where it's most relevant, and link there from all the other articles that touch on the subject. Eseymour (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for any point of view, Filll, and that includes anti-creationism.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to accurately describe things--in this case, a movie that is being made.  The article should briefly describe the content, but it shouldn't actually present arguments for or against ID.  That's what the main ID article is for. I understand that you really don't like the fact that this movie has been made, but this article is not the place for editorializing for or against it. Eseymour (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is promoting a particular view at the expense of views, it appears to me it is you. Odd nature (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I smell a sock.--Filll (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to waste your time baselessly accusing me of being a sock puppet (of what other editor, may I ask?), that's your prerogative.  I'd prefer to continue discussing this on the merits than going down that road, though. Eseymour (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortuanately your proposed alterations to the article ignore and violate our core content policy. Until which time you show recoginition that NPOV requires both sides be presented, there's nothing to discuss with you. Odd nature (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have I said that only one side should be presented?  This is an article about a pro-ID movie.  It should describe the movie as such, and not drag in arguments that belong in the article which is actually about Intelligent design itself. Eseymour (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Hello, Kettle?  Yeah, this is the Pot.  You're black." Eseymour (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You appear to me to be one out of step here. Please stop beating up on Filll for your failure to make the case for this to be a one-sided puff piece. Odd nature (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What have I said that constitutes "beating up on" anyone?  I have presented a strong argument for why it's a bad idea to drag either pro- or anti-ID commentary into this article.  In response I get a "reminder" that "Wikipedia is not a religious recruiting tract" and then I get accused of being a sock puppet for no apparent reason other than I disagreed with someone.  Eseymour (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Where have I said that only one side should be presented? Houston, we have a problem.--Filll (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the ID side being presented in the article requiring the inclusion of the standard anti-ID scientific disclaimer. I don't mind both sides being presented with their respective weights, but I don't see any presentation of pro-ID material that requires an "ID is not science as determined by scientific consensus..." disclaimer in this article?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please specify where this ID side is pls. I do not see it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of ID paragraph 

message: I'm not going to continue to re-revert for the time being these reversion by Orange Marlin. 
I would like a rationale why it needs to be included here. As far as I am aware, Expelled does not deal with Kitzmiller, it does not deal with whether ID is religion (in fact it supports that ID is religion), nor does it deal with ID treatment by the judicial system.
I think OrangeMarlin's edit summary is rather telling that it's inclusion here is to further a battle against ID through using Wikipedia as a soapbox. ID may be wrong and stupid, but wikipedia is here to present facts. This is an article about a movie, it should deal with the movie alone, while directing readers to appropriate pages to gather more context. Inclusion of Kitzmiller v Dover here violates several guidelines on POV and weighting, as well as only using sources directly related to subject matter.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made it abundantly clear that you hate this movie, Filll.  But let's just discuss one thing at a time.  Please explain how the intro I have proposed fails to accurately sum up what the movie claims and how it varies from the mainstream scientific view.  And, please, let's not make this personal. Eseymour (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable to briefly set out the mainstream position. I think we can do better at working it in than any ptoposal I've yet seen, though. Maybe something of the form "Whereas evolution is generally accepted as... Expelled asserts that..." Adam Cuerden talk 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Expelled says the exact same "evolution is generally accepted". They do not attack acceptance of evolution. They attack the basis for acceptance, the scientific method. That is why the current disclaimer is so off-whack. It is correct, but it countering all the wrong points. It makes the article appear like a vacuous crappy evo vs. creationism debate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ZayZayEm's and Eseymour's objections to the article's existing content and proposals for changes all ignore the basic requirements for presenting all significant views found in WP:NPOV in my view. I don't think their tagging of the article is justified nor are their repeated calls for ID's reception by the scientific community to be removed or reduced to a mention in passing supported by policy. My opinion is that they are arguing for a very one-sided presentation of the topic that violates the core tenet of WP:NPOV which is where conflicting signifcant views exist they must not only be presented but given prominence to reflect the degree to which they are held in order for an article to neutral. Odd nature (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Stay on Topic. We need to present "all significant views" directly relating to the topic. That is, "Expelled" the movie, not intelligent design. Please point to where a significant view promoting intelligent design exists in the article?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion these points are well covered by the NYT as a reliable secondary source directly related to the subject. ... dave souza, talk 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I would have been OK with ZayZayEM's suggestion, i.e. the second paragraph inthis version without the Kitzmiller sentence. Unfortunately the article has devolved significantly since then.  Ugh. Eseymour (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Kitzmiller v Dover findings 

message: I agree with ZayZayEM, who has done a much better job at explaining himself than I have.  For the purpose of clarity, here is what I think the intro should say:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial film about intelligent design. Starring Ben Stein, it is due to be released in February 2008. The film makes the assertion that intelligent design proponents are discriminated against by the scientific community, citing the Sternberg peer review controversy as an example,[1] and alleges that evolution is a belief-system rooted in dogma rather than the scientific method. (This contrasts with the consensus mainstream scientific view that evolution is a well-supported theory and that intelligent design is not science.)
Although not yet released, the film is being promoted by...
This provides the benefit of a more concise intro which still provides the mainstream view without becoming argumentative or sounding like the article was written to smear the movie instead of accurately describe it.  I welcome your comments.  Thanks.  Eseymour (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made it abundantly clear that you hate this movie, Filll.  But let's just discuss one thing at a time.  Please explain how the intro I have proposed fails to accurately sum up what the movie claims and how it varies from the mainstream scientific view.  And, please, let's not make this personal. Eseymour (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable to briefly set out the mainstream position. I think we can do better at working it in than any ptoposal I've yet seen, though. Maybe something of the form "Whereas evolution is generally accepted as... Expelled asserts that..." Adam Cuerden talk 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Expelled says the exact same "evolution is generally accepted". They do not attack acceptance of evolution. They attack the basis for acceptance, the scientific method. That is why the current disclaimer is so off-whack. It is correct, but it countering all the wrong points. It makes the article appear like a vacuous crappy evo vs. creationism debate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ZayZayEm's and Eseymour's objections to the article's existing content and proposals for changes all ignore the basic requirements for presenting all significant views found in WP:NPOV in my view. I don't think their tagging of the article is justified nor are their repeated calls for ID's reception by the scientific community to be removed or reduced to a mention in passing supported by policy. My opinion is that they are arguing for a very one-sided presentation of the topic that violates the core tenet of WP:NPOV which is where conflicting signifcant views exist they must not only be presented but given prominence to reflect the degree to which they are held in order for an article to neutral. Odd nature (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Stay on Topic. We need to present "all significant views" directly relating to the topic. That is, "Expelled" the movie, not intelligent design. Please point to where a significant view promoting intelligent design exists in the article?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion these points are well covered by the NYT as a reliable secondary source directly related to the subject. ... dave souza, talk 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I would have been OK with ZayZayEM's suggestion, i.e. the second paragraph inthis version without the Kitzmiller sentence. Unfortunately the article has devolved significantly since then.  Ugh. Eseymour (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Intro 

message: This footnote in particular is atrocious in its blatant use of OR to push a point about Expelled that is not supported by any third party source provided.
This is all fine to list uses of the tactic, but we have no third party source to tie this back to "Expelled". This breaches WP:OR on Synthesising information.
DI uses the tactic. Expelled uses the tactic. Expelled is about a DI-related issue. ***Expelled is using the tactic in the same context as DI *** Likely true, yes - Supported by a verifiable reliable source, no. Includable in Wikipedia, no.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather agree, have trimmed it and set the point in the context of a reliable secondary source. ... dave souza, talk 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Was getting mixed up with the cites from the lead. The claim that Darwin somehow influenced the pre-Darwinian racism of the Nazis (Gott mit uns!) is original research by interpretation of a primary source without a secondary source picking out that point. Will comment it out until an appropriate secondary source is found. .. dave souza, talk 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationists for Genocide, by Hector Avalos may provide you with what you're after. It goes quite a bit into the history of genocidal racism. HrafnTalkStalk 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Have to confess I've not watched the video, so if it's incontestably obvious the source can be used to note the point, and briefy pointing out that it's a common creationist claim with a suitable source would then seem appropriate to avoid undue weight. .. dave souza, talk 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Pushed by whom exactly? Certainly not me. You still have not cited what I have asked for. Citations that use these perfectly valid arguments in the context of "Expelled". I have never disputed that Darwin=Hitler was a)a creationist tactic b)a DI tactic or c)oft-discredited. I have disputed it's direct relevance to expelled, and as well as the direct relevance of it being a DI tactic (as opposed to merely a creationist). Please do not perceive me as a creationist. I can not see how else you are totally misreading what I am asking help with here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: and again, I have not disputed this, nor requested it be removed. I really would like to see it restored, in full, without the need for long-winded cites. However, if you wish to tie "Expelled" use of the poor argument with the DI's campaigns, please find a source connecting the two. In addition, when describing the claim as "oft-discredited creationist claim", you need more than just a source of creationist using it, but also a source showing it is "oft-discredited". I think we now have the necessary sources for that from Talk.Origins and Avalos. However, we do not have a source proclaiming any conspiritical link between "Expelled" using the argument and DI's wedge.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longwinded footnotes 

message: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial film which presents the case for the creationist idea of intelligent design." (emph added)
O RLY?
I'd say something more like "aims to illustrate a perceived persecution against educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes by an alleged scientific xxxocracy". (sorry, my vocabulary fails me)
They don't present a case for anything. (Foremost because they can't). This is a whining film. "Waaa! we're persecuted. Just like Jesus. Pity us. Overthrow the Darwinist warlords. They are godless commies. Think of the children. Our nation was built on God..."
This film presents the case against intelligent design, but tries to undermine that case by trying to show that it is wrong. It's an anti-case.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the previous wording was closer to the truth, judging by what I have seen in the trailers and the promotional materials. This could be wrong, of course. So on this point, I have to say I partially agree with ZayZayEM.--Filll (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think perahps we should emphasise the persecution, as whatever weak case they present for "the craetionist idea of intelligent design" is going to be second to it. AFAICT they still aren't presenting any case; They are pulling the same lame trick of bringing up repeatedly refuted *holes* in *EVIL*ution, and then saying "hey, Jesus³!". --ZayZayEM (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I was working from the third paragraph of the NYT article "But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism." and the ninth "advocates of intelligent design, who assert that the theory of evolution has obvious scientific flaws and that students should learn that intelligent design, a creationist idea, is an alternative approach." Probably more accurate to say "is a controversial film which presents claims of persecution to promote the creationist idea of intelligent design." The 13th paragraph starts "Judging from material posted online and interviews with people who appear in the film, it cites several people as victims of persecution.." ... dave souza, talk 11:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expelled is a film about ... 

message: ???-Filll (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree!!--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, have tweaked it to be clearer that the DI are denying statements made by those promoting the film rather than others commenting on the promotion. ... dave souza, talk 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure I understand this reversion 

message: *Documentary: A documentary is a creative work of non-fiction.
*wikt:Documentary
:*A film, TV program, book etc that presents a social, political, scientific or historical subject in a factual or informative manner.
:*That serves to document something.
::*NB also 3. of a film, book etc) Presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter (emph added)
*Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality. (emph added)
*The Academy Award for Documentary Feature has included as winners and nominations
:*Darwin's Nightmare which had "perceived inaccuracies, sensationalism, lack of objectivity and incompleteness"
:*An Inconvinient Truth in which it is alleged "Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain" and of its companion book "This is a slick propaganda book. The pictures are very good. But there are factual errors."
:*Super Size Me "Critics of the film, such as McDonald's, argue that the results were because the author intentionally consumed an average of 5,000 calories per day and did not exercise, and that the results would have been the same regardless of the source of the overeating"
:*Bowling for Columbine "The slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery on display in Bowling for Columbine should be enough to give pause to its most ardent partisans"
Documentary is not limited to objective films (that is but one definition). Any film made from documentation of reality counts as a documentary, with an attempt to portray factual information in an informative manner counts as documentary.
Being a propoganda mouthpiece (something, may I remind, which has yet to be verified, a keystone of Wikipedia) does not preclude a movie from being classed as a documentary.
Dare I say Expelled is unequivocally a documentary?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put.  Agree entirely. Eseymour (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Am I right to assume I can rightly restore "documentary" to the lead, and add appropriate categories?--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay my last edit to this article this year is going to be to restore this stuff.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary status 

message: How about 
 --Filll (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't get how Darwinism can be responsible for both Communism and Fascism... it's silly.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The mental process involved is call "compartmentalisation", and allows mutually-contradictory ideas be genuinely (if superficially) held. The 'logic' is roughly along the lines of evolution=bad, fascism=bad, communism=bad, so evolution=fascism & evolution=communism, in spite of communism!=fascism. As long as you're careful not to think about why evolution is like communism and why it's like fascism, at the same time, you avoid having to acknowledge any contradictions. HrafnTalkStalk 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You want another source? 

message: It's a small, independent newspaper, but it's a start. It also makes some excellent points that we should work in. Adam Cuerden talk 10:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we've been working from it with a bit of detail in the review section and a couple of other references. Other "reviews" are beginning to surface........ dave souza, talk 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ZDnet has picked up on the Nova article,  more significantly I've found A review of the film by a Baylor Professor! Who could that be? Seems to be rather coy about his name, but the publisher gives a clue as to their impartial approach – Christian News New Zealand, "Sponsored by the Elusive Brethren & Right Wing American Fundamentalists". Seems to have greatly enjoyed the film and found it very funny, describes some animations but doesn't say if they include farting noises..... dave souza, talk 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian News New Zealand is a spoof site. "Elusive Brethren" is a spoof of Exclusive Brethren, whose cack-handed electioneering helped cost the centre-right New Zealand National Party the New Zealand general election, 2005. HrafnTalkStalk 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking through the parody publication a bit, I notice that it not only links to a few other parody sites, but also to some real sites with articles that are so extreme it is hard to know if they are real or tongue in cheek. --Filll (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That figures. It captures the Uncommon Descent style pretty well, if memory serves well. ... dave souza, talk 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper article 

message: Let me be clear.  I don't have any problem saying this movie is about intelligent design, or creationism, or both if that's supportable by reliable sources.  The problem is that the first sentence of the article states that ID is creationism.  That's a valid argument, but there are also valid arguments that ID is not the same thing as creationism.  As it stands, the intro only presents one side, and that's the definition of POV.  What's more, there's no actual need to make that argument here at all. Eseymour (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelligent design purports to be science (as does creation science, scientific creationism, etc). This movie makes the claim that intelligent design is valid science. This movie is about intelligent design and/or creationism. And therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, for WP:NPOV, to see what the scientific community feels about these claims, of this purported scientific field, and the claims made in this movie, at least as near as we can tell from the reviews, trailers, and other promotional material.--Filll (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, you didn't answer my argument.  I've never said this article shouldn't note what the scientific consensus is about ID.  I am saying that you can't present the claim that ID is creationism without presenting the opposing claim that they are two distinct things.  Even many scientists who reject both creationism and ID see important distinctions between the two. Eseymour (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim that "there are also valid arguments that ID is not the same thing as creationism" is false. The arguments against tend to be either (1) bare assertions (which hold no probative value); or (2) fallacious claims that Creationism necessitates belief in a literal 6x24-hour creation. They have been discredited both by experts and federal court, and thus can be ignored per WP:UNDUE. HrafnTalkStalk 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many more distinctions between Creationism and Intelligent Design than literal creation days.  Most importantly, IMO, the goal of Creationism is to prove the veracity of the creation account in the book of Genesis, whereas ID simply infers design from observation of the natural world.  I.e., creationism starts from a religious text, whereas ID starts from observation of nature.  There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which says that once something has been ruled upon by a Federal court, it can be stated as the truth without the need to mention opposing points of view. Eseymour (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eseymour: I was simply debunking the arguments claiming that ID is not creationism that I have seen ID-creationists make. The goal of creationism (ID included) is to restore the primacy of the Abrahamic God in the creation of life, the universe and everything, with the veracity of the Genesis account only mattering to those creationists who are also Biblical literalists. ID makes no valid inferences, it merely rationalises prior religious preconceptions (most notably those based upon the Logos theology of John's Gospel). You are mis-stating my position -- I said "experts and federal court" -- making the "ID is not creationism" viewpoint a discredited viewpoint from a small minority (basically, a claim only notably made by the Discovery Institute itself). HrafnTalkStalk 02:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ID holds that a supernatural "designer" was responsible for the creation and progression of the universe and everything in it. Which is the same thing that creationism is all about. Just because ID advocates try to make it sound superficially more scientific by calling it a "theory" and not specifically saying that the "designer" was God doesn't change the fact that ID is creationism. It's a religious view, and thus outside the purview of science. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, surely you aren't trying to intimidate me by threatening to push more POV material into this article?  The "percentage" of anti-ID should be determined by the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines, not a vendetta against another editor. Eseymour (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The question of whether this film is about ID or creationism is a valid question.  I don't care as much about which label we use (or both).  What I will not allow is for the first sentence of this article to present the claim that "ID is creationism" without representing the dissenting POV.  If editors continue to push that claim, I will pursue the next steps in the dispute resolution process.  Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am OK with the current version of the opening sentence.  Of course, now we're back where we were when I started this section of the Talk page, and the Kitzmiller reference is out of place.  If there are no objections (and I don't expect any, given that Kitzmiller is mentioned three sentences later), I will remove the ref. Thanks. (P.S. I was not using the dispute resolution process as a threat.  That is the proper next step to take when a dispute cannot be resolved amongst the editors involved, and I was giving notice of my intention to puruse that process.)  Eseymour (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To jump in...this is an article about a film, which is about, it appears, how the (biological) scientific establishment does not play fair (retaliation, ostricization, etc.)  In that regard, taking the side of scientists, except with regard to claims about science (and not claims about scientists) would be POV in this case.  Ra2007 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The view that taking the side of scientists, except with regard to claims about science, would be POV in this case of an article on a yet to be released documentary hardly seems controversial.  Is it?  Ra2007 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is difficult, and I do think we are talking past each other.  To the extent that the film makes statements about science, the POV of scientists is the NPOV.  To the extent that the film makes statements about scientists, the scientist's POV is not the NPOV.  Are we really in disagreement, or just not "hearing" each other? Ra2007 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ID equals creationism?

message: Yes. ID is bad science. Yes ID has religious basis.
Is this relevant to "Expelled"?
I have bolded the part I feel is getting too off-topic here.
It seems really oddly *tacked on* to the end of a good balanced paragraph.
#"Expelled" claims to have Stein *uncovering* some scientific dogma in Darwinism
#*However* that's a crock of crap. See [1]: "no credible scientific challenge" and "Scientists commonly hold religious faiths" while still pursuing good science.
Great!
But then we get this:
#"The consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted" -- riiight. Isn't this what "Expelled" claims? Science allows no dissent from Darwin, ergo, wouldn't we expect *scientists* to have *scientific* consensus.
#"the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science" --- riiight. Isn't this what "Expelled" claims too. Science allows no dissent from Darwin, ergo alternative ideas are not called *science*. The film challenges (well, sorta) the scientific community as being wrong in their conclusion, but that's not addressed here.
#"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled ..." -- riiight. How is this relevant to "Expelled" as described earlier, a film that uncovers some vast scientific conspiracy? What does the courts opinion of ID have to do with that?
It's pushing an "ID is not science" agenda. While that's correct, verifiable and even in line with our WP:UNDUE policy towards reality, it isn't relevant to "Expelled" as described in the paragraph. It's random rebuttal information that doesn't address the point presented.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to briefly set out the scientific side, straight out. If we belaboured the point, then it would be a coatrack, but a couple sentences about the mainstream view seems right, and in line with WP:FRINGE. Adam Cuerden talk 10:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree, we'll get there in the fullness of time. Relax and enjoy your wikibreak , all the best, .. dave souza, talk 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying I think putting the first two points: "Expelled sets out to do this" and "that's baseless crap" is fine. I feel the part I have bolded is belabouring the point, on getting off topic. It's not false or misleading, it just appears out of place.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And that's fine. Again I am not disagreeing with this. I am pointing out the present paragraph meanders off topic. Instead of merely rebutting the film's theme it has random factoids about ID thrust in.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably as good idea, in the early stages of this article, to bluntly state the scientific case up front, so that we can then discuss the film's allegations without giving undue weight to them. Now that we have a few reviews, we can reasonably abandon this stopgap and use the reviews to give more relevant critique. This is the problem with starting an article on a film six months early. Adam Cuerden talk 15:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have the exact opposite opinion. Bluntly stating the scientific opinion without an appropriate basis, being informative is not enough, is to be avoided, especially in a fledgeling article. Off-topic stuff is still off-topic. It's not about truth. Early in the article it was premature. Now it is just weird, because it is countering points not presented by the film. --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have reviews of the film, we should try and tie the criticism of ID to the film. E.g. the Colorado Confidential aarticle criticises them for ignoring Kitzmiller, as I recall.   to introduce Kitzmiller than what we're doing at the moment?  Anyway, off on holiday tomorrow, so that's about all I'll have time to say on the matter. Adam Cuerden talk 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coatrack: painting ID as bad science, rather than pointing out "Expelled" is based on stupidity 

message: As long as our core content policy, WP:NPOV says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" omiting how the scientific community, which this film attacks, views ID is never going to fly. I've restored the view of the scientific community, which is the majority view mind you, and will continue to do so as long as it keeps getting removed or downplayed to where it violates WP:UNDUE. I will not hesitate to seek to enforce WP:DE for any further POV pushing and disruptive editing and tendentious arguing at this article from recent arrivals and long term contributors who should know better. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However - surely we can use the articles we now have to give a direct, pointed criticism of points about ID raised in the film, instead of presenting the majority opinion generically? Adam Cuerden talk 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Adam. We should have a directed *attack* that specifically focuses on the topic of the article: "Expelled" the movie. --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy and presenting both sides of the issue 

message: "The consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus" is repeated over and over in the article.  This is a meaningless statement, "X is accepted because X".  Of course, most of this article is a rebuttal of intelligent design, which should go in the intelligent design article, and has no direct relevance to the movie.  Only comments about this movie in particular should be presented here; for the intelligent design vs. random mutation debate, point the reader at the main article.  scot (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the consensus on this page is moving in that direction (which might be why the big guns were called out).  It certainly seems to me to be a coatrack used to rail against Intelligent design and/or Creationism?  Let's start making this article better.  Ra2007 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that we need to make this article better.  It's in everyone's best interest to clean this up so that it stays on point.  Eseymour (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a reference analysis here.  Feel free to update.  Ra2007 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "I think the consensus on this page is moving in that direction " Hardly. Consensus with the ID supporters here maybe, that's all. And ID's status with the scientific community is relevant to any ID article I'd think. Odd nature (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We believe it's true because we said it's true. 

message: I've reorganised the lead a bit to focus on the arguments presented in the film, as seen by the reviews we have. The best review to date is the NYT, and I've quoted its descriptions of ID in "quote marks" while providing referenced points by ID proponents denying that it is creationism, as requested earlier in this thread. I've left the references regarding the status of ID in place, but think that could probably be trimmed a bit as long as the majority view is clearly shown. .. dave souza, talk 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely better. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim and refocus 

message: Filll reverted some edits I made to the intro (in what must be record time, I must say!)  I believe the tone of the intro is biased; it sets up the article as an attack against the movie rather than a neutral description of it.  Saying that the movie "repeats the creationist claim" clearly is not a neutral phrasing.  Secondly, the word "resurrect" implies that those dang old creationists just won't leave that issue alone--just say that the movie focuses on or touches on the controversy.  Lastly and least importantly, I think it's inappropriate that the first thing the article says about the movie is that it's "controversial."  It has been criticized, and that's appropriately cited.  I don't think enough people even know about this movie yet to say it's controversial.  Thanks.  Eseymour (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already plenty controversial. Read the linked references. And look at their site and trailer etc. It is definitely creationist and repeats the same arguments. By NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE, WEIGHT etc the mainstream scientific view should be the dominant view here. And it is clear what the scientific view is.--Filll (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mainstream view can be appropriately represented without using biased language.  Just because a movie represents a creationist POV doesn't mean the Wikipedia article about it should be written like a hostile op-ed. Eseymour (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Just because scientific "consensus" (as if science were a democracy) says something doesn't mean that other ideas should be rejected without further thought. Consensus has changed many times in our history, and our biggest advances come from people questioning the status quo. Also remember we want a neutral point of view for Wikipedia articles, not a point of view biased in favor of one particular viewpoint. CobraA1 (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, if you look at the website, you will see these are creationist claims; "life is not because of random processes, all life acts as though it were designed by a loving god, there is no survival of the fittest, etc". To imply that Newton, Galileo and Einstein were creationists is the height of nonsense. This is the purest horse manure. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which website are you talking about?  I haven't added any new material to this article.  Other than changing some wording to improve readability and neutral tone, I only restored a major chunk which another editor took out.  That chunk consisted of one of the movie's producers defending himself against accusations.  I think it's only fair that if you include people claiming someone did something nefarious, you include the accused person's defense of him/herself.  By the way, please avoid using language like "This is the purest horse manure."  It's hardly conducive to constructive editing.  Thanks.  Eseymour (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Having read all the sources, it strikes me that the intro is indeed biased, but in favor of the film and it's producers. Just the opposite of what you claim. Not only is ID controversial, but as the sources here and the ID article prove it's utterly rejected with the academic communinity and found to be a form of creationism in the courts. This article is so gentle on those points that it give undue weight to the film producer's viewpoint. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm fine with the intro as it stands now.  ZayZayEM agreed with me and removed some of the loaded words.  I disagree with your implication that this article needs to have a discussion of ID itself; that belongs on the Intelligent Design article. Eseymour (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but WP:NPOV requires that all notable views be presented and in proportion to which they are held. I've added the majority view of ID with the appropriate sources to correct this. Odd nature (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it doesn't read that way at all; in fact, the opening as it now stands is quite accurate.  To comprehend why the opening is accurate, one need merely look at the premise of the movie. Ponder the premise and your eyes will be opened.  Ephphatha! •Jim62sch• 12:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased tone of intro 

message: In the course of edit wars and trouble, this article has become somewhat repetitious and chopped up. I have avoided cleaning it up and just slowly added more material, but at some point we have to reduce the detritus and repetitiou. However, to people that want this to just be some pro-ID article promoting the movie, this does NOT mean we will remove the balancing material on the other side.--Filll (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just don't make it sound as it it's being hostile to one point of view for another. Remember Wikipedia's policy is neutral point of view, not consensus point of view. CobraA1 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it does not have to be sympathetic - but it does have to be neutral. FYI, this is an article about a movie, not science, so I'm not concerned about the scientific majority. CobraA1 (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course there should be a small section about its controversial nature - but the vast majority of the article should be about the movie itself: Who the actors are, how well it's expected to do in the box office, a summary of the theme, what the critics say, etc. Just because the theme of the movie takes a stab at science doesn't mean we should try to duplicate the creation-evolution controversy article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraA1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *just going to butt in here. It's a documentary. It doesn't have actors (unless there are some dodgy re-enactments). The only *actor* is Ben Stein, and even then, despite Premise's harping on, being in Ferris Beuller was a small role, and the not the highlight of Ben's career.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, NPOV says we keep a keep a neutral point of view, and FRINGE is in line with original research: I can't make up something or take something with only a dozen or so followers and put it in. "If it was not for its controversial nature, it would not even have an article here on Wikipedia at all." --Maybe, maybe not. And yes, the notability is going to ultimately depend on how well it does at the box office. If it became a popular movie for some reason other than the controversy, it would still be notable. Otherwise, we can throw out all of the Star Trek, Star Wars, and Stargate articles because they don't center much on controversy. Controversy is not the only measure of notability by any means. CobraA1 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: CobraA1, you seem to be sadly misinformed about NPOV. Please read the policy carefully, with particular attention to NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Also note the requirement under WP:NOR and WP:V for the article to rely on reliable third-party secondary sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not mean sympathetic. It also means non-hostile. It means neutral. You can negatively criticise without being hostile, and this article certainly needs work on that. That aside, this movie's notability has stemmed from it's controversy (not the controversy the producers hoped for though), it will be the focus of the article. This movie will likely always be notable primarily for its controversy, and seconarily for the inanity of it's claims, these two points will likely always be the focus of this article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit repetitious in spots 

message: I wonder if the reason for the use of the word dupe is this article: . However, I support its replacment with mislead to make the article more accessible.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duping 

message: For more on this treacly subject, read New Survey Supports Evolution, But Critics Disagree (the FASBJ article that it is based around can be found here). HrafnTalkStalk 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "viscously persecuted" 

message: Souza, first of all, looking up this page, agreement is the last thing I see.  Most people seem to think the article as is stands is just ugly.  Obviously it's idiocy to teach ID in classrooms, and there are plenty of articles on wikipedia to emphasize this point.  To regurgitate all that content straight into the lead of this article wastes space and makes an unreadable mess.  The resulting tone is one of impatience - as though you can't speak factually about the film for more than five seconds without needing to remind us yet again that it is wrong.  This tone continues through the article, but I thought I'd take a stab at getting it out of the intro. -MBlume (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, your suggestion violates WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in no way saying that the article should not refute the claims made in the film.  I'm simply saying that there is a great deal of information in the article that is not necessary.  For example, the long-winded description of a newspaper which reviewed the film - should we do this each time we site the New York Times?  More importantly, the (many) problems of ID are repeated every other sentence.  Is it not enough to state what the film is, how it was produced, what it attempts to accomplish, and why it fails?  I have no wish to change the factual content of this article, I simply feel that its defensive and combative tone is not beneficial to the project as a whole. -MBlume (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll read that page in more detail tonight - thank you for directing me to it.  At the moment all I can say is that there must be a way to do both.  To accurately represent the reasons for the majority view, avoid endorsement of the ID line, while still maintaining the maturity, the calmness, in short, the gravitas, of the better-written Wikipedia articles. -MBlume (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want to look at a highly rated article in this area, see intelligent design.--Filll (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up intro 

message: Although I think it is highly likely someone will revert my addition of "documentary" back to the article, I would liek to point out that I have repeatedly brought this issue to the talk page and have been met with zero opposition once I have presented appropriate points.
This film consists of non-fiction footage, no actors and no pre-rehearsed script. It purports to document factual events, and while perhaps not presenting an accurate assembly of information, remains to be such a film.
Documentaries have been made dissenting against Einstein's theory of relativity , it is likely full of crap, but it's still a documentary, because it isn't fiction.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I can understand the desire to avoid suggesting that this film is objective, ZayZayEM is right in pointing to the chequered history of the documentary film. The John Grierson classics and films such as Night Mail are not lacking in pov. Risking the wrath of Mike Godwin, the most apposite example in relation to Expelled must surely be Leni's Triumph of the Will. In short, I agree with ZayZayEM, and won't be reverting the changes. .. dave souza, talk 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary status 

message: This paragraph attempts to contrast (the only use of "However" I know) two seperate totally unrelated ideas
#The film describes academic disputes and claims a conspiracy to keep God out of school
#A court ruled ID is religious in nature
How are these points related in a way that requires direct contrast through use of "however". "However" would be useful if we were dispelling that
#The academic disputes exist (nope)
#God is not being kept out of schools (nope, it actually supports this statement)
#there is a conspiracy to keep God out of school (again, no, it neither confirms or denies this, it just shows that a court ruling is at least in part responsible for keeping God out of schools, this could be in addition, or as aprt of a conspiracy)
The court ruling statement also presents information unrelated to the original statement about the film content.
#That ID violates the Constitution, the first statement does not say that ID is Constitutional (perhaps the Constitution is part of the conspiracy?). 
#That intelligent design is a religious view, the first statement does not say that intelligent design is notv a religious view, it actually ties ID to religion by expliciting tying it to support for God in laboratories and classrooms.
This paragraph needs fixing. Mostly by removing "However". Expelled does not present a fictional scenario. ID/God are being kept out of schools, this is true. It presents a bizzare interpretation of this scenario, that this is somehow a bad scenario (in both terms of evil and poor science). The courts response to intelligent design does not appropriately dismiss this interpretation, it provides an odd juxtaposition of tit-for-tat that is not directed at Expelled, but at ID.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ID/God are being kept out of schools by the 1st Amendment, and taking your point, I've removed the "however" and made the statement less convoluted. Hope you find this a useful clarification. . .dave souza, talk 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the "however" was meant to indicate that KvD constrains the parameters of these disputes, by ruling ID religious/not science (and thus precluding some viewpoints' favoured outcomes). I agree however that the wording is rather clumsy. HrafnTalkStalk 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaking the lead 

message: The real irony here is that this incredibly biased entry about the film is evidence that what the film asserts is indeed true!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.134.109 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that only one side should be presented? You might be aware of the rules of WP. We have to present both sides, or all sides if there are more than 2, as long as they are significant. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and related pages.--Filll (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately Wikipedia contains what is objectively verifiable, not The Truth™.  I say unfortunately, it's unfortunate if you think Conservapedia is a more reliable encyclopaedia than Wikipedia can ever be. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the greater irony is that Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html where he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... " and proposes editing pages on intelligent design, , evolution, or creationism. "Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" A longer transcript has been posted at WP:ANI#Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. ... dave souza, talk 11:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are also wrong: we can stop it, if the need arises, and they will almost certainly alienate so many people in the process that it will make the job of getting their POV into the article substantially harder.  This is a lesson several people have learned the hard way. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Quite. The film is blatant propaganda, and should be viewed as such. I have never come across any reliable source properly independent of the Discovery Institute who seriously advocated the idea that ID is anything other than creationism. As a Christian I find their stance puzzling: it's almost as if they are ashamed to admit that theirs is a religious perspective. And it fools nobody, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy, creationism, and probably ID, is taught in some British schools, including state funded City Academies which have been sponsored by Reg Vardy the car dealer. This was shown on Channel 4 in The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins, which is worth watching on YouTube or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Irony 

message: Aren't we maybe giving a little too much undue weight to the speculations and opinions of one person? It's hard to see this paragraph as that relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 13:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the discussion of Mathis, one of the producers, not Greene. Also Greene is notable; we just do not have an article on him yet. Also, I disagree with this removal:--Filll (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greene's article was deleted as non notable. And I actually agree with... most of JzG's deletions. 90% of that section was pedantic and boring. It might be worth keeping mention of the AiG/DI/christian organisations promotions of it, though, as, though not notable individually, they're notable en masse.. Adam Cuerden talk 16:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greene interview 

message: I pruned the promotion section down to something more appropriate.  This is not snakes on a plane, I don't see any evidence it has become a viral marketing phenomenon, and "so controversial you'll lose your job" or whatever is just marketing hype.  I'm not convinced the quote about Newton and Galileo belongs, either - the world back then was vastly different.  And we know what happened last time science and religion collided big-time: "and still it moves".  The ID movement is a very modern and very American concept, specifically created to avoid the anti-establishment clause; to try to compare this deliberately-manufactured controversy with the work of historical figures during a period when science was evolving into what it is today does not strike me as relevant. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not be relevant in the UK. It is very very relevant in the US. It is hard from the UK perspective to understand the situation in the US. And this movie and its claims has substantial relevance. Even a good fraction of the candidates for president subscribe to these ideas, and the fate of education and scientific research in the US is in the crosshairs.--Filll (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "the US" comprises 300 million people. While some of them obviously care a lot about "intelligent design", I would yet have to be convinced that any of this has "substantial relevance" to the USA as a whole. And even assuming that intelligent design is of substantial relevance, from this it would not follow that this movie in particular inherits much of that relevance just by virtue of being about something of relevance. dab (𒁳) 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of those 300 million people, at least 200 million or more subscribe to the Discovery Institute position, and repeat back to pollsters and interviewers the policies of the DI when asked, including teach the controversy and similar campaign slogans. And this includes a large fraction of the politicians in the US. This is a huge issue in the country with the largest scientific and technical infrastructure in the world.--Filll (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're misreading what I said.  The promotion of the film is not significant as film promotion, and the relevance of the DI to Newton is as close to zero as makes no difference; DI is fighting a rearguard action against the scientific consensus, whereas Newton was helping to develop the scientific method. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruned 

message: The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God - I take issue with this statement. Science is materialistic, and any theory that requires or  admits the possibility of a Supreme Being is inherently unscientific. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember theistic evolution. However, it is possible that the statement could be better worded.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful, Raul654, that's an ID line, claiming that science is materialistic! Science is secular and uses methodological naturalism, not materialism in its common usage. Scientific theories admit the possibility of a Supreme Being, but as that possibility is untestable don't take it into account. Agree that phrasing can be improved, and the point made more explicit. .... dave souza, talk 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I did conflate materialism with naturalism (In find these abstract philisophical concepts confusing). However, to get back to my original point -- as soon as your scientific framework admits the possibility of a supreme being, "God did it" becomes a legitimate scientific explanation. More to the point, I'm sure there are scientists who reject ID because it is associated with God. (Dawkins, for example) Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're basically right, but intelligent design is built on muddling up these terms and trying to persuade people that evolution=Metaphysical naturalism=materialism=atheism, and even though Dawkins essentially agrees with that logic, he does so from a philosophical conviction and accepts that people like Ken Miller are both religious and proponents of evolution. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Even if you allow the supernatural into science, and God into science as a cause, it turns out that all the science done so far in ID is just pure nonsense. After 20 years or more of trying, and the expenditure of many millions of dollars, all they have to show for it is failure after failure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. There are many great thinkers who have contributed brilliantly to the question of the supernatural. The ID people just cannot compete, not because the topic is fundamentally invalid, but simply because they are incompetent. If you are interested in the supernatural, turn to Kant, or Jung, or Pascal, or any number of brilliant philosophers. The ID people are not even remotely in that league. They compare like a teenage garage band to a symphony orchestra. God take pity on America if this is the state of the art of their philosophy today. dab (𒁳) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous statement

message: I'm going to have to say I do not agree with the recent restructure.
Dividing the now "scientific criticism" away from the "claims presented in the film" section it provides a rebuttal for is not a good idea. It divides the article and allows internal Forking of POV viewpoints. NPOV is best maintained by keeping opposed statements close together.
I think we should rollback to the earlier version.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not recommended to divide out criticism in this way. It is too easy to just remove it. I am going to revert since all these "improvements" have just turned the article into an increasingly biased mess with fewer and fewer references.--Filll (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still in favour of streamlining references. References that simply repeat each other without synergy and redundant off-topic agenda driven list should be avoided. "Example" style references that conflict with the facts being presented should also be avoided.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not. Filll has a valid point about lumping the scientific community's view into a "criticism" section; it marginalized that view, which happens to be the majority view, and gave the view point of the film's producers and ID proponents undue weight. I've revert you're rewrite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are two separate issues. I've retweaked wording on certain issues that had been maintained during Filll's structural rollback. No scientific references were removed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent restructure 

message: "The film has been described as gaining media attention for a manufactured controversy, demonizing "Big Science" and claiming nonexistent scientific credibility for intelligent design to lend plausibility to the idea that evolution it is a notion to be believed rather than a scientific fact to be known, or a scientific theory to be accepted.(32)"
Has additionally been using this reference from The Christian Post. I do not know what this article is there for.
It certainly does not support the claim of a "manufactured controversy". Despite being full of usual creationist propoganda (straight from ARN) that attacks alleged "the naturalistic Darwinian creation story", it does not "demonize" Darwinism, nor does it focus on Expelled, but merely mention the movie in context of ARN's 2007 "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories".
It does not really support significant "media attention" (if its not significant media attention, it's not important to Wikipedia). It is one right-wing fundamentalist online publication, I would not count it as MSM.
If it is there to somehow balance NPOV through addition of a right-wing fundamentalist source to balance the secular History News Network - ummm... that's not how NPOV works. (ie. your balancing source must still be relevant and consistent with the produced text, or otherwise produce new text to counter/balance other text)
The History News Network citation is sufficient and details this "manufactured controversy" in the context of Expelled:
Note that the HNN points out this manufactured controversy existed before "Expelled" and is only going to excacerbated by the film's presence. I think the wikiepdia-text should be modified to better reflect this. To me it seems to suggest Expelled is creating the manufactured controversy, or responsible for placing it in the media spotlight. If its changed, spell excacerbate correctly =).
--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't use sources that don't back up statements 

message: Awfully unwieldy, don't you think? Adam Cuerden talk 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see below. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what Adam was complaining about was already corrected.--Filll (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: No matter how much rebuttal of ID you think should be in this article, it is important that you understand what the article is about after reading the introduction. At present this is not the case because the description of the film is mingled with all kinds of comments on the film (although perhaps valid). I propose to keep the description and the reception of the announced movie separate. The first paragraph of the introduction would become something like this:
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film  which claims that scientists persecute supporters of intelligent design. It further claims that there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things conservatives consider to be societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood. Starring Ben Stein, the film is due to be released in February 2008."
After that there is room for the necessary comments. I think this will make the lead clearer.Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem more in line with standard practice in Intelligent design, Homeopathy, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually segregating criticism into sections is discouraged on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but explaiining what the subject is, then immediately setting out the criticism that was being delayed, so long as it stays in the lead, seems reasonable. We shouldn't feel the need to remove it, but if we're careful how we write the first paragraph, a brief delay before the full brunt comes in won't hurt. Adam Cuerden talk 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't object to this. I think Adam is correct; as long as we have the criticism up front and in the lead it isn't unreasonable. As it is now, the criticism being interwoven makes it hard to read. (It also gives it an impression of not being NPOV. I think it is more or less NPOV but this style can easily lead to other impressions. And the appearance of NPOV is almost as important as NPOV itself). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify, I don't favor this edit which removes all mention of creationism from the lead. Two separate paragraphs is ok. But removal of material is not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not favour segregation of the criticism found in the "Claims presented in the film" section. I do feel BvL's suggestion would be a better lead paragraph for the article. It quickly summarises what "Expelled" is without any bias either way, through appropriate use of the word "claim". --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed it is not segregation in the article, but at least in the introduction. If anyone can propose a second paragraph for such an introduction it would be very welcome. Again I think that simply replacing the current lead by the above proposed paragraph will lead to reverts instead of expansion. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph of lead 

message: Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.
The claim that "Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" is in error.  Here is the text of the of that clause:   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  Accordingly, only acts of Congress that establish religion violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  So-called "promotion(s) of religion in the American public schools" have nothing to do with the First Amendment.  Nothing at all.
What may (or may not) cause "promotion of religion in American public schools" to in any sense violate the U.S. Constitution is a rather strange application of the 14th Amendment to the Establishment Clause.  The relevant text from this amendment is as follows:  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."  What the SCOTUS has asked the American people to believe for the last half century or so is that for the states (or local governmental entities, such a communities or school boards) to do anything which might be viewed as promoting a specific religion or religion in general constitutes an "abridgement" of the "privileges or immunities" of one or more of the citizens of that state.  Of course, that is a rather bizarre bit of twisted logic that SCOTUS has saddled us with.  They have pulled a fast one on the rest of us.
This is a situation we need to correct.  If we, the people of the United States, want to limit how our states, communities, or school boards may promote religion, by all means let us do so.  But the Constitution in no sense allows our betters in black robes to make these limits for us.  They have no constitutional warrant for doing so.  None whatsoever.  Let us stop letting them get away with this sort of thing.
Duckman1957 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to wikipedia, Duckman.  This is obviously something you feel passionate about, but this talk page is reserved only for issues related to the editing of the article about this film, and we are all firmly discouraged from using it to give our own personal opinions.  So while letting you have the last word, we need to end the discussion here .Professor marginalia (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Supreme Court has, in numerous decisions dating back to the US Civil War, found in favor of the Incorporation doctorine that the protections afforded by the constitution generally apply to all levels of government. Thus, "Congress" in that clause refers not just to congress but to government at the federal, state, and local level. And in the future, this talk page is not the place for off-topic rants. Raul654 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No offense, but this appears to me to be WP:OR which we do not allow. Do you have a WP:RS for this view? If so, present it so we can change the text accordingly.--Filll (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Establishment 

message: This article is simply an essay about how evil the film is.  It is simply POV.  
A NPOV version would be to describe the film then describe the controversyFairchoice (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole article is POV and people keep reverting it to POV 

message: PZ Myers pointed to a case where: "Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said she faced a campaign to get her fired because she expressed the view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time." It was led by Phillip E. Johnson.
Myers points to this case in relation to Caroline Crocker's case. Should it be included? WWORBERTS (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article on "Expelled". Not Caroline Crocker or Nancey Murphy or Phillip E. Johnson or Creation-evolution controversy. Myers' blog entry makes no mention of "Expelled" movie.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Crocker's in the Expelled movie, according to the wikipedia article. Which I sourced and was just reverted. (Her part in the movie remains, but is not sourced.) Also Johnson is in the film, but that's a minor point. WWORBERTS (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she is in the movie, but this information remains irrelevant . It's about Crocker, not "Expelled". Only information pertinent to Crocker's role in "Expelled" is relevant here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing view: Theologian faces a campaign for fire her for belief in evolution 

message: The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things the film portrays as societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design.[10] The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist[12] and within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[13] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[14][15][16] but is viewed as creationism.[17]
I think we should delete this paragraph from the intro, it's information is already covered in two other places on the article and the second part of it just seems to be somebody saying PS Intelligent design is wrong creating a rather akward paragraph in my opinion. Anybody agree with me?  Cryo921 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course the intro repeats things in the body. We are required to by WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is repeated in the intro as well. Cryo921 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry the only repetition I see is required to satisfy WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills" second part of second sentenceis were it is repeated in the intro Also shouldn't we remove the alleged? Cryo921 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Points have to be introduced in context to avoid giving undue weight to the claims presented in the film, and "alleged" is a concise way of not endorsing the view that, for example, planned parenthood is a societal ill. If the first paragraph was expanded to make it clear that the link from evolution theory to these "ills" is an extreme minority view among experts, and that evolution is accepted by consensus on the evidence rather than the alleged coercion, the third paragraph could usefully be incorporated in the Claims presented in the film section, and the description of the point in the Reviews section summarised more briefly. .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Glen, best to post at the foot of the page if you want to introduce a new section, and by the way the link to your article on Consciousness as electric field interactions is rather off topic here. Anyway, the point was discussed earlier and while some see a case for not dignifying the film with the title "documentary", that's a type of film rather than a comment on the truthfulness or content of the film. The classic case being The Triumph of the Will, which is an excellent documentary not highly valued for truthfulness or objectivity. .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dave, thanks for the response.  Obviously I don't know much about these things, and put my remarks under other remarks regarding the first paragraph because it's called a "documentary" in the first paragraph (my webpage has contact information and identifies me, on the other issue--otherwise I'd virtually be anonymous).  I appreciate the link to the "documentary," Triumph of the Will, yet I'm confused about the purpose of doing so, since at the time of this writing it is clearly identified by Wikipedia as a "propaganda film," not simply as a "documentary."  So I'm still left wondering why Expelled is identified as a documentary when similarly misleading movies are identified as "propaganda films."  Glen Davidson (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this paragraph? 

message: Tried to add it but couldn't quite figure out how to make the hyper-link work. Note: Credit for writing this film has been wrongfully attributed to Kevin Miller the conservative talk show host. That's the wrong guy. The person who wrote this film is Kevin Miller the screenwriter. His personal web site is www.kevinmillerxi.com.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millstone99 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is not prominent enough to have a Wikipedia article, I think we will not link to him. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Millstone99 it would be nice of you to let the other editors here know that you are in fact Kevin Miller who has an interest in the movie.  You'd also be wise to let the editors of the Ben Stein article know you have a vested interest there as well.  And by looking at your edits is it safe to assume you've matured some and won't be vandalizing th Richard Dawkins article anymore? And please stop link spamming your blog, it's not what Wiki is about.  Thank you Angry Christian (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Miller's imdb data 

message: From http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981021.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=expelled
"I'm hoping that (schools) will at least allow in science classes someone to say, 'What if it's not Darwinism, but what if there was some intelligent designer who created the universe?"
First of all, Ben seems to not understand that "Darwinism" does not have anything to do with the universe.  Cosmology is not biology Ben, if you're going to attack "big science" you should at least take an introductory science class first.  Otherwise you'll look like an idiot.  Secondly, it would seem Ben is in fact advocating teaching IDC in the classroom.  I believe there was some debate on that subject previously.  When a guy who's saying we should teach IDC in science class cannot tell the difference between "Darwinism" and cosmology is it any wonder people are hostile to seeing this nonsense taught in out public school rooms?  I think it was Kevin Padian who said "ID makes you stupid" I'm thinking maybe he's on to something. 
I wonder if all of Expelled is this riduculous, confusing biology with cosmology?  I seem to recall Stein being interviwed and saying "Darwinism cannot answer how life began!" as if he was onto something.  Animal Husbandry cannot explain how life began either, that is a different branch of science.  Here is the challenge, how do we incorporate/document how petently wrong Ben is without coming off like we're hostile to him.  The readership should see that Ben does not even understand fundamental biology, or prhaps he's lying and saying crazy stuff like this to fUrther his cause.   I prefer thinking he's just ignorant (on matters of science) and not a liar.  Maybe we can kick around some ideas of how to incorporate this in the article in a NPOV manner. Angry Christian (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know from Win Ben Stein's money he is not a complete dope. He is also a lawyer, so he has to understand why you shouldnt identify the creator etc. He also is a practicing Jew, and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven. He has to understand all this. He is not stupid. I am wondering if he is not just taking their money and making them look incredibly stupid by playing along with them. So I frankly have my doubts that Stein is actually believing any of this. I think it is a very very clever way to undercut these flakes.--Filll (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven." -- can you support this? I'm not familiar with any Christian, "fundamentalist" or otherwise, that hates Jews. I'm aware that antisemitism may have been a problem in our past, but I don't think it's been something that has been an issue for a long time. Even AiG, a creationist organization, makes this statement: "I don’t know where you could get the idea that the Bible fosters anti-Semitism. You could not have studied the Bible at all to have this idea. Indeed the Bible, including the New Testament, was written by Jews. How could it be anti-Semitic!?" -- if creationists, who are considered to be more extreme than the ID movement, are against antisemitism, then why should I believe the ID movement is antisemitic?  Besides, what does this have to do with the article?  —CobraA1 18:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The relations between fundamentalist Christians and jews is an interesting one. Most of them still hang on to the "christ killer" pathos and don't care for Jews personally. On the other hand, these same people strongly support the existence of Israel. At first glance, this might seem incongruous. You have to realize that the reason most of them support Israel is because they feel that the end times are approaching, and the end times cannot happen if there's no Israel. They also believes that the Jews will be the first ones wiped out during the tribulation. So Filll isn't quite right, but he's in the ball-park. (Note that this group includes: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye) Raul654 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Raul654 is right on the money. Remember Dr. Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptists stating that God does not hear the prayers of a Jew. And Falwell stating the same thing. And Fred Phelps protesting at the holocaust museum in DC. And the statements of various evangelical and fundamentalist leaders that the AntiChrist is a Jew. And suggestions that the unsaved to be slaughtered in Left Behind: Eternal Forces include Jews. And on and on and on... They support Israel because the Jews have to be in Israel to fulfill the prophecy of the end of the world they believe, but all the Jews will then die if they remain Jewish, according to their version of the prophecy.--Filll (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see no Biblical support for hating Jews, so I'll have to disagree with them. It seems to me that the meaning of the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are very different from what they used to be - it used to be they had very specific meanings, which have been lost and now people throw them around without respect for what they actually used to mean. "Fundamentalist" in particular means somebody believes in the five fundamentals of Christianity, which have nothing to do with how somebody views those with the Jewish faith. Personally, I think Israel has the right to exist, but not for the same reasons. For one thing, I'm not going to advocate genocide, and I think they have a long and deep cultural history that is certainly worth preserving. In addition, is there really any reason for anybody to advocate that they cease to exist? I'd never advocate destroying a nation without a very, very good reason for doing so.  —CobraA1 11:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read Martin Luther on the subject you'll find that he gave some very influential reasons. Evangelical has long covered a wide range of opinions, both agreeing with and opposing evolution. The fundamentalists in the US initiated the anti-evolution movement in the 1920s. However, your own beliefs aren't significant in terms of this discussion page, which is about ways to improve the article. Got any proposals? . .. dave souza, talk 12:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocates teaching intelligent design creationism in the science classroom 

message: This edit by Davesouza  appears to introduce too much information not directly related to "Expelled". I understand that because  "Expelled" is being used a propoganda tool for conservative legislators, information on the so-called "Academic Freedom Acts" might be contextual. However this text block is far to specific to the Florida act, which is not a response to "Expelled" but the recent failure/success in school standard lobbying by creationists to amend evolution to being a theory (Evolution was instead marked as a theory).
Is Hays' really stupid "half-monkey half-human" quip or the fact that they are "unable to name any teachers in Florida who have been disciplined for being critical of evolution in the science classroom." really adding any extra description of Expelled, or providing further context for the film.?
We have a section entitled "Screenings" that seems for like "Florida Academic Freedom bill and Alan Hays".
Wikipedia is not indiscriminate information.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you'll have noted, the addition summarises main points from  Ben Stein weighs in on evolution fight - 03/10/2008 - MiamiHerald.com and improvements are of course welcome. It's significant that the film, before release to the public or any open showings to film critics, is being openly used to influence legislators considering a bill to alter education relating to evolution. Hay's quip is of course his point of view, and reflects the educational background. Their inability to name teachers who have been "expelled" or even disciplined goes to the heart of the premises of the film. Obviously the author of the newspaper article felt the background information was necessary and appropriate in discussing this showing of the film.  The section was titled "Screening to Florida legislators" and in my opinion the issue is significant enough to have a stand alone section, but the more general title accommodates the showing to various Christian conservative leaders such as James Dobson, as noted by the NYT. "Screenings" can also accommodate any further significant private screenings. .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not news, nor a media outlet. There are different uses of the medium. Miami Herald has a duty to inform its readers on a wide spectrum of information - such as views of politicians. I still fail to see how the comments or views of a conservative politician not involved in the production of this film is relevant. He is the target audience, but is not an authority on these matters, and his opinion here serves little purpose other then to expouse his stupidity and ignorance. Right now it is too focused on Florida-specific incident. That might be okay for the Miami Herald, but not for wikipedia.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly looks like the first significant use of the film, extending beyond focussed publicising to sympathetic groups. I'm pressed for time to review it right now, got proposals for improvements? .. dave souza, talk 09:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We do not yet know what sort of reception the film is going to get. This Florida screening might be the most significant event associated with the film. When it opens, it might disappear almost immediately. So...--Filll (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Ben Stein thinks it's significant in relation to the movie, see the , ,  and . More later, .. dave souza, talk 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The movie-legislation connection certainly seems to be getting considerable news coverage, at least if Google-news is anything to go by. It seems to be a three-ring circus, with both Ben Stein & the DI's Casey Luskin (who let the cat out of the bag that the bill would make it easier to teach ID) in town hyping Florida's clone of the DI's model Academic Freedom bill. HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And if any of the legislators in the audience talked, they could be in trouble – see  ..... dave souza, talk 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Update:  and usefully  "we'd like to credit the majority of Florida legislators who stayed away from the private prescreening of a movie Wednesday night — an event that wasn't open to the public and press.....  the evening at downtown's IMAX Theater, which was rented out to Mr. Stein's group for $940, was a bust, with only about 100 people attending the movie. And most of those weren't lawmakers ". See also  and . . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before anyone with an agenda brings it up