Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Scrolling references

Worked well for me, so I've restored them. Anyone got problems? . . dave souza, talk 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I happen to like scrolling references, as it shortens the overall length (in scrolling, not bytes) of the page. However, they are not supposed to be used per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Scrolling lists. Alas, I guess they should be removed. --Ali'i 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Scroll boxes are not to be used in main article space. See Template:Scroll box, Template_talk:Scroll box, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_11#Template:Scrollref. Scroll boxes in articles cause accessibility and printing problems. The latter is likely due to some css bugs in the MediaWiki software, but I have been unable to find a suitable workaround. The {{scroll box}} template is currently disabled in the main namespace. silly rabbit (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, fair enough. .. dave souza, talk 15:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame, it really improved the look of the article. Saksjn (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflating opinions of producers and claims made in film

Has there been much headway on shifting links at Expelled Exposed? Editor comments in Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Claims_that_intelligent_design_advocates_are_persecuted suggest the links are unstable there now, and given the volume of edits both on the article and the talk page it's not easy to see where things sit at any moment. The "opinions" rendered by participants captured in the film vs opinions offered by the various players surrounding the film need more careful delineation. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean the www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle link giving the producers' opinion? That's the one with the hidden comment "Keeps changing (and not in Wayback), so unreliable unless archived (using WebCite or similar)". I have a pdf taken of the google cache of that page as retrieved on 6 Apr 2008, and some of the text is available at A Christian apologetics ministry dedicated to keeping the "false" out of doctrine, so that should be true :) There are no links to Expelled Exposed in that section. .. dave souza, talk 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering if there is any way to deal with this technical issue, I tried something, but the wording sucks, still it is more helpful than what we had before. Merzul (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a tad bit more with a link to a cached page that (I think, don't quote me) NCDave archived the last time this all came up. Yes, my wording isn't great either. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I mispoke. I meant expelledthemovie. Gaaah. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Concise sentences

It's not exactly unique to this article, but there are quite a few sentences that are inordinately long. I'm been fixing some of them, but editors should keep in mind that persiods exist for a reason. One sentence had nearly 100 words in it (and it included a multiple-sentence quote).Heqwm (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits do seem like useful wording fixes, e.g. "proposed" -> "hypothesize" to avoid the ambiguity that Lynch proposed the process. Your first edit was reverted because of prior editorializing that had been added before you started editing. You can repeat those edits, but since this is a very controversial article, please make edits in very small batches. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good example

Battlefield Earth (film) today's featured article is probably an excellent example for contributors to this article. While a fiction film, not a documentary it is a widely panned movie with a few good reviews similar to Expelled Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Except there were not the same sort of controversies, and Battlefield Earth is long out of the theatres, and there is no political agenda and 100 year long legal battle about public schools associated with Battlefield Earth. There is also no Wedge Document associated with Battlefield Earth. BE and the promoters of BE have also not called to drastically change the scientific enterprise and called scientists atheists and killers and worse. I guarantee if any of those things were true, that article would be far more contentious, like this one.--Filll (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But other than that, they are very similar. :-)   --RenniePet (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a fallacious WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. What are we supposed to draw from it?--Filll (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? Battlefield Earth is a FEATURED article, not a piece of crap, and it, as with this article, describes the controversy surrounding the movie (while it doesn't have the same level, it does have controversy because it is associated with Tom Cruise and scientology) as well as the fact that it is generally regarded as a crap and failure of movie in great detail, similar to this article. It is an excellent example of the fact that when a movie is a piece of crap, as Expelled is, the article is going to be overwhelmingly negative, as this article is, which we have gotten a lot of baseless complaints about. Both also spend much more time describing the criticism of and the problems with the movie (in that case, it's because of a shit plot, stupid camera angles, a production company that commited fraud etc whereas in this case it's because of lies, misleading quotation, interviews conducted under false pretenses, copyright issues etc) as well as the background (As I already mentioned in BE it's TC and Hubbard+Scientology, in this case it's the Discovery Institute, creationism, the ID movement etc) then they do actually discussing the plot of the movie which is perfectly logical and in accordance to wikipedia policies. I never said it is a perfect thing to follow, but there are areas where of similarity, and it's helpful to compare the two to help editors understand what's the best way to do things. I've found people spend far too much time following other articles, without considering whether that other article is doing things right in the first place. For example, An Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11 are often brought up (including by you IIRC) even though these are both B-class articles (similar to this) and have a lot of differences (while there was a lot of politics and controversy surrounding both of them, they were well received in general compared to this which as I may point out again has been widely panned except for a few good reviews). Remember that featured articles are the BEST wikipedia has to offer. While not perfect, it's generally true that they offer a lot of helpful hints on how to best write an article and given the small number of them (~2000 IIRC) we should take hints were we can and IMHO, BE actually has sufficient similarities to be useful. Obviously were this movie differs, we have to consideer how we are going to best handle that and in some cases, we might find it better to go another route, I'm not saying we have to follow them exactly but it was only a suggestion and I don't see how my comment could be interpreted as to mean I think we should follow it exactly. I appreciate that there are a large number of trolls and other more well meaning but equally problematic editors who come to the talk page and complain about nonsense, but you really need to be less defensive and actually think about the point being made before commenting. P.S. Do remember that this article is primarily about the movie, not about the ID/creationist movement. While the ID/creationist movement is strongly associated with the movie we should not turn this article into an attack on the ID movement but simply a summarisation of facts about the movie, which will of course include the fact that the movie was widely panned, is full of lies, is associated with the ID movement etc etc Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

N.B. In case your not aware, OTHERCRAPEXISTS only applies to articles, not topics of articles Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

need to be less defensive and actually think about the point being made before commenting I could say the same thing. I agree that the name is somewhat infelicitous, and the text is not precisely applicable here. However, I do not think the existence of this other article means very much.--Filll (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting comparison in that the article isn't shy about pointing out the problems with the film – "It was a commercial and critical disaster and has been widely criticized as one of the worst films ever made. ..... Franchise was later sued by its investors and was bankrupted after it emerged that it had fraudulently overstated the film's budget by $31 million... Reviewers universally panned the film, criticizing virtually every aspect of the production. Audiences were reported to have ridiculed early screenings, and stayed away from the film after its opening weekend." The biggest difference is that Battlefield is openly fictional, duh, and the contoversies were relatively trivial, involving allegations about where the profits went and claims that the film included a subliminal message saying "Leeeaaave thisssss cinemmmaaa nooow"'. Obviously Expelled has a larger core audience, made of sterner stuff. .. dave souza, talk 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Openly fictional? I thought that all of L. Ron's books were considered sacred texts of the church (and thus, tax exempt). Guettarda (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This happens rarely but Fill and I agree. Battlefield Earth and expelled are similar in only one way: critics didn't like them. Other than that they have zero similarities. Saksjn (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

Do we really need a link to darwin online? I am failing to see how this link is relevant to the movie... RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing silence means I can remove? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was added alongside this discussion, but feel free to be bold, possibly be reverted, and discuss if that happens. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..An anti-science screed dressed up like a "documentary" that promotes the notion that darwinism is to blame for every bad thing in modern history and RC-0722 cannot figure out why we would link to Darwin's actual writing (in his own freaking words). I try to stay clear of being sarcastic on this talk page but holy fuck man do you posess any common sense at all? Or is trying to silence "Darwinism" and keep people from actually reading him part on the id strategy now? Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to get too excited about it, there's already a link to Descent on that site which is apparently the one book directly quoted in the film. The "Darwin" in the film is a strawman, as "Darwinism" can mean a number of things and Darwin's name was coopted from 1860 onwards by people wanting to push their own agendas which often contradicted Darwin's own writings or ideas to a greater or lesser extent. There's also the problem of 19th century wording being misunderstood, as we've seen on this talk page. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(to MG) Dude, chill. It was just a question. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just link to Descent, the Jesus Camp article doesn't have a link to a book on Pentecostal Christianity does it? By the way, no need to say someone lacks common sense MG. I know that WP is uncensored but, was this really a time to use the f word? Saksjn (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why we need the link. Does it mention the movie? Probably not, unless it's a rewrite of his works. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey man I woke up excited today so there you have it :-) There was a previous discussion about this and I was the one who initiated it. One central theme of the movie is darwin's ideas lead to satanism, Nazism, killin lil babies and chewing with your mouth full. Science says "no way jose`" Sure we could link to another Wiki article where editors give THEIR opinion on Darwin's ideas...Or we could link to a science related site where scientists could give THEIR views on Darwin's ideas, or we could even link to an anti-science creationist site and they could give THEIR views on Darwin's ideas. I had this really crazy farkin nutty idea that we would link to Darwin himself, sans the editorializing, where the reader could actually learn hat Darwin proposed, thought and contributed. Sure Darwin is kinda boring, not titilating, kinda dry but I tend to think people can handle reading Darwin without an interpreter. If linking to Darwin's actual words violates a policy or somehow degrades the article, or if we're concerned someone might read Darwin and try and murder people I'm all ears. Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A link to Darwin's writings is very much a propos for this article: the movie attacks Darwinian thought, but a link to Darwin's writings is bad? I suppose that if one were to create a documentary attacking the theories of relativity, Einstein's writings would be verboten? When the IDiots trot out their ill-advised arguments regarding 2LOT and evolution, I suppose writing by scientist who actuallt understand 2LOT would be bad. If I create a documentary show that there weren't no great flood, I suppose biblical reference would be disallowed also? Meh. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lending some reason, Jim. We have a movie that claims Darwin's ideas lead to wholesale murder, killing off the weak and sick to help create a master, superior race! It also claims the evil science community is wedded to this demonic Darwinian world view <insert ominous music here> yet the science folks deny Darwin is/was evil, which proves they're evil! So like I thought the reader might enjoy actually reading some of Darwin in his own words. Again, if anyone feels that adding alink to Darwin's works might result in murder or racism or genocide then let's discuss it further, otherwise I think in the grand scheme of things a single link to the works of the guy who is being portrayed as the spawn of Satan himself is pretty f****** harmless. if Darwin had a f****** website or blog we'd be linking to it wouldn't we? So pretend the link to Darwin's works is just a big ol' blog and nobody has to get their panties in a bunch, k? Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree here. The link isn't that related to the topic at hand. It isn't about Expelled. We actually link to Darwins works over at Charles Darwin which someone can get to from clicking on this article. We don't generally give background links to external pages. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie is about darwin and the science community's behaviour in terms of it's adoption of darwin's ideas and we cannot link to Darwin's blog? Are you kidding me? Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, please explain again what policy we are violating by linking to Darwin's blog? Thanks in advance. Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't violate any policy in particular but in general we don't add background links to subjects. That's what wikilinks are for. Thus, if someone wants to know more about Darwin they click on our link to him and then go through there. If we added background links on a regular basis we'd likely be swamped. Should we for example also add a background link to the DI, another to AIG, and another to TOA? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you remove Darwin from the film you have no film. This is not background information, it is central information. "Background" was a term that was thought up when we were discussing how best to add a link to Darwins works and what to call the link category. We currently have two link sections (which I think is amature) basically "for" and "against" How about if we use one link category and link to Darwin's works there? Again, without Darwin there would be no Expelled so I don't think I'm reaching when I say I think it is a highly appropriate link. Your thoughts? And if you look in the link section we already link to the DI, ARN etc. So again, Darwin did not have anything to say about Expelled but Expelled would have nothing to say without Darwin. I propose we have one single link category and include Darwin's website. Thoughts? Midnight Gardener (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. The movie is about people who have lost their credibility and/or job over admitting/considering that ID is real. You can remove Darwin from the film and still get the general point across, although some of the finer points will be missing. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Admit ID is real? What movie are you talking about? Admitting ID is real? Don't be a dunce. I'm talking about Expelled. What is ID but an argument against "Darwinism"? And why, according to Expelled, are poor poor IDists being persecuted? For going against the Darwin establishment, remember? Or were you sleeping during that part of the film? Holy shit this is moronic. I cannot belive I am sitting here trying to eplain why we would add a single link to Darwin's website on the article of an anti-darwin move, I cannot believe it. But at least we can sleep soundly tonight knowing that we are not leading people to any "background" information that might cause our readers to murder people. I guess THAT is something we have going for us. Oh well... Let's add some more DI links, I see AiG is not represented well in the link section. Midnight Gardener (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

MG, calm down. I agree that RC is being ridiculous but we provide background by way of wikilinks already. They can click to other wikipedia articles if they want that background info. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Calmly (is that a word?), yes they can click on yet another Wiki article and find even more Wiki editors summarizing their opinions about Darwin and his ideas. We now link to numerous off-site articles where the reader is given an interpretation of Darwin's ideas. Very good ones too. But obviously I am still not understanding why in the world we would not link to the ideas of Charles Darwin at this article. The movie is an assault on Charles Darwin and the scientific community that recognizes the science that Darwin wrote about. In fact if Darwin were alive Stein and Co would be in court for defamation of character.

It's so weird, editing Wikipedia at times. If you read ALL the edit discussions and edit wars rarely does anyone even mention the reader's experience. Instead it is all a war over what points are put into the article. Does anyone ever really think about the reader?

If you're reading an article about two sides saying opposite things about what a 3rd party said wouldn't you want to go read exactly what the 3rd party said in their own words? or would you rather read yet another opinion on what the 3rd party supposedly said?

Yes they can click Charles Darwin and dig around for a link to his works. Or we could provide a link to Darwin's website where they can read him first hand and not have to go read another article where they might accidently find the link to his works. Or we could provide one here. Again, I'm failing to understand what the concern is. You said "Should we for example also add a background link to the DI, another to AIG, and another to TOA?" The movie is not about the DI, AiG or another TOA. The movie is about "Dawinism" and the scientific community that embraces ToE which is rooted in Darwin's works. Why do you want to make it difficult for readers of this article to read his works firsthand? THAT is what I cannot figure out. Midnight Gardener (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I meant to type "true" not "real" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, let's link to Darwin's works, it makes sense. How about we link to the DI or something as well? Saksjn (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You've not noticed that there are already links to the DI and the film's producers in the external links section? .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First sentence disaster

(And it goes down hill from here.) Why are there quotes in this sentence?

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 independent documentary film[2][3] which claims that "Big Science" suppresses criticism of both the evidence for evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the theory explaining this evidence

This implies that Ben Stein coined the phrase Big Science. If you're not quoting the movie who are you quoting?

Secondly the assertion in the sentence is misleading to the point of being in error. This sentence is the torso of a strawman which the article erects for the purpose of a long and windy dismantling. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Science means a lot of different things to different people, the meaning being used here is whatever Ben Stein means by it ... Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Contentious articles require citations, even in the LEAD. Sorry. Look at intelligent design for example. Many of the citations that were previously in this article were removed, and it has destabilized the article. If you removed more of these citations, the article would quickly be completely destroyed. The basic reason they are there is driveby critics and anons such as yourself demanded them.--Filll (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Only at WP does the doctrine of "different meanings for different people" hold water. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT.--Filll (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science" was a term used in the advertisements for the movie. Since it's not used even once in the film maybe we should change it. Saksjn (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually it does appear in the movie. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, 98.169.241.244, that "it (the article) goes down hill from here," but the term "big science" was, indeed, used in the promos for the film. Consequently, I don't have a problem with using it in the intro, even though I don't recall hearing the term used in the film, itself.

RC-0722, did you actually hear the phrase used in the movie? NCdave (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias against "Expelled" the basic characteristic of this entire article

After reading the scathing and one-sided portrayal of this movie in wikipedia, I went to look at wikipedia's treatment of Michael Moore's highly misleading and duplicitous treatment of guns in America, "Bowling for Columbine". The two articles stand in stark contrast to one another. Wikipedia obviously has edited Moore's piece to make it appear in as good a light as possible, while the treatment of "Expelled" is highly weighted to the critics. A case in point is the treatment of Charleton Heston by Moore, where Moore actually took Heston's words in a speech after Columbine and re-spliced them to make out as if Heston made bizarre and provocative pronouncements, when in fact Heston was conciliatory. The sad thing here is that wikipedia's editors are displaying a definite bias towards Moore's film and against Stein's, a fact that glares through all the posted treatments so far of both films. In Stein's films, the treatments are heavily weighted toward the critics; in Moore's, towards his film. Wikipedia has an editorial policy of neutrality, but it has failed to follow this policy in each of these films, betraying a leftist bias. The worst part is that wikipedia seems to buy the secular leftist claim that intelligent is about religion, when it is really about the metaphysics of science, and the fact that "intelligent design" was the cosmological theory of the Englightenment that gave rise to the scientific revolution. Newton, Jefferson, Voltaire and most of the rest of the Enlightenment thinkers of note subscribed to it. To allow anti-religious persons who are apparently unaware of the history of the philosophy of science on this point to make out as if "intelligent design" is really about religion undercuts the basic credibility of wikipedia, and the persons who edit the work. This kind of bias really needs to be corrected in this article.Doktorschley (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Doktorschley. 13 May 2008.

The article on Bowling for Columbine has a section on the Heston matter. You are of course welcome to expand that. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view which includes an undue weight clause. Thus we don't give extreme weight to minority opinions. For an article that may be a better comparison to Expelled see Battlefield Earth (film) which is almost universally negative. As with this article, that's becuase the sourcing is almost universally negative. (Also I'm not sure if you've seen this movie because the movie claims pretty strongly that ID is essentially religious). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The film highlights a few flashpoint cases where some with overtly religious questions ask, "why does science exclude evidence automatically when it seems to point to religion"? and those with overtly anti-religious answers espousing that science definitively debunks religion. The problems in the article aren't that the article has taken the wrong side but that the article has insufficiently portrayed the conflict played out in the film, one which is correspondingly played out contentiously in the article about the film. It reads like a heavy-handed "dumb down" to sell readers a pov in the controversy rather than to simply educate readers of the key issues covered by good references evaluating the controversy. I think editors need to focus on readers who come to wp for background research on a topic, not for revealed "truths" about it. Most students doing high school research papers couldn't get away with the kind of pronouncements editors sometimes get all worked up over and try to force into controversial articles here.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the 3rd paragraph (beginning with "The general media response...") According to the cited source, ~90% of reviews are negative, yet a significant minority (10%) are positive. However, no credence is given to this significant minority. Instead of quotes or a hyperlink to a positive review, wiki readers are presented with (patronizing?) links to the wiki articles for "religious right, conservative and creationist..." This appears to violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view by giving no weight instead of due weight to the leading minority viewpoint. (I previously brought this up in the NPOV discussion about this article, but no other editors had any comments. Due to the controversial nature of this article, I did not make the change to the article. I believe the NPOV discussion for this article was archived). CalebBenefiel (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is 90% notable:? Is the 10% notable? The problem is that the article pretends wikipedians can decide the significance of these numbers, and they can't. This needs to be left to commentary of independent reliable sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more clear: Rotten Tomatoes is the source of the editorial reviews for this article. It shows 30 rotten reviews and 3 fresh reviews. Only links and quotes from rotten reviews are included, but links and quotes from fresh reviews are omitted. In place of "fresh" reviews, there are links to the wiki articles for "religious right, conservative and creationist..." This is where the lack of due weight is per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view CalebBenefiel (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point, but there is a 30:3 ratio of reviews, which would mean if we mention four positive ones in the lead, we should mention 0.4 negative reviews. Of course this is silly, but given those proportions, I'm not exactly sure how to deal with your objection that we are patronising. One option would be to just name the media outlets, where the positive reviews have been published.

I took a look at Conservapedia to see where they claim the positive reception has been, and they cite National Review and American Spectator. One could say something like "Positive reviews have been published in the National Review and American Spectator." (This is all assuming that at least the very basic information from Conservapaedia, namely that these really were reviews and that they were positive is in fact accurate.) Merzul (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But mostly I'm also curious about how Professor marginalia would suggest presenting the reviews in the second paragraph of the lead, and how other people would respond to that. Can we get some concrete proposal? Merzul (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC) But mostly I'm also curious about how Professor marginalia would suggest presenting the reviews in the second paragraph of the lead, and how other people would respond to that. Can we get some concrete proposal? Merzul (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the conversation in here moves so quickly that my points I'm trying to make with my comments aren't well-enough connected to the context that goes with them. This is the kind of statement that I was speaking of: "Response from other critics was largely negative, particularly from those in the science media. The film's extensive use of Michael Moore-style devices was commented upon, but the film was widely considered unamusing and unsubtle, boring, poorly made, unconvincing, insulting, and offensive to the religious.": "the film was widely considered"? It's fair to say that the film is "widely considered" too heavy-handed and "widely considered" exploitive with the Holocaust blame-game and "widely considered" to be unconvincing or comes up short presenting their case. "Widely considered offensive to religious people"? How many reviews say this? "Widely considered" unamusing? "Not particularly funny"? has one ref, while "very funny" has two. The article is 100K long, in part because it belabors capturing all the innumerable little nothing tidbits like this ever written about the film, to death. It's just laid on so thick, especially with all the peppering each adjective that we're guilty of being "too heavy-handed" - one of the same criticisms launched against this film. Contrast the "reception" section here with the "reception" section of probably the most revered film ever made Citizen_Kane#Reception. Imagine plunking a sentence in that article that looks something like this: "Critics worldwide began listing it among the best films ever made, and it is widely considered an epic, compelling, provocative , mysterious, and an operatic tour-de-force with remarkable performances and a sweeping narrative." And I disagree with those who try to paint the problem in the article as one of "balance"--in my mind probably too much effort has been spent pulling in puny references just to give some voice to "the other side", such as this and this (does that one even say anything?) I'm working on a draft of the article now, I just don't have much go show yet. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Merzul. I agree that 30:3 ratio of negative:positive doe not merit a quotation. But one reference seems reasonable. How about this proposal? (the HTML comment is not mine - it is copied from the article)

The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable, receiving a 9% ("Rotten") meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda. The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)", while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry." Positive reviews have come from media outlets such as National Review and American Spectator. CalebBenefiel (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Will come back to this when time permits. I don't have an issue with being a bit more detailed about the "positive" reviews, though the lead has to be kept concise and the balance of reviews has to be reflected to avoid giving undue weight to the few positive reviews. The National Review is explicitly conservative/Republican, and we shouldn't be hiding that point. You don't link a review from the similarly conservative American Spectator, and a more appropriate second example would be the Christianity Today review featured by Rotten Tomatoes. . . dave souza, talk 09:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we know what NR review they are talking about? The only piece in the Nation Review I saw was Derbyshire's piece which pretty negative. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave Berg (2008-04-18). "Intelligent Critique". National Review Online. .. dave souza, talk 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doktorschley, you're comparing apples and oranges. This has been discussed repeatedly. See a summary of reasons why the films you compare are actually too different to be compared so simply here. As for your soapboxing about Wikipedia editors and bias, it is wholly off topic in this talk section. -- HiEv 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doktorschley, you are free to edit Bowling for Columbine and correct any problems you see. In addition, this business about intelligent design being the mindset of those during the scientific revolution is just fantasy, and your soapboxing about it does not belong on this page. The scientific revolution is when "methodological naturalism" became the standard approach for science, which intelligent design is deadset against. Also, of course the Wikipedia article is "biased against the film"; that is what WP:NPOV requires. Wikipedia is required to reflect the mainstream views of experts in the relevant areas. It is about science, and the science experts don't like the film, so Wikipedia reflects that. It is a film, and over 90 percent of the mainstream film reviewers panned it, so the Wikipedia article reflects that. That is how Wikipedia works, but you are free to go to another wiki that operates another way if you prefer.--Filll (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To get back to the second paragraph discussion, I see the problem Dave Souza said: if we say positive reviews appeared in X and Y, this somehow implies there were more positive reviews than there actually are. And I agree that perhaps a more appropriate selection would be to say National Review and Christianity today.

But how can we avoid the problem of implying there are more reviews. The example cited above clearly gives the impression that the two positive reviews are just two examples among many. Would something to the effect of The only notable positive reviews appeared in the conservative magazines X and Y.? This "only" of course is again subjective, maybe something like "a handful", "a couple"... Any ideas? Merzul (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Some (two) of the few positive reviews appeared in x and y" ??? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To give the postive reviews due weight, probably just one should be referenced. On National Review, I found at least 2 positive reviews. However, one was from a fellow at the Discovery Institute, so I chose the other one (by David Berg, senior segment producer at The Tonight Show with Jay Leno). As Dave souza mentioned above, since the positive reviews were found at Rotten Tomatoes, it might be more relevant to pick a positive review from this site to reference. So the paragraph could be changed to: "One of the few positive reviews appeared in Christianity Today " I think this is a good solution since the source (Christianity Today) doesn't require mentioning that it is conservative/religious/right wing due to its name. CalebBenefiel (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, except the sentence seems to be too much identifying that review, and I feel compelled to explain what this review is about. Was it clear what I meant? I'm having another try, how about "A few positive reviews have appeared in print, mostly confined to publications such as Christianity Today and the conservative magazines like National Review." And of course I'm not happy with it, but still, it was worth the try, although I think Caleb's version is better, Merzul (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A good source for positive review appears to be [1] (came across it when I was trying to verify the Conservapedia mentioned reviews exist). Obviously we should not link to them or use all these reviews but it appears to list more then Conservapedia. As to which one of these we should mention, if any, I don't know much about American sources so I'll leave that to others to decide. Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we just archive most of this? We've discussed it a million times and reached the same conclusion every time: we won't ever agree or reach a consensus. The best thing we can do is work to improve the article. If you think its biased (it is) than help us do something about it! Saksjn (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How Many seconds of "Imagine" in movie?

I did a quick Googling of the subject and found 10 seconds only sourced to a Christian blog [2], and for mainstream sources I get under 15 from the San Jose Mercury News[3] and 25 from the WSJ. [4].Since the original version was not inaccurate, I'm going to revert until a better analysis can be made. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the petition filed by Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon, Julian Lennon, et alia, specify a time period? Beliefnet isn't truly reliable (nor is it Christian), SJMN is OK, but WSJ is best. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One other point: you did well in removing the "time" as it was inserted merely to try to defend the unlicensed use of the song. Such a defense has no place in the article until it is raised by counsel for the defendants on May 19. If, however, the suit specifies a time, it can go in the article so long as the source is stated. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you watch the movie? Please, if you haven't watched the movie, don't dispute what is in it!

I watched it, and I timed the Lennon song snippet. The timepiece I used counts in seconds, not tenths or hundredths, so I might have been off by a half-second or so, but it was definitely no more than eleven. We could say "about ten" if you would prefer.

That WSJ blog entry is dated before the movie was released, so it is probably based on a pre-release version. Perhaps the pre-release version had a longer snipped of the song, and the Expelled producers edited it down before final release, to bolster their "fair use" defense. But the final version definitely only has about ten seconds of Imagine.

The current version of the Wikipedia article says, '"The film makes unlicensed use of John Lennon's song 'Imagine,'" which strongly suggests that the producers are guilty of a misdeed. However, a ten-second snippet of just enough of the song to enable fair and reasonable criticism is clearly Fair Use under U.S. law. The fact that it was only a tiny snippet of the song is critical information w/r/t the argument over whether Fair Use applies, and the omission of that fact makes the sentence misleading. NCdave (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You took a stopwatch to the movie?

In any case, see WP:NOR.

Interesting that you object to "unlicensed" and then go on to claim a "fair use" defense.

Finally, I don't know you from a can of paint, but I doubt that you're the legal counsel for the defendant, and even if you were, you'd not be pleading your case here. Besides, the courts will decide if it the "Fair Use" principle is applicable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually did time it with a friend when we saw it and got around 12 seconds. But agree that that is original research and therefore not ok. I'd suggest maybe removing the specific time. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I originally did, before Aunt Entropy reverted it. Can we agree on that version? NCdave (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a rewrite there to mention that the lawsuit was in response to accusations against Yoko Ono:

The film makes use of John Lennon's song "Imagine", which caused internet bloggers to accuse the copyright holder, Yoko Ono, of selling out to the producers by licensing the song. Yoko Ono denies that she ever permitted its use and filed a copyright lawsuit on April 23, 2008.

Something like that modulo my bad writing. Merzul (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, but I see no reason for any rewrite. The defendants have already admitted that the use of the song was unlicensed, hence the fall-back position of "fair use". Additionally, you're assuming that Ono acted in response to bloggers: absent a reliable cite to that effect, we couldn't use it. Realistically, the best source would be the lawsuit itself (which I've read, but can't locate at the moment). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the assumption of our current source for the lawsuit, Ethan Smith writing for the WSJ. But I accept your failure to appreciate the relevance of blogosphere drama. :) I just want to point out that this not my invention, since I don't read blogs about Yoko Ono as a daily habit. Merzul (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Jim, not a stopwatch (like I said, it doesn't count tenths and hundredths of a second). If I owned a stopwatch, I'd have taken it, but I don't. (I used to have a watch with a built-in stopwatch feature, but I don't know what I've done with it.)

In any case, the movie, itself, is a primary source, not original research.

As anyone who has seen the movie can attest, the snippet of Imagine is very short. It seems pretty ridiculous to be arguing over something that was surely obvious to every viewer of the movie. Have you seen the movie, Jim? Is there anyone here who saw the released version of the movie, who doubts that the Imagine snippet was about 10 seconds long?

Merzul, do we have a reliable source quoting Ono or her spokesman and stating her motivation for the lawsuit? If not, then it is just blogger speculation, and we should only report what she did, not speculation about why she did it. NCdave (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"In any case, the movie, itself, is a primary source, not original research." -- you're timing the length of the snippet and then trying to add it is original reasearch. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, whether one has seen the movie is uttery irrelevant: we report, primarily from secondary and tertiary sources. It's really that simple. Have you ever met any of the Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States, or were you just reporting? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave - fair use is still a copyright violation. It's just a copyright violation that is tolerated because of the value it provides. The wording that's been there all along is neutral. Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Guettarda, Fair Use is a defense against a charge of copyright violation. Not every copying of a copyrighted work is a copyright violation:

Fair use doctrine. A privilege in others than the owner of a copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the owner's consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted to the owner. ... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

NCdave (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea -- let's let the lawyers fight it out and then let the court decide. Seems rational to me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in case you'd not noticed, "reasonable manner" is open to interpretation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave - do you have a source for your assertion? Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, never mind. Copyright violation or not, you were taking issue with the phrase "unlicensed use". Are you trying to say that the assertion of fair use amounts to a license? I need to see a reliable source that supports that assertion of yours. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Jim, and in the meantime let the readers decide for themselves. But how are they to do that if they don't know that only ten seconds of the song was used? Selecting and presenting only the information that is favorable to one side of an argument is textbook POV bias.

Source for what, Guettarda? Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, is the source for the definition of Fair Use. The movie, itself, is the source for the length of the song snippet.

The current version of the Wikipedia article says, '"The film makes unlicensed use of John Lennon's song 'Imagine,'" which strongly suggests that the producers are guilty of a misdeed, because otherwise what is the point of mentioning that the use was unlicensed? It needs to note that only ten seconds were used, lest the reader mistakenly think that the Expelled users stole the whole song, which is what the current version makes it sound like. NCdave (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I came up with the following on Merzul's user page:

The film's use of John Lennon's song "Imagine" led to a lawsuit by its copyright holder Yoko Ono on April 23, 2008. The film producers responded by claiming use under fair use doctrine.[94] In response to the lawsuit, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19.[95][96] A song by The Killers is used in the film under a license which they claim was obtained by misleading them about the film.[97]

This avoids taking a position on whether it should or shouldn't have been licensed, and seems better to me. Mackan79 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This would work:

The film's use of a ten second excerpt from John Lennon's song "Imagine" led to a lawsuit by its copyright holder, Yoko Ono, on April 23, 2008. The film producers responded by claiming use under fair use doctrine. In response to the lawsuit, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19. A song by The Killers is used in the film under a license which they claim was obtained by misleading them about the film.

The last sentence is unrelated to any lawsuit or legal issues, and unsupported by any reliable source; see Legal_Issues_-_The_Killers. NCdave (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC), 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like constantly violating Wikipedia principles, is there? Why do you want to get into such trouble?--Filll (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, no. You cannot use yourself as a source for the 10 second determination. That number is a direct result of your own research. You've been here longer than me, surely you've learned the WP:NOR rule by now. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you are arguing about this. Everyone here who has seen the movie knows approximately how long that snippet of music was. Do you think I'm trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Do you think JoshuaZ is?

The movie, itself, proves the point. If you haven't seen the movie, what are you doing arguing about what it contains?

The reason I put the measured time in is because you, Aunt Entropy, reverted my less specific language, and called it weasley. I was just trying to satisfy your objection.

Anyhow, Google finds hundreds thousands of confirmations of the ten second length. So can we put it back in the article, now? NCdave (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither you nor Joshua are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, so it doesn't matter if either of you fit my standards. The movie itself proves nothing. You with a watch made the report, not the movie. And the reason I am arguing about it is that more than one reliable source gives conflicting information on the length of the snippet, as I reported above. And substituting "a few" for what is at least ten seconds is most definitely misleading. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to put Ben Stein's retort into the article, too:

"So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free. After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world...'"

WP:NPOV demands that if we're going to include Ono's accusation, we need to include Stein's reply. Love him or hate him, you've gotta admit he has a good point! NCdave (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I love the song, but yes, suing over a critical movie sounds a bit ridiculous. But I admit I say that without knowing exactly how it was used, if it was used more before being edited, or if the suit is standard practice. Mackan79 (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie wasn't really criticising the song though so it may be irrelevant. I don't know US law, and I guess nor does Ben Stein so I suggest we leave it as is. As Guettarda has pointed out, all we are saying is that Yoko Ono is suing over the unlicensed use of the song which so far has not be disputed. Whether that unlicensed use of the song is a violation of the civil rights of Yoko Ono, the suit will determine that and I don't think it's wise for us to start adding speculations from various parties. N.B. hypocrisy doesn't not generally justify violating copyrights Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If we said she was suing for unlicensed use that would be fine, but we simply say it makes unlicensed use and then that she's suing him. The problem is this accepts part of her premise that the movie disputes, since fair use doesn't require ownership, license, or any other type of rights in the song. I'd suggest rewording it just for that reason. Mackan79 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard to see your objection, since the film does make unlicensed use of the music, and the producers claim that a license is not required under the particular circumstances. We make unlicensed use of images, either taking care to comply with fair use, or ensuring that we don't need a license as the image is public domain. Simple and clear enough. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, Dave, you see the point fine. We don't make "unlicensed" quotes of authors throughout Wikipedia. There's simply no reason to say it this way when there are other ways available. Mackan79 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave Souza noted images: what has that to do with quotes? Not too sure what you're driving at. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that "unlicensed" isn't a word you use unless you are suggesting it should have been. For fair use, you don't get a "license." I didn't have an "unlicensed" cup of coffee this morning, etc. The story is one person used the song, the other person said it should have been licensed, and the first person said no, it was fair use. So, a. it's gratuitous, b. it's a legal claim we're not in a position to make, and c. it makes us look silly. Mackan79 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again Dave - please provide a source for your assertion that fair use grants a license. Does anyone (other than you, of course) dispute the fact that the song is unlicensed? The article says that Premise Media is being sued over the unlicensed use of the song. That only requires a rebuttal if (a) Stein is claiming that they are not being sued, or (b) he is claiming that they did, in fact, have a license. Please provide a source to support one of these assertions. Guettarda (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While including the 10 sec measurement from Wikipedia editors is not valid source, the quotes make it sound like the whole song is used - some type of qualifier ('uses a section of the song' 'a portion of the song' etc.) should be added to make a more accurate statement.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Good point. Hadn't thought of that. Portion sounds good. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NCdave made a really good point earlier that I attempted to use with the Dawkins interview (which I still am planning on bringing up agian once a clip is on youtube or something). The movie is not OR, it's a primary source. We do not say that a synopsis of a book is OR becasue we got it from reading it. We consider it a primary source. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The assertion by Ono is not that the use of 10 seconds of the song was "unlicensed," but that it was not legal. Being unlicensed is a necessary but not sufficient element of the assertion of the claim that the use was not legal. There is no argument over whether the use was unlicensed, nobody ever claimed that the use was "licensed." The only argument is over whether the was legal, so the "unlicensed" bit is irrelevant.

Shall we add a disclaimer to this article, saying that it makes unlicensed use of copyrighted material? NCdave (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's rather pointy. It's normal for films to license all their music so this is unusual and opens the producers up to legal action, their defense is "fair use". dave souza, talk 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only pointy to do it, not to ask where you're going with this. But on what basis are you saying this would have been "normal"? Under the circumstances of the movie (another band said they wouldn't have licensed if they knew what the movie was about) I don't believe that's correct. Mackan79 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Mackan, you seem to have missed NCdave's sarcasm. My clear understanding is that film producers normally take great care to request licenses for all the music they wish to use in a film, and it's rather extraordinary that Premise deliberately didn't request a license for Imagine, though they remembered to get a license from the Killers. Or do you think Dembski is a liar? . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope sarcasm isn't against the rules. In any case I don't believe it is a sarcastic point. You're saying it's unusual that they wouldn't license, I'm saying it actually makes sense under the circumstances. The question is if we should make a statement to endorse either of our personal views on this or anyone else's. I'm not sure what Dembski has to do with it. Mackan79 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Imagine" there's a break

The song is unlicensed. No one involved is disputing that. But it's very important to understand... unlicensed ≠ illegal. Unlicensed songs can be legal under a fair use doctrine (which is exactly what the producers are claiming). They don't mean the same thing. Thanks. --Ali'i 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I had just addressed this above. Nobody says it was licensed, but the false premise is that licensing is necessarily the issue. If you're claiming fair use, there is nothing to license. The whole focus on "licensing" is simply an argument from one side that confuses the whole issue. Mackan79 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... but that is the issue. If it had been licensed there would be no dispute or lawsuit. The fact that it is unlicensed is what the lawsuit is about. To omit the fact that the song was unlicensed omits the basis of these paragraphs. To paraphrase what you want to write: "Expelled uses a piece of this song. Yoko files suit for copyright infringement." But WHY? The point is that is is unlicensed. The counter-argument that they didn't even need a license to use the song is then presented. It just makes sense to include that it was unlicensed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't a valid explanation. Copyright infringement is the lawsuit; you'll see the article discusses what's involved in such a lawsuit. Having a license would be a defense, but of course hasn't been offered here. That's why I'm saying we're only confusing things by mentioning it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can clarify the point. We all agree it was used without license. That is clearly implied by the fact that Yoko is suing for copyright infringement and the producers are invoking a fair use defence. Therefore, the use of "unlicensed" conveys no extra information in terms of the facts of the situation. While such gratuitous adjectives don't contribute in presenting the facts, the information it carries is the bias of the author. Makes sense? Merzul (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you say, as I wrote just above, "Expelled uses a piece of this song. Yoko files suit for copyright infringement." the question remains, Why? Why would a suit be filed? Why are the producers claiming "fair use" as their defense. We have to think of our readers. Not everyone who reads this will understand copyright/fair use stuff, so in order to help the reader, we should explain things. Explain things such as they are filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement because the portion of the song was unlicensed. Explain things like the producers are claiming legal use of the small portion of the song under the fair use doctrine, because that mitigates the unlicensed use. If we don't mention the fact that it is unlicensed, we are missing the point of the section. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we spell out self-evident things to unintelligent readers at the expense of revealing bias to intelligent ones? Merzul (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above, Ali'i. It's actually a misunderstanding that it being "unlicensed" is the reason for the suit. If you check out copyright infringement, the real reason for a suit is that it's "unauthorized," but this is also self-explanatory. It's for the same reason "unlicensed' is out of place; the word suggests "unauthorized" when really it doesn't add anything, but only looks like it does. Mackan79 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, so if people insist on having an adjective there, it should be "makes unauthorized use", which I still maintain is implied. Merzul (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "bias" is only in your mind. We follow reliable sources and present notable views. "Ms. Ono's lawyer, Jonas Herbsman, of Shukat, Arrow, Hafer, Weber & Herbsman, said in an interview Wednesday: "It was not licensed."" ... dave souza, talk 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ono's lawyer isn't a reliable source, Dave. This is the whole problem, that we're adopting their legal claims. Mackan79 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, although of course that would also be to say that Ono's whole claim is correct. Mackan79 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What source says the song is licensed? The NYT is the reliable source, it and other sources report the unlicensed use as the issue leading to the lawsuit, the defense is fair use, not whether or not the song was licensed. Please follow reliable sources related to the section of the article, and don't refer to other WP articles which are, of course, not reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, it's hard to have a discussion if you won't respond to what I said. This isn't difficult, and you're the one who presented what should be recognized as the opposite of a reliable source to support this statement. Is there anything more to this? Mackan79 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Our source for this is the WSJ, and the question is if the narrative ever uses the phrasing "the unlicensed use". This is crucial because

1. I'm not sure "unlicensed use" is an appropriate term, as opposed to "unauthorized use".
2. There is a fundamental difference between a secondary source reporting that one side of the dispute is saying "it was unlicensed" and the source itself actually endorsing the phrasing "unlicensed use".

Please respond to these points rather than what bias is in my head. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources for "unlicensed"

This search finds precisely one source Christianity Today for the word "unlicensed" with Yoko Ono. There are zero hits for "unlicensed use" with Yoko Ono. Now, a general news search for the term "unlicensed use" comes up with more hits about spectrum licenses, but a few related to copyright, particularly software.

Where are all the reliable sources you are talking about? Merzul (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity Today: "Meanwhile, lawyers for Yoko Ono say they are 'exploring options' with regard to the use of John Lennon's song 'Imagine' in the movie—which, they say, was unlicensed and therefore illegal." Of course this is also correct in saying unlicensed = illegal, since "unlicensed" implies that it needed a license. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and all other news articles I looked at use the terms correctly, and now Wikipedia does too. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources I've looked at all make it explicit that the song is used without a license, without permission, or make unauthorized use. Reuters says "using the song "Imagine" in the documentary without permission.". the WSJ says "Typically when producers want to use a song in a film or television program, they need permission from at least two parties" and reports that "the film's three producers -- Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft -- acknowledged that they did not seek permission.." On that basis I've rephrased it. . .. dave souza, talk 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your new version is accurate as far as I can tell, and I don't get the same feeling of bias. I consider this resolved. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, with respect, as this retains virtually all of the same problems. We have now, "The film makes use of a portion of John Lennon's song 'Imagine' without permission of the copyright holder Yoko Ono, who filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement on April 23, 2008." "Makes use of" and "without permission" in this context are both entirely gratuitous POV. The question is, what is wrong with a neutral presentation? The change serves no purpose other than to insert the framework of Ono's lawyer. Mackan79 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is gratuitous, but now it really follows the sources, and the flow makes the superfluous information connect with the next in a way that it doesn't seem biased to me any more. We don't need to agree on everything, Mackan :), but this at least solves the "unlicensed" problems, so it is basically saying "unauthorized use", which is much better. Also with respect, Merzul (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. The proposed version is factually correct and completely neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn't go with the sources. Reuters states: "John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, and his sons are suing the filmmakers of 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for using the song 'Imagine' in the documentary without permission." I'm trying to respect Dave here, but to cut off the first half of the sentence is a misrepresentation. This remains Ono's legal claim: using the song without permission. All we've done is changed faux-legal into a vernacular translation of "unauthorized use"; I'm not sure how there is supposed to be any difference from the problem we had. Mackan79 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sigh, I see, you are right, and on my user-page version, I would just go with "makes use" as I think that conveys enough information; but I think personally we have spent enough time on this issue. I feel the main problem is resolved, and unlike your version, I think Dave's version is something that has the chance of being stable on this page. I guess I'm giving in too quickly, I do think you are right, but I'm tired, Merzul (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the other point, "makes use of" is similarly a legal claim of the one side, since quoting for critical commentary, the claim made by the film, would not be described in this way. This is why I changed it to "includes." If we felt the need to clarify, we would say Ono claims it makes use without permission, but it would have to be clear that this was her claim. Mackan79 (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any reason to suspect the phrase "makes use of" is of any legal import, and is freighted with some hidden legal penumbrations, causing us to prefer the word "includes". Do you have a source for such a claim?

It clearly was without permission, as claimed by both parties to the dispute, not just by the lawyers of one side. Whether this use without permission is permitted or not will be the subject of a legal proceeding, and until that is completed, we will not know if the use without permission is allowed under the relevant laws. That is the entire point of "fair use"; that someone can use a work without permission and still be permitted to do so, and the owner of the work cannot enjoin its use.

My own suspicion is that the lower court will make an initial ruling, and this will be appealed at least once to a higher court, and eventually some sufficiently high court will try to set a precedent to clarify exactly under what conditions fair use is permitted. It could very well be that the Expelled usage will be allowed, since it was probably under 25 seconds worth and they will be able to draw on immense legal resources and financial resources. However, "fair use" is usually applied to scholarly works and reviews and parodies, and Expelled does not fall under any of these categories. What the Stanford University Law School and the Expelled legal team will be seeking is to expand the definition of "fair use" to cover a broader range of commercial uses, which the Expelled usage clearly was.--Filll (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it was used, but I do know the second verse of the song:

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

The film makers say it was fair use because they included the song for "commentary or criticism." Considering the topic of the film and that of the song, this appears to be what they were doing. Now, did they use more than they needed, because it's good music? I believe that's basically the question. In any case, "makes use of" is obviously a formalistic phrase which is unnecessary unless to suggest a use beyond "commentary or criticism" as the film makers claim. This seems like a good reason to remove it, unless there is some overriding benefit that hasn't been mentioned. The same is true of "without permission," which again suggests that this is relevant, when it's only relevant according to those bringing the lawsuit. Mackan79 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources state that it's relevant, and that applies both to those bringing the lawsuit and to the defense. Even if it were one-sided, we present views from both sides, but how can someone claim fair use without using the music? The film makes use of the music, you're speculating about the purpose behind that use. The benefit of giving a reasonable level of explanation is that readers don't have to play guessing games – the purpose of the article is to inform readers, not to leave them puzzled. .. dave souza, talk 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant, should we not present it as the view of one side? You don't say "Dems voted for children's health care, which raises taxes. Therefore, Republicans opposed it. Dems said it was a good investment." You say "Dems voted for children's health care. Republicans opposed it saying it will raise taxes. Dems said it was a good investment." Mackan79 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess I am totally confused by this. The movie does not "make use of" this segment of the song? Huh?

Also, both sides admit it was "without permission". What is the issue with that? Do you claim it was with permission? If so, provide a link to a reliable source that states they had permission to use the song.

By the way, I have seen a pirated clip of the movie where this song is used. I did not time the clip and I am sure it is down from the internet by now. However, it was a good long chunk of the song, and there was also some commentary that appeared to attack John Lennon personally, if I remember correctly. There was also some very very ugly overlaid imagery.--Filll (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I said "In any case, 'makes use of' is obviously a formalistic phrase which is unnecessary unless to suggest a use beyond 'commentary or criticism' as the film makers claim." Your previous comment had been "I do not have any reason to suspect the phrase 'makes use of' is of any legal import, and is freighted with some hidden legal penumbrations, causing us to prefer the word 'includes'". Why are you pretending now not to understand? Please give me a break. Mackan79 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to back that up with a few links to legal dictionaries and legal textbooks, and the text of the relevant applicable legislation.--Filll (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I said it's formalistic, not that it's a term of art. Are you denying this? The question is why we would say "makes use of" rather than "includes." One is three words, whereas the other is one. One implies a POV while the other doesn't. It's unclear why you are defending it. Mackan79 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not care one way or the other, but you implied that "make use of" was somehow suggesting something legally or had some special connotations. And I doubted it. As I said in my edit summary, I believe that "without permission" is the operative phrase here that should not be removed.--Filll (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this again, timing a section of the movie is the opitomy of using a primary source, it is not original research! Saksjn 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Current wording

The current version reads The film contains an unlicensed portion of John Lennon's song "Imagine". Why didn't Stein use the licensed portion? Merzul (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me :) Mackan79 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoddy grammar. Fixed. .. dave souza, talk 21:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin quotation issue

The Charles Darwin quotation issue section is misleading and POV-biased in the extreme.

The section criticizes Stein for "misleading selective quotation" when, in fact, Stein's quote was fair and accurate.

The section also quotes the "original paragraph" to prove the point. Actually, however, the "original paragraph" shown is really the original paragraph plus a misleading selective excerpt from the following paragraph, with the remainder of the following paragraph omitted. The omitted portion of the following paragraph reinforces the point of the paragraph from which Stein quoted, and proves that Stein's excerpt was both fair and accurate.

I've restored the paragraph break and the missing remainder of the following paragraph, so that the supposed "original paragraph" is no longer misleading. However, we also need to get rid of the anti-Stein editorializing:

• "...his claim that..."

-- "claim" is a word to avoid.

• "Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so."

-- This statement is wholly untrue, and severely POV-biased.

• "The Expelled Exposed website also points out..."

-- The Expelled Exposed website is not a reliable source, and "points out" is a phrase to avoid, because it implies agreement with the POV expressed.

• "...the same misleading selective quotation from this passage..."

-- This statement mischaracterizes Stein's quotation of Darwin, and is obviously POV-biased.

• "...but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics."

-- This statement is the exact opposite of the truth (and severely POV-biased). The full "passage" (taken as either the entire paragraph from which Stein quoted, or that paragraph plus the entire following paragraph) makes it clear that Darwin was laying out the foundational principles of what was later known as eugenics. Only by misleading selective quotation from the following paragraph is it possible to support the claim that Darwin was not.

In addition, this editorial comment is both inaccurate and irrelevant:

• "The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics. Clarence Darrow, who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial, wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics."

-- Darrow was not an evolutionary biologist, he was a lawyer. During the 1920s and 1930s the scientific community was very much on board the eugenics bandwagon, with very few exceptions. So were the courts. In 1926, when Darrow criticized eugenics, there apparently were no leading biologists opposing eugenics.[5] In fact, Darrow, himself, laments the apparent unanimity of opinion in favor of eugenics in his 1927 criticism of eugenics.

I'm out of time this morning, so I've not cleaned up this section of the article yet (other than correcting the "original paragraph") but I'll revisit it later. NCdave (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi NCdave, your original research giving your own interpretation of a primary source is amusing but inaccurate and, of course, unacceptable in Wikipedia. Darwin described the ideas later called eugenics, as set out by their proponents, and made clear that to him this could only be voluntary. Such eugenics continues in use today, with considerable success. American eugenics in the early 20th century took the compulsory route, and Scientific American as a reliable source makes points with specific reference to the film. Find good sources equally related to the film if you want to present someone disputing the point, your original research or a self published web page won't do. .. dave souza, talk 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC) For information, Why Eugenics is Good for Jews. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Expelled Exposed, from the National Center for Science Education, is a reliable source, as we have determined through years of discussion and consensus. It is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific body on planet earth. Even an article on Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent states that the film misinterprets Darwin's quote here [6]. This is also covered in Scientific American [7].--Filll (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, correcting the misquote of Darwin is not original research. I didn't interpret Darwin, I corrected the quote of him.

Filll, the National Center for Science Education is a reliable source for its own positions, only. It is an advocacy organization, created for the defense of Darwinism, and it is the #1 ox gored by this movie. It is a primary source, not a reliable secondary source. A primary source is acceptable on Wikipedia for presenting the positions and views of the primary source, itself, not the views and positions of the primary source's adversary.

Filll, your revert restored the incorrect quote of Darwin, which I had corrected. The incorrect version merges the first 60% of the following paragraph into the paragraph which Stein quoted, and omits the last 40% of the following paragraph altogether, the part that reinforces what Stein quoted. Why did you do that?

Here's the inaccurate version:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Here's the accurate version:

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

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

I do not object to quoting the entire paragraph from which Stein quoted. Doing so proves that Stein's excerpt was fair and accurate.

I also do not object to quoting both that paragraph and the one which follows, if you prefer. Doing that also shows that Stein's excerpt was fair and accurate.

However, I object to selectively excerpting from the next paragraph in a way that distorts its meaning. That is not only misleading, it is also strikingly hypocritical to selectively quote Darwin in an section about an allegation that Stein selectively quoted Darwin!

Can we all agree that must be fixed? Can we agree that if the following paragraph is to be quoted, along with the paragraph which Stein quoted, then the entire following paragraph should quoted, not just a part of it which gives a misleading impression of his meaning? What objection can there be to quoting the whole paragraph?

I also object to appending that additional paragraph (or any part of it) onto the end of the paragraph that Stein quoted from, to make it appear that the two paragraphs were actually one. That is simply misquotation.

Can we all agree that that, too, must be fixed? What objection can there be to breaking the paragraphs the way that Darwin did? NCdave (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be very careful in how we present historic writings because our moral sensitivity has drastically changed since the second world war. This is why I think secondary sources are important in presenting any such material, we need some authority behind who decide what section of Darwin's writing is truly representative. Merzul (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Merzul is right. The reliable secondary sources we have directed at this issue in Expelled provide the appropriate section and interpretation. Even NCdave's claim about "breaking the paragraphs the way that Darwin did" follows an inaccurate representation – the first paragraph has been trimmed to miss out the point that Darwin is discussing the views of W. R. Greg, Wallace and Galton. I'm pretty sure I've seen that discussed elsewhere, but the source we have which discusses Expelled doesn't go into that issue, so neither do we. .. dave souza, talk 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We go by the sources relevant to Expelled. I gave you 3 that all make the same point. We do not go about doing our own WP:OR.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify which source provides the quote as we use it? I understand several raise this issue, and that omitting parts of the sentence is misleading, but I'm also concerned by NCdave's point if our presentation isn't correct either. Mackan79 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, the entire book is public domain, and there are multiple copies online, such as this one.

Dave souza, Darwin wasn't discussing the views of Greg, Wallace & Galton, he was crediting them and expressing their views as his own. If you think that part of the first paragraph is significant, then I have no objection to including it.

Here it is with that part included:

Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations. — In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

I don't really think the part about Messrs Greg, Wallace & Galton is necessary, but I have no objection to including them. But the current version is inaccurate and misleading.

I count four issues here. Let's take a little poll:

• Q1: Can we all agree that the two paragraphs (or portions thereof) cannot fairly be merged into one? (I vote absolutely yes.)
• Q2: Can we all agree that if any of the 2nd paragraph is to be included, then the whole thing should be? (I vote absolutely yes.)
• Q3: Should we include any of the 2nd paragraph at all? (I vote weak no, but I don't care much.)
• Q4: Should we include the beginning of the 1st paragraph, through the phrase, "...from these three authors?" (I vote weak no, but I don't care much.)

The first two questions are issues of integrity. Either truncating the 2nd paragraph or merging all or part of it with the first paragraph distorts Darwin's intended meaning. I certainly hope nobody thinks that is acceptable. NCdave (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert Stevens, for affirming Q1 and restoring the split between the two paragraphs.

Per Q2, I've just restored the final sentence to the 2nd paragraph. NCdave (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza, please stop deleting the final sentence of Darwin's 2nd paragraph. NCdave (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a vote, but ...

It might be useful to split it into those four points. I agree with Q1 as that's also what our sources use, but I don't think it is as simple as just cutting off at the end of the second paragraph. I'm not a Darwin scholar, but my naive judgement of the primary source is that the matter of marriage is discussed in the next 3 pages or so of that book. Hence, my conclusion is that breaking off where we currently do is not at all arbitrary. Cutting at the end of the paragraph would be like ending it at a cliff-hanger; he raised a controversial statement that I think requires 3 pages or so for him to explain. His habit of ending paragraphs mid-topic is "absurd to the highest degree", but what can we do? ;) Well, we can rely on secondary sources such as the scientific american. Merzul (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right that breaking it off where we currently does not appear to be arbitrary, it is necessary to make a convincing argument that Stein's quote of Darwin was unfair. If the entire 2nd paragraph is included, the argument falls flat.

However, Darwin did not discuss marriage in the next several pages, and he did not end his paragraphs in mid-topic. He was an excellent writer, who used paragraphs conventionally.

That mention of marriage was on page 169, and he next mentioned it on page 175, in a very different context:

"With women, marriage at too early an age is highly injurious; for it has been found in France that, 'twice as many wives under twenty die in the year, as died out of the same number of the unmarried.'"

Chopping off the last 40% of the second paragraph serves only to make it misleading. NCdave (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have no idea what's going on here, but what I do know is that last time I checked, the article wasn't about a book; it was about a 2008 documentary hosted by Ben Stein. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I should have seen this, but can someone show the Scientific American article that we're relying on? I tried looking through several of the sources and am not sure if I found the one or not. I realize what the issue is, I'm just hoping to see the specific source. Mackan79 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at The first "thing" here, but Filll posted a few more. Merzul (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I see that. In general, I'm wondering if the whole thing may not be more complex than what we should try to cover in this way. I'm sure some people want to correct the film's presentation, which I also think would be good. The current version seems problematic, though, while I'm not exactly sure how to improve it. Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I see little but some obfuscation or trolling here.--Filll (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is indeed more complex than we are letting on here. Interpreting Darwin correctly and setting him in the proper historical context is not easy; therefore the optimal solution would be something I don't know exactly either, but the current version is better than what NCdave is suggesting. However, this is clearly not trolling, questioning the cutting off of a quotation in the middle of a paragraph is a very valid concern, which can't be simply brushed off per WP:DUE, WP:PSTS, WP:WTF, or any other policy shortcut. Merzul (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia can't misinform the public on an issue like this, I'd hope we would all agree. We need to find something that's right, either by clarifying or by leaving more in depth discussions to other sources. I lean toward the latter considering the space issues we already have; this would involve simply saying the context shows Darwin was arguing against the position being attributed to him without trying to provide the entire context here. Quoting one of the specific repudiations of the idea could be part of this. Mackan79 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This appears to involve misquoting of sources and violation of WP:NOR. And if taken far enough, it can lead to administrative sanctions. If you want to make up your own research, you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period.--Filll (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Merzul. I think you voted yes on Q1, above, right? Would you care to give your opinions on Q2-Q4, too?

Filll, please assume good faith and stop attacking and insulting me. I am trying to get a problem with the article fixed. The current version distorts what Darwin wrote and intended. So let's fix it! That's what this talk page is for, not for insulting one another.

What is wrong with just quoting the whole paragraph(s), as Darwin wrote them? Summarizing seems pretty much out, since Stein's summary was as good a summary as we're likely to find, and the whole point of this section is that some people don't like Stein's summary. So I think the only reasonable thing to do is to let Darwin speak for himself.

I will accept quoting just the one paragraph that Stein used. Or, if most editors prefer, we can quote both that paragraph and the following paragraph. My mild preference would be to quote just the first, for brevity. But if you guys want both paragraphs that is fine, too.

I also will accept either including or excluding the part at the beginning about Greg, Wallace & Galton, since I don't think it materially affects Darwin's meaning. My mild preference would leave it out, for brevity, but if you guys want to include it that is fine with me.

I only object to changes which have the effect of changing Darwin's meaning: merging two paragraphs which Darwin wrote as separate, and selectively quoting just part of the 2nd paragraph.

I don't think it is necessary to interpret Darwin. His words are reasonably clear, to a careful reader, provided they are not adjusted by merging two distinct paragraphs, or truncated by chopping them off in mid-paragraph. Some of the phrasing is a bit old-fashioned, like his use of the phrase "present evil" to mean a hypothetical already-existing severe problem which could justify neglecting the weak, and his use of the word "with" to mean "as a result or consequence of." But he was an excellent writer, and, taken as a whole, what he wrote is pretty clear, if it is left intact.

Mackan79, the context shows that Darwin was not arguing against the position he expressed in the quote that the movie used. The movie's quote was fair and accurate. That is pretty clear, if the full, original text is quoted accurately: either the entire first entire paragraph, or both entire paragraphs. Only if the text is selectively edited, by including some but not all of the second paragraph, as in the current version if this Wikipedia article, does it appear that the movie's quote was deceptive.

You don't have to agree with me about that. But if we can't agree on Darwin's meaning, we at least should be able to agree to let Darwin's own, unedited words speak for him. Right? NCdave (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem to be confused and unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy. Until you can find a secondary source which states something different than the 3 sources I produced in the context of the film, then you have a problem.--Filll (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Filll, this is more like the kind of response that I'm also willing to sign my name under. I'll still say it myself too. First, I must say, NCdave, your interpretation of Darwin's words, such as "present evil", is so different from mine that maybe we shouldn't quote Darwin at all :) But to the point, while I agree that cutting the quotation in the middle of the paragraph is a legitimate concern; lacking more authoritative secondary sources than the Scientific American it is the best we can do. If you want to improve this, we need to dig up better secondary sources. I too insist on not interpreting Darwin ourselves, and choosing a cut-off point is an interpretative act. Merzul (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the secondary sources, we have Stein and his movie producers with one (correct) summary, and we have a magazine editorial by the Senior Editor of Scientific American with a different (wrong) one. Both are secondary sources w/r/t Darwin, but I don't think either are reliable sources under Wikipedia's rules, and there's obviously no consensus (so far, anyhow... until Rennie sees the error of his ways).

So I think we need to let Darwin speak for himself. I will accept any cut-off point that is on a paragraph boundary. I am satisfied that if we cut it off on a paragraph boundary (and not merge two paragraphs into one!) that Darwin's intent will be fairly represented.

W/r/t the word "present" (in the phrase "overwhelming present evil"), it means "already existing now."

The significance of that is it proves that it is incorrect to interpret (as Rennie did in his editorial) the "present evil" phrase as referring to the anticipated policy of neglecting the weak and helpless, or its results. A result cannot antedate its cause, so a "present" evil cannot be the the result of an anticipated action. Rather, an "overwhelming present evil" is the trigger which, in Darwin's view, would be necessary to justify an admittedly dehumanizing policy of neglecting the weak and helpless.

Darwin's usage of the word "present" was exactly the same as in the more familiar phrase, "clear and present danger." What did you think it meant, Merzul? NCdave (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't any issue with the passage as it is, at least not the issue that you're on about. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I do not understand why some want to reject 3 sources in favor of their own made-up theory and research. The film is of course a primary source. And we have 3 secondary sources stating that what the film did was misrepresentation. They are all wrong? Find other secondary sources, like the New York Times or the London Times or Science News or New Scientist or the Economist or something of similar quality.--Filll (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that Stein misinterpreted Darwin (as did the earlier creationists who fabricated this misquote). Furthermore, it also seems pretty clear that the additional material quoted doesn't change that fact. "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"... Why must we bear it? Because (according to Darwin) intervention would be unjustifiable, an "overwhelming evil". The rest is apparently wishful thinking, as Darwin isn't expressing a policy, but merely a hope (more to be hoped for than expected) that the problem would correct itself. We are trying to shorten the article (see the length warning at the top of the page)... so why include irrelevant material that doesn't change Darwin's meaning? Especially as our reference, the Scientific American article, doesn't include it: hence, this inclusion would be a WP:SYN violation anyhow. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

These are now well-argued, polite, and policy-grounded objections. Trying any further to impose one's own interpretation without relying on third-party secondary sources is disruptive in my book. If that should happen, I ask everyone else here to refrain from commenting on this topic, unless and until someone comes with new independent reliable sources. I mean no disrespect to you, NCdave, and I don't care about your intentions or editing history, but right here, right now, goes the line between having raised a reasonable objection and disruptive talk page commentary. Merzul (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should provide the commentary that it's misleading, but I have a hard time particularly with how we have combined the paragraphs. Did any of the sources do this that I am missing? It seems very odd to combine paragraphs while attempting to correct the record about the original source. Mackan79 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could simply put a paragraph break in the appropriate place. I'll do that: it won't affect the article size. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...Ah. That's interesting. There IS already a paragraph break in there, but the Wiki software isn't showing it! --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on the whole issue. It's simply an example of quotes being trimmed to shorten them. Even if the entire quote was shown in the movie, it would not have changed the meaning! Saksjn (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem here. Why are we just not going with WP:RS?--Filll (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An editorial in a magazine is not a reliable source, even if the magazine, itself, is very highly respected. Since it is obvious that we aren't going to agree on whose summary is correct, the only reasonable solution is to let Darwin speak for himself.

Truncation of the 2nd paragraph, by deleting the final sentence, changes its meaning, in a way that gives the misleading impression that Stein's quote of Darwin was misleading. If we are to include the 2nd paragraph at all, we need to use the entire 2nd paragraph, so that its meaning is clear. NCdave (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, NCdave, you evidently misunderstand the remainder of the paragraph, so its meaning can't be that clear. Logically, why not include the whole section which further explains Darwin's intent and meaning, albeit in 19th century terms and in the context of his work. The selection is based on a reliable secondary source, and the article by Scientific American fully meets that requirement. Your proposal to change the selection is clearly original research, hence unacceptable. .. dave souza, talk 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not "original research" to quote Darwin correctly, and an editorial is not a reliable secondary source, regardless of what publication it is in.

I will not object to including any number of paragraphs that you wish to include. I only object to splitting or merging paragraphs to change the meaning, as the current version of the article does. What is your objection to including the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph?

It disappoints me that those who cry "foul" at Stein's trimming of Darwin's 1st paragraph, alleging that his edit changed the meaning, themselves insist on trimming Darwin's 2nd paragraph in a way that clearly changes the meaning.

What's wrong with including the final sentence? NCdave (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Darwin quote, no matter how it is presented, is the historical context. I think that the historical context of the quote needs to be carefully addressed in order to demonstrate why Ben Stein is misleading (but I don't really think he is misquoting egregiously). In the preceding centuries, slavers saw anybody of a different race as fair game. In the late 18th Century, Australian Aborigines were not considered to be owners of the land they inhabited, perhaps not even human at all.

Darwin's words reflect his times in relatively moderate terms, and it has been his concept of evolution, supported by the study of genetics, that has eroded the whole concept of race to the point where race is now considered to be a social construct, and not physically real. To modern ears, his views are racist, but he was not heading towards racism, quite the opposite direction. Quoting him to imply that science is to blame for genocide is simply wrong. Compare with Martin Luther, who does not speak in moderate terms about the Jews, and actively promotes genocide (as I read it, anyway). Trishm (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Trishm, those are arguments in defense of Charles Darwin, but they do not address the issue of this article's selective quotation of Darwin to buttress the false accusation from Rennie & Mirsky's editorial that Stein's quote from Darwin's Descent of Man was misleading.

Rennie & Mirsky wrote in an editorial, and editorializing is to be expected in editorials. But we are supposed to be writing in an encyclopedia. Editorial comments are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article (though I don't object to you making them here on the Talk page).

An argument that we should cut Darwin some slack, because he was writing less than 40 years after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, is reasonable, though I don't think it really fits in this encyclopedia article. But selectively quoting from Darwin in order to support an accusation against Stein is not reasonable.

If we are going to quote the 2nd of those two paragraphs, we must quote the whole thing, not just the part that seems, when removed from the context of the rest of the paragraph, might seem to support Rennie's editorial accusation against Stein. NCdave (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Find some secondary sources, preferable in the mainstream media, that make this point. It would be even better if they did in the context of discussing this movie. And present them. How about that? Then there is no problem of course. Otherwise, there is a problem.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times must we go through this charade? Stein was wrong, Rennie was right. This is clear (to anyone not suffering from reading-comprehension problems) in BOTH the Scientific American version AND the proposed longer version (but, of course, NOT in Stein's version, which omitted Darwin's description of eugenics as an "overwhelming evil"). The only change-of-meaning was by Stein (and the earlier creationists who used the same misquote)... NOT by us. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of idiocy? Listen, I'll say it again since no one has adressed it, Stien's version of the quote means the SAME FREAKING THING!!! Just because something was trimmed to save room doesn't mean it's purposely misleading. We are Wikipedia, we don't take sides! 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is hypocrisy at work here. You guys are accusing NCdave of OR and not using reliable sources when much of your assumptions that make it into the article are OR or come from unreliable sources. Expelled Exposed is not a reliable source, neither is an editorial. Saksjn (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to NCdave's difficulties with "present" and (especially) "with". But Stein's truncated version omitted numerous other ways in which society helps the less fortunate, and (most importantly) completely omitted Darwin's opposition to abandoning those measures: "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature" was omitted, and the reference to "overwheming evil" was omitted. It is quite obvious that Stein didn't want to portray Darwin as the humanitarian he actually was, but instead wished to convey the entirely false impression that Darwin would have approved of eugenics. By the way, Scientific American and the NCSE are reliable sources, and we are quoting from them: therefore there is no OR being perpetrated by us here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times am I required to repeat, over and over and over and over, in what way Expelled Exposed is a reliable source? Does anyone read what I post on this topic? I have probably said this at least 10 times. Please look at what I posted before and tell me why it is wrong.

And Scientific American and NCSE are both reliable sources in this instance. In addition, although we have not included it in the article, the mediator of the pro-intelligent design blog of William Dembski also weighed in to agree with Scientific American and NCSE on this point. So we have the two sides of this debate agreeing on this, with references (although I will admit that Dave Scott is a slightly less prominent source than NCSE or Scientific American). It seems ridiculous to claim that there is any dispute here in the sources.

I will remind everyone it is not up to us to make the decision if the sources are right or wrong, but to report what they claim. And three sources, from the two opposing sides of the debate, agree with each other. Case closed.--Filll (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert, none of the portions of the paragraph that Stein omitted in any way diminish the meaning of the part that he quoted. Rather, the "numerous other ways in which society helps the less fortunate" reinforce the part that Stein quoted. There was nothing in that paragraph that argued against abandoning those measures. Indeed, most eugenicists did not advocate abandoning those measures or neglecting the poor; rather, they advocated sterilizing them, and there is nothing in Darwin's words that could be construed as opposing that.

What's more, you have misquoted Darwin. He did not refer to "overwhelming evil." He referred to the "overwhelming present evil" which, he said, would be necessary to justify a policy of neglecting the weak and helpless.

The word "present" means "already existing, now." It proves that what Darwin called evil was the conditions that would have to already exist to justify an anticipated/possible future policy of neglecting weaklings.

Stein's quote of Darwin was an entirely fair and perfectly accurate statement of what Darwin believed. NCdave (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, it doesn't matter who supports the NCSE, it is obviously not a third-party source, let alone a reliable one. Nor is a magazine editorial a reliable third-party source, regardless of what magazine it is in. NCdave (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• The argument about third party sources is irrelevant and spurious. If you feel there is some policy that supports this, provide a link. Otherwise, the next time you make it, I will remove it. Fair warning.
• Provide a link to a seconndary or tertiary reliable source that makes your quotation argument, or the next time it will be removed. Fair warning.
• You cannot spam the talk page with the same argument over and over and over and keep making it even though it does not gain consensus. This is in violation of Wikipedia policy.--Filll (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, it was difficult to read through all of this heated discussion, but why all the fighting about "secondary" sources and "orginal research"? This is about a direct quotation from Darwin, not about what secondary sources say. The article states that Stein deliberately misquotes Darwin, and then the article gives the broader context of the quotation. However, the article cuts off its form of the quotation arbitrarily in the middle of a paragraph, and thus leaves out a few sentences that are clearly relevant to the "misquotation" at hand; that is, while not espousing forceful eugenics, the sentences omitted by the article as it currently stands have Darwin saying that the genetically inferior should voluntarily not breed. While the Stein quotation is definitely strategically selective and perhaps misleading (that depends on your POV, which should not come in to play here), the correct quotation should absolutely include everything relevant to the issue from the actual original text of Darwin, and not just cut off the quote right before it gets to the part that makes some of us uncomfortable (though once again, I acknowledge that Darwin certainly does not appear to espouse eugenics; he only suggests that perhaps the handicapped should choose not to marry and produce offspring). If we can't even give the entire quote here for whatever reason, then this section of the article should be entirely deleted, since it is utterly idiotic to say that Ben Stein was so bad and evil in his misquoting and butchering of Darwin's original text, and then go right ahead and arbitrarily cut off and butcher the original text. Quoting wikipedia policies is like quoting the bible; anyone can come up with a "WP:blah blah" to support what they want to say. What matters is that as the article currently stands, our article is openly attacking Stein for misquoting Darwin, and then to prove our case, we give what we call the complete, original, and nuanced text, when really it's just another "strategically selective" quotation! You can't say that secondary sources did this first, regardless of how "WP:reliable" they are or whatever policy you want to abuse, because if that's the case, then they clearly were "strategically selective" as well! "WP:OR" does not mean "WP:Turn off your brains and just believe", does it?Tix (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes! It seems ridiculous to insist that Darwin be selectively quoted in this article, to try to bolster the argument that Stein selectively quoted Darwin.

I am flexible. We can include the entire paragraph that Stein quoted from (optionally sans the bit at the beginning in which he credits his sources), or if there is consensus for it we can also include the following paragraph. But to include just a selection from the second paragraph, to make Stein look bad, the way Rennie did in his editorial, is plain wrong.

I've restored the final sentence to the second paragraph. NCdave (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll wrote, "The argument about third party sources is irrelevant and spurious. If you feel there is some policy that supports this, provide a link. Otherwise, the next time you make it, I will remove it."

I'm sorry, Filll, I didn't realize that you were unaware of the policy requiring the use of third-party sources. WP:RS says, right near the beginning:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies."

Likewise, WP:V says:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

That is a core policy of Wikipedia. We are not free to ignore it. "Third-party" means uninvolved. The NCSE & its expelledexposed web sites are obviously not a third-party source w/r/t this film, since the NCSE was a major topic of the film.

Wikipedia has a limited exception to the requirement for using third-party sources, to allow for the use of primary sources to document the subject of an article's own positions and views. But the NCSE & its web sites do not fall under that exception, for this article. If you want to quote their web sites, you may do so in the NCSE article, not here.

Also, Filll, I respectfully ask that you please not edit or threaten to edit other editors' comments. You do not own this talk page. NCdave (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NCdave: there is absolutely nothing whatsoever which implies that Darwin would have supported sterilization. Indeed, everything he actually wrote implies that he would not have supported such a measure. Why else would he express a hope (but not an expectation) that they would simply choose not to breed? This would be a non-issue if sterilization was implemented! After everything he said about the "nobility" of helping the less fortunate, such an attitude would be a complete reversal of his moral position... for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Furthermore, Darwin actually presented the "pros" and "cons" of the situation before clearly indicating which side he would choose. Stein entirely omitted half of Darwin's argument, everything supporting the side which Darwin chose, and the fact that Darwin chose that side: in order to create the impression that Darwin was only advocating the side he did NOT actually choose! This is obviously dishonest.

...Whereas the NCSE and Scientific American did no such thing. The rest of Darwin's paragraph supports Darwin's pro-welfare, anti-eugenics stance. I have already pointed this out, but this time I'll use bold for the hard-of-reading: "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"... Why must we bear it? Because (according to Darwin) intervention would be unjustifiable, an "overwhelming evil".

And as you're still utterly wrong regarding your misinterpretation of "overwhelming present evil", you still have no argument there: and if you're basing your stance on that misinterpretation, you won't prevail. In particular, you seem to be hopelessly muddled in your use of tenses. This (from your talkpage) sheds light on your confusion:

"No other interpretation makes sense, because a result cannot antedate its cause. A present (already existing) thing cannot be the consequence of an anticipated (future) thing. So Darwin cannot have meant that the "present evil" would be a result of an anticipated policy."

But Darwin wasn't using the future tense, he was using a Conditional sentence. Conditionals like this could be fulfilled in the future, or they could be fulfilled in an alternate present or past. For instance, "if I were stronger, I could lift this box" refers to an alternate present in which I am stronger than I really am. It is actually your version that makes no sense, because the "overwhelming present evil" obviously wasn't present when Darwin wrote, therefore he should have said "overwhelming future evil". But what he actually meant was that, whenever this temporally-undefined situation occurs (in the future, or in an alternate present or past: it doesn't matter), the act of neglect (or, by extension, eugenics) brings about both a future (to that moment) "contingent benefit" and a present (i.e. then-immediate) "overwhelming evil".

Furthermore, it's apprent that you do understand this on some level. Not only because of your insistence that an "overwhelming present evil" could actually occur in the future rather than the present, but also because of your wrong but illuminating statement that the rest of Darwin's paragraph (omitted by the NCSE and SciAm) would "change the meaning". How is this not an admission that the NCSE/SciAm version (with its "overwhelming present evil") doesn't already mean what you would like it to mean?

As for the "truncation" of the rest of the paragraph: you really need to understand that Wikipedia reports the arguments of OTHERS. It wasn't actually US who decided that the rest of Darwin's paragraph was irrelevant to this argument (though it clearly IS irrelevant anyhow): our SOURCES decided that. By including it, we're going outside the section that our sources are arguing about (hence WP:OR), AND lengthening an already overlong article without cause. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to what Wikipedia reports, it is not supposed to be duplicating arguments from magazine & web page editorials. It is supposed to be neutral. Neutrality demands that we not use selective quotation of an author to change his meaning. Project Gutenberg is a reliable third-party source, an anti-Stein magazine editorial is not.

With respect to the Darwin's meaning, in the first place, if you don't think the final sentence in the 2nd paragraph changes the meaning, then why do you object to including it? The fact that Rennie's editorial omitted it is no excuse for us doing so.

In the second place, it is clear that you do not understand Darwin's intended meaning. Let me try again to explain it, this time with more examples.

Darwin did not contradict what he wrote in his first paragraph, when he wrote his second paragraph. Rather he expanded upon it, reiterating his belief that when the weak reproduce it is to the great detriment of the human race, but also discussing the associated ethical dilemma.

In his second paragraph, he considered a possible future scenario, in which a great existing evil had manifested itself, as a result of civilized people coddling the weak. An example of such an evil might be the emergence of a race of deaf people, such as the one which Alexander Graham Bell later feared could be the result of having boarding schools for the deaf.

The "overwhelming present evil" Darwin refered to is a disaster of that sort. That is what he said would be required to justify neglecting the weak and helpless. A "contingent" benefit is a possible future benefit (of the anticipated policy).

The word "with," in this context, means "19. As a result or consequence of" (per this dictionary), as in these examples:

• She is trembling with fear.

She is trembling as a result or consequence of fear.

• He's sick with the flu.

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

• We will launch our missiles only with severe provocation.

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

• If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

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

No other interpretation makes sense, because a result cannot antedate its cause, even if both cause and result are speculative. In the speculative future scenario that Darwin discussed, the "evil" was something that he said would be present (already existing), and an already existing thing cannot be the consequence of an anticipated (future) thing. So Darwin cannot have meant that the "present evil" would be a result of an anticipated policy.

Darwin was profoundly ambivalent about our civilized protection of the weak and helpless. One one hand, he believed that for the "weak members of civilized societies [to] propagate their kind... must be highly injurious to the race of man."

But, on the other hand, despite "the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind," he recognized that to "check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason [would carry the cost of] deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

So, should civilized societies protect and coddle the weak and helpless, or neglect them? On this question, Darwin comes down squarely on the fence. He doesn't unambiguously reject neglecting the weak and helpless, but he says that it could only be for a contingent (anticipated) benefit (to the race), and as a result or consequence of a great already-existing evil.

Most of the eugenicists who followed Darwin were very much in agreement with him, about both the problem and the humanitarian concern. They most often resolved that dilemma in the obvious way, the same way that ethical dog breeders treat poorer specimens of purebred dogs: by taking good care of them, but forcibly sterilizing them to prevent them from propagating their kind. In the United States, tens of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized, and in NAZI Germany even more were.

The NAZIs, however, were not as concerned with the "deterioration in the noblest part of [their] nature." The National Socialist movement was grounded in racial resentment and hatred, anyhow. Their concern was with "the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind." As Stein demonstrated with an ample selection of NAZI quotes in the movie, they were very much convinced of the correctness of Darwin's belief about the danger of allowing inferior people to breed, but lacked his squeamishness about radical ("final") solutions.

For reference, here is the pair of paragraphs under discussion,with the parts Stein quoted shown in a non-bold font, and the sentences numbered in green:

[1.1]Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations. — [1.2]In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. [1.3]But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. [1.4]This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. [1.5]Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. [1.6]With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. [1.7]We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. [1.8]We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. [1.9]There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. [1.10]Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. [1.11]No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. [1.12]It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

[2.1]The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. [2.2]Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. [2.3]The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. [2.4]Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

You can use the [green sentence numbers] when referring to Darwin's sentences. NCdave (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

...Nope, you are merely repeating your false accusations regarding change-of-meaning, misunderstandings of Darwin's words (and basic English), and misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies, without adding anything new. Therefore I will revert you (again). --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And I see that all you've done above is to regurgitate the stuff you already had on your talkpage (some of which I had already quoted previously). You have failed to address the points I raised. Apparently you have no interest in discussion. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And again, entertaining as it is to read NCdave's tortured misunderstandings of the text, we look to reliable secondary sources for interpretation and selection of the primary source in order to comply with WP:NPOV policy. .. dave souza, talk 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the idea that Darwin is not so much misquoted as misrepresented, by quoting out of context, as this movie review puts forth: http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2008/04/23/Opinions/Of.Ben.Stein.Bad.Science.And.B.s-3343208.shtml

When the movie [Expelled] isn't busy making demonstrably false claims that Intelligent Design supporters have been discriminated against, it's making Mike Godwin cringe by comparing evolution to Nazism. With faux shock written on his face, Stein "learns" that evolutionary biology was used as a justification for Nazi atrocities - the implication being that, because the theory has bad moral implications, people shouldn't believe it.
...Modern evolutionary biology shows that "race" doesn't really exist on a biological level and that, because most mutations are recessive, breeding them out of existence is almost impossible anyway. So even if evolutionary theory did have moral implications - which, like most scientific theories, it does not appear to - genocide and eugenics would not be among them.

Perhaps no one has shown that acceptance of evolution is perfectly consistent with good behavior better than Darwin himself, who wrote in "The Descent of Man" that our sense of sympathy, which originally evolved as an instinct, has become "more tender and more widely diffused" and that we cannot check this instinct "without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

Trishm (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said. The selection has to be read in the context of the whole section, which includes reference to the more detailed discussion of evolution of sympathy elsewhere in the book. Such analysis requires reliable secondary sources, which we have provided. .. dave souza, talk 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

claims vs. each claim

in the summary of the expelled exposed link, we say that it is a "site debunking each claim made in the movie" This should be changed to "site debunking claims made in the movie" as it is more concise and the former has an antagonistic tone. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page instead of edit warring, RC. The way it is written now certainly suggests every single claim is debunked. How best to confirm/deny this? Midnight Gardener (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, your welcome. Second, how I debunk that is this. Let the facts speak for themselves. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

At one point the movie claimed that Nazis killed millions of people. At another point they mentioned the earth being round. I doubt that those claims are debunked. RC's proposed wording thus makes sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the www.expelledexposed.com site claims to debunk the movie's key claims. Apart from the obvious absurdity of the statement that the site debunks all the movie's claims, which you noticed, the current wording about "debunking" the movie's "claims" is terribly POV-biased, implying that the www.expelledexposed.com site has the better of the argument. Some here certainly think that to be the case (I do not), but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.

In general, "claims" is a word to avoid, but if it is used in a balanced fashion, to describe both the disputed assertions made in the movie and the disputations of those assertions, then I think it is okay.

There is another problem, however: The www.expelledexposed.com web site is not a reliable source for disputing the movie's claims. It is a primary source, not a secondary source, and it is as far from neutral as it is possible for a source to me (it is a site by the folks who got their ox gored by the movie). Primary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia for information about the subject's own positions and views, but not about those of their antagonists. As such, Wikipedia's rules do not allow the www.expelledexposed.com site to be used as a source in this article. NCdave (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the film would be the primary source and the website would in fact constitute a secondary source as it is discussing information from the movie. As a website however, it probably is not a reliable source. --Woland (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... a website set up by a major, mainstream organisation with a reputation for fact checking and care, as the NCSE is, is a Reliable Source. Read WP:RS. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful, the NCSE is a partisan organization. We can generally give them large amounts of weight per UNDUE but we need to be careful about taking their opinions completely uncritically. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE is a WP:RS, that's obvious. However it is also directly involved in the film: it is a target in the film, and its director is one of the scientists featured in it. Just cover the story in the article, editors-don't render an official judgment on it. Example, "Expelled Exposed was created by the NCSE to debunk claims made in the film. Most significant of the claims EE challenges are dot dot dot." Professor marginalia (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so which wording do we like best, or do we wanto to use a completely different wording? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE is obviously not a reliable third-party source. They are an advocacy organization created for the express purpose of defending Darwinism. The NCSE is the organization criticized most directly and extensively in the film. Their web site is a self-published source, and pretending that it is reliable third-party source for information about this film is like pretending that the RNC is a reliable third-party source for information about Obama & Clinton. The NCSE has an ax to grind w/r/t this film, just as the RNC has an ax to grind w/r/t Obama & Clinton. NCdave (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE provides tha mainstream view, which you seem to have an ax to grind about. They're clearly a reliable source providing that view, and we should show that view without giving undue weight to pseudoscience or other extreme minority views. .. dave souza, talk 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, are we talking about the same thing? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the NCSE isn't exactly a peer-reveiwed journal. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um hang on here a second. The NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world. The NCSE is also affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the US that gives advice to the president on scientific matters. The NCSE does publish a peer-reviewed journal I believe. The NCSE Expelled Exposed website just compiles information from the scientific press and the mainstream press and even some from the right wing and religious press. It is a perfectly good site and a perfectly reliable source. If nothing else, the members of the oversight board and its principle members are notable in their own right, so even as an WP:SPS this is a reliable source. So please stop with this nonsense.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"The NCSE does publish a peer-reviewed journal I believe." Note the last two words. Also, I have never said that the NCSE isn't a reliable source. Why is it that most of the time you mark your opposition(s) argument(s) as nonsense? Please note that we are discussing rewording the description of one of the external links (although I'm not sure how we got on this NCSE tangent). RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>What word would you prefer that I use instead of "nonsense"? Do you want more variety? A better writing style? This is only the talk page you know. I write a bit informally on the talk page compared to the mainspace pages. I personally did not bring up the NCSE here; I was only responding, as I have done several times when they were accused of being a poor source. I also am not positive that their journal is peer-reviewed; is that relevant here? If you are so interested in it and you believe it is relevant, why not investigate it? Also, do you believe that my use of the word "nonsense" to describe arguments that I believe are nonsensical is a violation of policy? Perhaps you would be good enough to link me to the place in policy where it states that the use of the word "nonsense" is forbidden. Perhaps you want to charge me with a violation of WP:CIVIL?--Filll (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, Until you said "Please stop with this nonsense," your post was utterly reasonable, measured, and professional. Then, at the end, you threw in a very slight unnecessary pejorative. If you had left that part off, this discussion would have stayed closer to the topic (sources). Instead, you chose to say, "stop with this nonsense," which was not professional or helpful, and it caused a predictable reaction, which would have been better to avoid.

Which is better, talking about sources, or talking about whether RC-0722 is talking "nonsense"? Which helps build the encyclopedia?

By the way, there is no such thing as a "violation of WP:CIVIL". -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's wonderful to have you on this talk page, GTBacchus, but your post had more to do with Filll's behaviour than the sources. And of course my post has more to do with your behaviour than the article. Being such kettles and pots, we can offer the other editors some soup, and get back to discuss the article. :) Merzul (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, until you can demonstrate to me that you have read the last several hundred kilobytes of talk page edits and mainspace edits, I believe I will discount your comments. They might even be more relevant if you had participated in the previous discussions for the last 10 months. Thanks awfully.--Filll (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just making an observation. It's pretty clear to anyone who can read that your above paragraph consists of seven sentences of reason, and one sentence of provocation. If you think the last is helpful, then wow. If anything in the last 10 months of editing makes provocation helpful, then wow. That's all I've got to say here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty to say. I could explain and defend myself. But unfortunately given the current circumstances and climate, I am unable to do so. --Filll (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to defend yourself. If GTBacchus can argue in a better and more effective fashion, I'm waiting to be impressed. We are all doing our best, Merzul (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why I proposed the "DGG Challenge".--Filll (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Back the truck up. Filll, did I say you were being incivil? Did I say you were violating a policy by using the word "nonsense?" Did I say that you write informally in the mainspace? Also, this discussion isn't about sources; it is about the description of an external link, as stated in the first post of this thread. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets not have any further WP:BAITing. Please explain to me why the NCSE's Expelled Exposed and other publications are not reliable sources. What is your position? I gave you mine. What is yours?--Filll (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your insults and accusations against other editors, Filll. RC-0722 was not baiting you, and his comments are not nonsense.

The NCSE is obviously not a reliable third-party source. They are an advocacy organization created for the express purpose of defending Darwinism, and they are the organization criticized most directly and extensively in the film. Even if you think they are trustworthy (I do not), they certainly are not a third-party source. Their web site is a self-published source by an involved party, and pretending that it is reliable third-party source for information about this film is like pretending that GM is a reliable third-party source for information about Roger and Me. The NCSE has an ax to grind w/r/t this film, just as GM has an ax to grind about Roger and Me. NCdave (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated repeatedly before:

• The NCSE is an affiliate of the AAAS. Do you consider the AAAS an unrealiable source?
• The Directors of the NCSE are all prominent notable scientists.
• The Executive Director of the NCSE is a notable scientist
• WP:SPS are deemed to be WP:RS in special circumstances, which the NCSE certainly meets
• The NCSE cooperates extensively with groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association.
• The NCSE published a peer-reviewed journal, Creation/Evolution for 10 years. The NCSE members continue to publish work in peer-reviewed journals. I am not sure if the current NCSE Reports is peer-reviewed or not, or to what extent, but the papers in it are for the most part by notable academics with well-established credentials.
• By the way, who cares if NCSE is a secondary or tertiary source? In some cases they might be secondary, in some cases tertiary or quatenary. So what?--Filll (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The issues are contentious and confusing already; let's not add further confusion by using definitions improperly. Reliable sources do not have to be neutral. You can't exclude a source out-of-hand because it's biased, it simply requires editors to be judicious about how they're used or its claims are represented. This Darwin/Holocaust issue in the film has created one of the weirder editorial "blind spots" I've seen yet at wikipedia because I think most here should know better than to fall into this. Nobody can pronounce the alleged connection between the two as entirely true or entirely false officially or unequivocally, and certainly not scientists. Even Michael Shermer, who is every bit as "biased" as the NCSE can be accused of being, in at least one interview he gave where he talked about this film has acknowledged there to be some threads of connections, though he suggests the film has wildly exaggerated the cause and effect relationship between the two. Step back and just tell the story folks. Attribute the various opinions on this and be done with it. This isn't a trial about Evolution, Darwin or the holocaust and we don't need to render final verdict here about these subjects. It's just an article about this film and the controversies surrounding it. Describe the opinions about this film without getting suckered into forcing this article to officially endorsing any of them.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, have we forgotten what the topic actually is? It's not over whether or not the NCSE is a reliable source, but the description of the expelled exposed external link. The way we word it now is as follows: "site debunking each claim made in the movie" I propose that we reword the description to say, "site debunking claims made in the movie" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The description was changed the other day to "debunking various claims". It's not easy to keep current between these discussions and the latest edits to the article because of the fast-pace and volume of edits. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd say this discussion is over. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say hurrah and let's archive it, but there is spill-over from the discussion over whether or not the NCSE is a reliable source. It would be less confusing if those were re-factored into a common section and the rest of this be archived. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The expelledexposed web site is not a reliable, third-party source, and has no business being cited in this article at all. Some editors may disagree about its unreliability, but is there anyone who denies that the NCSE & its expelledexposed web site are not a third-party source?

Since the movie mentions the NCSE, it is proper for this article to mention it, and wikilink to its article when doing so. But parroting its arguments here, in this article, is a plain violation of Wikipedia's rules.

And please do not archive active discussions, like this one, about problems with the article. NCdave (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WE (Wikipedians) are one party. The film itself (and those who made it) are another party. The NCSE is a third party. Also, the NCSE's "Expelled Exposed" is a secondary source. From WP:PSTS:

"*Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Note: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources". That's what we have here. And, of course, the film never mentioned "Expelled Exposed" anyhow (because it didn't exist when the film was made). It truly is a secondary source. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the source of your confusion! You misunderstand what "third-party" means.

"Third party" means "uninvolved." It is the 2nd definition here, and the "noun" definition here.

If it "third-party" meant what you think it means, then the requirement for third-party sources would mean nothing more than "no original research," because if the source was "WE (wikipedians)" (what you think is the first party) then using it would be original research, and if the source was "the film itself" (what you think is the second party) that is the specifically allowed exception to the rule, which would classify EVERY other source as a third-party.

That's not what "third-party" means. It means "uninvolved." The purpose of relying on third-party (uninvolved) sources is to avoid bias. NCdave (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is this in policy that wp requires we use only "third party sources", NCdave? The problem here isn't that NCSE isn't a RS, what's key in this article in terms of sourcing claims from NCSE is care with formulating opinion. The article here uses sources who are somehow involved in this film in many places, it's not just the NCSE. I agree with you that in some places in the article, the claims aren't formulated as well as they should be. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE was not involved in the making of "Expelled". Therefore they are a third party, by that definition. The interpretation that an organization that is the target of an attack should have its own response silenced is the most bizarre excuse for a blatant NPOV-violation that I've ever seen! Trust NCdave to come up with it... --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Prof. marginalia, the policy requiring the use of third-party sources is one of Wikipedia's main policies. WP:RS says, right near the beginning:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies."

Likewise, WP:V says:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

That is a core policy of Wikipedia. We are not free to ignore it. "Third-party" means uninvolved. The NCSE & its expelledexposed web sites are obviously not a third-party source w/r/t this film, since the NCSE was a major topic of the film.

Wikipedia has a limited exception to the requirement for using third-party sources, to allow for the use of primary sources to document the subject of an article's own positions and views. But the NCSE & its web sites do not fall under that exception, for this article. If you want to quote their web sites, you may do so in the NCSE article, not here. NCdave (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the policy. First, the "article needs to rely on third party sources" does not imply "article needs to exclude all but third party sources". Second, only "widely acknowledged as extremist" sources are restricted for use in self-descriptions. Third - by extension of your argument, this entire article would have to be scrapped pretty much because the message in it is not a self-description, it's an attack against another party-so called "Big Science" if you will. I don't know why you're singling out NCSE with these concerns. Virtually none of the sources listed could be used in this article if your interpretation of policy held, none except perhaps a handful of film critics, which is ludicrous. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, nowhere in the article does it say that the NCSE was a primary target of the film. This certainly isn't mentioned in the "Overview" paragraph, and even though Eugenie Scott (of the NCSE) was one of the numerous people interviewed, she apparently doesn't rate her own paragraph under "People presented in the film". --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Having seen the film, I think it fair to say it took a hard poke at the NCSE. It was singled out once or twice, and the film cast it (NCSE) as one of the main gatekeepers locking out dissenters of evolution. It's an exaggeration to say it was the "primary target". Just my opinion, of course. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSW was a primary target if the film's criticism, not the primary target. There were several primary targets.

This article is, indeed, riddled with violations of Wikipedia's policy requiring the use of reliable third-party sources; the use of NCSE as a source is just one example. However, there are plenty of true third-party (uninvolved) sources to draw upon, instead. NCdave (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To make this easier, point to a section or passage where you think another source is necessary than the one used.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (has edit conflict feature changed? I'm not getting ec'd lately. Sorry if this was out of sequence.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

<ri>The NCSE is, of course, a reliable source. It's a notable view that should be reflected. But if, as you say, there are "plenty" of other reliable third-party sources, then by all means, let's include them. What sources do you propose we add, and for what content? Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NCdave: don't forget that you're quoting guidance that's supposed to apply to all Wikipedia articles, most of which are not about any controversy between two parties. For instance, in an article about a football team, the "third party" is not US or the TEAM, but somebody else writing about the team (just as the NCSE has written about "Expelled", but was not involved in creating it). These numbers can cause confusion: for instance, a secondary source is a third party, a second secondary source is a second third party, adding a tertiary source would make a third third party... --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

rational wiki link

Do we really need to be linking to another wiki? Saksjn (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when do wikis become RS? Saksjn (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are so many references I'm going cross-eyed looking for this. Where is a wiki used in the article? Professor marginalia (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a reference, it's under the "Critical sites" portion of "External links". Which means that it isn't actually being used to support any statement in the article. Wikis are not acceptable as references, but their use as external links is less clear: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid... Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (from WP:EL). --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think rationale wiki meets that condition. So - we can link to it. I realise that doesn't answer Saksjn's question though. Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we can link to it. However, I'm not convinced there's a substantial benefit to the link in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Timer

When the timer on this page was 5 days, the page became 650 kilobytes in length and continued to grow. I set it to 3 days, and this did not help matters much. Two days and we were still drowning in text. Huge long talk pages are impossible for many people with slower connections to load. This discriminates against people with slower connections.

While this page is so popular, we have to be fair to all users and editors. So we can either have a longer timer period for the bot, and then have to userfy, hide and manually delete many pointless and repetitious discussion, which will inevitably cause more discord, or we can have a shorter timer period and let everyone be heard and be able to contribute. Your choice. I am pushing to avoid censorship myself.--Filll (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can help if we manually archive discussions when they're indisputably done, which at least sometimes happens here.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I set it back to 5 days because a one day timer is ridiculously short. An editor should be able to visit Wikipedia on weekends and still be able to participate in discussions here. A timer that is less than 9 or 10 days makes that difficult. IMO, 5 days is still much too short, but it was a compromise.

A 650k page is large, but not absurdly so. Even with an uncompressed dial-up modem connection, it should take under 3 minutes to load, and with a compressed ("accelerated") dial-up modem connection it should take much less.

(BTW, "hiding" threads does not help with page-load times. The whole page still has to download. Hiding threads with {{hab}} templates and the like, just makes the page look smaller on the screen, it doesn't help download times at all.)

With a one-day timer, if you edit on Monday and come back on Wednesday, the reply to your comment, to which you might wish to reply, is long gone. In fact, if you edit early Monday evening and come back late Tuesday evening, it might be gone. With such a short timer, it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation except with people who have nothing to do but edit on Wikipedia.

I contend that a much higher percentage of editors probably have high-speed Internet than have the time to edit on Wikipedia twice a day or more, every day. I really don't think that an auto-archive timer of less than 10 days is ever appropriate, but I'm willing to listen to other points of view. NCdave (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've un-archived a few fresh (updated in the last 3.5 days) threads. The discussion page is still pretty small. NCdave (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong. If someone makes a comment to a thread on Monday, and it is of no interest to anyone, it should be archived. It should not still be there on Wednesday or Friday if no one else has chimed in. We cannot afford that. And we are allowed to just summarily remove posts that are repetitive, which many are here. And that is what will have to happen, which I think will anger many. And the length of time for downloading is not the issue; many will be unable to download the page at all regardless of time if it is too large. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you may have a point regarding the point for setting the timer, but you've reverted archiving of discussions which are clearly over with also. The talk page isn't for venting - if the discussion is over, archive it. There is no time limit for resolving disputes, however, so the timer shouldn't have that unintended effect. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't know if a thread or comment is of no interest to anyone unless it stays in place long enough for folks to read it. Many worthy contributors have real lives and real jobs, and cannot contribute to Wikipedia every day. Really, the timer should be no shorter than 9-10 days, so that people who can only contribute on weekends will not be shut out. But, in a spirit of compromise, I've set the timer to halfway between what I think it should be (10 days), and what Filll thinks it should be (1 day). (10+1)/2 = 5.5, which I rounded down to 5 days. NCdave (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think 3 days is workable for now. If topics are popular, or discussion is taking place, the section doesn't get archived. 1 day is too short. 5 days leads to bloat. As the article becomes less edited (as the film leaves theaters, people lose interest, etc.), we can increase the timer to 5, then 7, then 14 days. --Ali'i 14:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo

There is already a qualifier stating that data on the Mojo site concerning highest grossing documentaries is kept from 1982, a qualification about "not adjusted for inflation" is ridiculous. This information is available for anyone who follows the link to Box Office Mojo and doesn't need to be stated in the Wiki article. The number of theaters, marketing and other factors aren't mentioned as well, because it is superfluous information. Supertheman ^(talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the ranking as "12th highest grossing" isn't needed as the information is available for anyone who follows the link to Box Office Mojo. I have now kept the information in twice, but have doubts about its significance as a ranking amongst other fairly insignificant films, just below Tupac: Resurrection. Of course the inflation adjusted ranking is liable to be different as the film at 13th came out in 1989. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo also reports that 63% of viewers give the film an "A" grade. That needs to be in the article. The lopsidedly positive ratings by viewers are as notable as the lopsidedly negative ratings by movie reviewers. NCdave (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Views in the intro

Policy and guideline requires that all significant viewpoints need to be represented in the intro, read Wikipedia:Lead_section and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure. I've restored the AAAS view, as it is representative of the scientific community's, to the intro. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not how the guideline reads, consider the following quote:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.

The opening should be *concise* and briefly describe its notable controversies, not go into specific detail concerning *one* opinion from *one* organization. The fact that the film is controversial is noted, and the viewpoints of the AAAS are clearly deliniated in the article. A complete summary of this one organization, particularly without any contrasting viewpoints from another organization, is not within the Wikipedia:Lead_section guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good argument for showing a view ably representing the scientific community as a contrast to the viewpoints of the film makers. See WP:FRINGE. .. dave souza, talk 11:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead already has a million bad reviews of the movie in it, why do we need yet another bad review? Saksjn (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate, it further weakens your credibility. See NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn's credibility is just fine, and the viewpoins of the filmmakers are not WP:Fringe. Please refrain from personal attacks, gentlemen. NCdave (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempting again, for the nth time, to clarify some points

As I survey this page, I see some strange misconceptions and confusions, repeated over and over. I and others have tried to straighten them out, but so far to no avail. Let me try again.

• With respect to what Wikipedia reports, it is not supposed to be duplicating arguments from magazine & web page editorials. Yes it is, as long as the web page or magazine editorial is determined to be a reliable source.

• It is supposed to be neutral. No it is not "neutral". It is supposed to be WP:NPOV, which is not neutral. How many times do I have to state this over and over? Wikipedia is not unbiased and it is not neutral (whatever that means) and it is not supposed to be. Never was. By design. For example, the operative phrase "in proportion to their prominence" makes it clear that NPOV is not "neutral".

• Neutrality demands that we not use selective quotation of an author to change his meaning. We report what our 3 sources state about what the movie stated. Nothing more, nothing less.

• The fact that Rennie's editorial omitted it is no excuse for us doing so. Adding parts that were not in the movie, or, to be more precise, our sources do not state were in the movie, is WP:OR, which is forbidden.

• In the second place, it is clear that you do not understand Darwin's intended meaning. Darwin's intended meaning is irrelevant. It is not up to us to state it or guess it or interpret it or argue about it or debate it. We just report what the sources say. That is all. To do otherwise is forbidden on Wikipedia. You can do that on other wikis, but not here.

• there is some confusion here between "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources" and "third party sources" (See WP:PSTS). Secondary sources are fine, and so are tertiary sources on Wikipedia. And NCSE is a sometimes secondary and sometimes tertiary. NCSE does not do scientific research, so it is not a primary source. Primary sources, like Darwin's writings or the movie Expelled itself, are discouraged.

• Third party sources as I understand them are unrelated to the conflict. We cannot reasonably describe this conflict by relying only on sources unrelated to the conflict. For example, if we permit only third party sources, we have to discard all sources from intelligent design supporters, creationists and the filmmakers or anyone associated with the filmmakers, as well as anyone associated with science or evolution supporters. This would throw out about 2/3 or more of our sources. This is clearly ridiculous. I think it is fair to use a mix of sources from each side of this conflict, of a primary, secondary and tertiary nature.

• Wikis are not in general reliable sources. They are probably something worse than WP:SPS in most cases, particularly if written anonymously. Wikis are probably fine as external links however in many cases.

• Setting the timer to 1 day does not mean your post will only last one day on the page. It will last one day on the page and be archived only if it is not of sufficient interest to anyone that no one responds to it. So even if the timer is set to 1 day, any post you make could stay on the page for a week or a month or longer, as long as it is part of a thread anyone is interested in. If it is not, then it should be archived because it is not of interest. And frankly most of what is on this page is not of interest to anyone. --Filll (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this thread helps the article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 05:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It will help the article considerably if everyone, including you, studies and applies Wikipedia policies carefully and correctly. Further guidance available on request. .. dave souza, talk 10:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Request! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" for starters ;) .. dave souza, talk 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely DS. The thing is, if people do not know the policies under which Wikipedia is written, then they make incorrect statements and try to make incorrect arguments. And I think it is important for us all to be on the same page in terms of understanding policy. And that is how this helps the article. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So now you are assuming that everyone, including me, does not know and apply WP policy when editing? I still fail to see what this has to do with improving the article. If the top of the page be read, it will say, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article." I beleive this thread, while made in good faith, does not particularly help the article, but rather it's editors. So, before I depart (for now), I leave you with this quote from the policy on personal attacks, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." RC-0722 ^247.5/1 13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you do know that making spurious accusations of personal attacks is sanctionable. If you do not, you should. Please be so good as to describe for me exactly how what I posted was a personal attack. --Filll (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of personal attacks. I was merely quoting a piece of policy that others assume I do not know. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Not too credible, but whatever.--Filll (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell, what doth thine most confusing comment mean? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"It is supposed to be neutral. No it is not "neutral". It is supposed to be WP:NPOV, which is not neutral. How many times do I have to state this over and over? For example, the operative phrase "in proportion to their prominence" makes it clear that NPOV is not "neutral"."" NPOV most certainly means "neutral". It's what the "n" stands for in NPOV, it's ubiquitously found on WP's relevant policy pages, and is a core WP policy. You've already put forward this notion, and I responded back on May 12th by pointing out why it's obviously wrong. You could've then responded by refuting my counterargument, but you chose not to. So why are you repeating this unsupportable notion? Why not instead elaborate on it by disproving the reasoning I offered to refute it? You alleged that Jimbo Wales corroborated this idea at some meeting. Why not provide substantiation for this assertion regarding, rather than expect everyone here to simply take you at your word that a fundamental core policy is actually not one? Are you honestly under the impression that anyone here will simply accept this assertion about a core policy by one editor? This is unlikely, so of course you're going to repeat it over and over. Why insist on this notion that proportional prominence is somehow contradictory to, or mutually exclusive from neutrality, especially when I gave an explanation back on May 12 illustrating how they are not? If you found my reasoning flawed, why didn't you respond to refute it? If you do this, then maybe others here will accept this assertion of yours. NPOV is all over WP, and given that policies have been amended before, there would be nothing stopping Jimbo from getting the word out, and making sure that the relevant policy changes were changed if what you're saying is true. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well with all due respect, I am not going to get into an argument with an admin who does not understand the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. That is what we call "prudence".

However, you have had one senior admin disagree with you here at least a couple of times and point you in the appropriate direction. I could bring a parade of other senior admins here to do the same thing I suppose, but would I really want to annoy them with something so fundamental and trivial? I think either you are not understanding my meaning, or not understanding the policy, at least as I read it and have had it explained to me, over and over and over.

Let me give an example. Suppose there are two views on a subject, A and B. In an article about A, a neutral way to present A would be to include the description of A from the point of view of the proponents of A. However, that is not what we do on Wikipedia. We do not make our articles neutral, but something we call "NPOV". In an NPOV article about A, at least as I understand it and have it explained to me by people with many many more edits than you or I have, Wikipedia includes A's view of the subject, and B's view of the subject, and A's criticism or view of B and B's criticism or view of A. And if A and B are roughly the same "prominence" however we define that, the Wikipedia article will devote about as much time to the A viewpoint as the B viewpoint. However, if A is much more prominent than B, the Wikipedia article will include more of A's viewpoint in it; that is, the article will be biased towards the A view (I am using the word bias in the statistical sense, that is, biased means weighted). In fact, according to Wikipedia policies, if A is sufficiently more prominent than B, the B views might not be included at all in the Wikipedia article. Of course, when dealing with some WP:FRINGE subject that lacks prominence, this notion of "in proportion to their prominence" has to be bent a little to fairly describe the minority view, and in practice the proportion is determined by consensus in that case.

That is my understanding. --Filll (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I still believe that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the article. B. As stated on the NPOV page, it says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well with all due respect, I am not going to get into an argument with an admin who does not understand the fundamental policies of Wikipedia." If this were truly your position, you would respond by establishing that I don't understand WP policy, at least to the exclusion of other possibilities. Instead, you have merely asserted that I don't. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The validity of any idea, argument or conclusion is the reasoning or evidence that you present for it. You don't simply assume it a priori in a self-serving manner, as if it's somehow a presupposed fact that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and that merely declaring this by fiat makes it so. I presented my reasoning for my position. If you want to show me and everyone else here that I'm wrong (and I'm willing to consider the possibility, and to listen to your arguments), then you have to illustrate that point with evidence. What reason would you not have for doing so, and for instead expressing this silly ostrich-in-the-sand refusal, other than the fact that you know you're wrong, and know you can't back up your position with either logic or evidence? Why not show that Jimbo really did what you say he did, by providing a video, transcript, Meetup Page link, or something other evidence, so the matter could be settled? Do you deny that this is precisely how WP prescribes such disputes be resolved?

"However, you have had one senior admin disagree with you here at least a couple of times and point you in the appropriate direction." Really. Please elaborate Where was this? On what issue? And how was I pointed in the right direction?

"I could bring a parade of other senior admins here to do the same thing I suppose, but would I really want to annoy them with something so fundamental and trivial?" How in the world is a fundamental core policy trivial? (For that matter, how can it be both fundamental and trivial?) You allege a "parade" of like-minded admins on your side, but you won't name at least one? You won't ask at least one to speak to me on a core policy? I'm sorry, is that outside the role of administrators, or something? Seriously, how can you actually think this comes across as anything other than an empty assertion? You have the ability to disprove my position with a large group of admins, which is what you're supposed to do, but refuse to cite them? How do you think that looks to me or any other objective observer when you essentially say "I can easily prove your statement wrong, but I won't!"

"I think either you are not understanding my meaning, or not understanding the policy, at least as I read it and have had it explained to me, over and over and over." I understand you perfectly. I understand the policy perfectly. So please understand me when I say to you that I am not fooled by your statements regarding NPOV, Jimbo Wales, or the phalanx of likely non-existent admins that you claim will corroborate the idea that a fundamental core WP policy that is explained in detail on a bunch of policy pages is somehow "not" a fundamental core WP policy, simply because you personally can't comprehend how NPOV is not mutually exclusive from proportional source prominence. The fact remains that I explained to you how these two things are not contradictory, and you have yet to refute this. The fact that you arbitrarily assume that the only possibilities in this disagreement is necessarily a cognitive failure on my part--and that you don't even conceive as a possibility that just maybe you're wrong, is unfortunate, but it will not change the reality of NPOV.

"However, if A is much more prominent than B, the Wikipedia article will include more of A's viewpoint in it; that is, the article will be biased towards the A view (I am using the word bias in the statistical sense, that is, biased means weighted)." And this is where you are wrong, because "bias" and "neutrality" do not refer to these things. "Bias" and "Neutrality" do not refer to the ultimate answer to the question posed by the controversial topic. They refer only to the wording with which that topic is described. Again, I used the 1x/10x example more than once; why won't you respond to it? If I say:

“ Natural selection is considered a scientific fact by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, on a par with heliocentricity, plate tectonics and the germ theory of infection. A fringe an idea called Intelligent Design supported mostly by fundamentalist Christians, and a few scientists, challenges natural selection, but has been judged to be a religious doctrine, and pseudoscientific, by both the scientific community and numerous court decisions... ”

...That is a perfectly neutral and proportionate statement. It's neutral because it's a statement of fact, and statements of fact, when worded in a way that does not betray any opinion, viewpoint or agenda on the part of the writer/speaker, are inherently neutral. It's proportional because it properly references the fact that ID scientists are a relatively tiny minority, and that the idea itself has no standing in the scientific community. What I sense here is that you think something is not neutral if a group is said to be in the minority, or on the fringe, because the implication may be that they are "wrong". But why is this? Where do you get the idea that stating something is a fringe idea is a betrayal of neutrality? That some ideas and groups are fringe ones is a statement of fact, there's no "bias" in stating so, and if a reader interprets this to mean that they're wrong, that has nothing to do with WP failing neutrality. How one interprets a passage and how it's worded are two different things. WP reports facts. What a reader understands from them is separate from this. There is only bias or a betrayal of neutrality if the statement is either untrue, if there is an element of subjectivity that is being described matter-of-factly, or if there is an element of legitimate conflict on a controversial topic in which one or more major groups are not represented. Thus neutrality and proportion are not mutually exclusive. If I say "Nine of these ten people liked Movie X, and one did not", that is perfectly neutral and proportionate. But if I include the passage "...and that one guy who didn't like it has no taste", then THAT is not neutral. Neutrality refers only to the viewpoint of the editor. Not the viewpoints of the conflicted groups being described. Allowing the former into the wording of material violates policy. Allowing the latter is required by it. This is precisely what the NPOV policy prescribes. Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this appears to be quite counter productive in a number of respects. In a final effort to try to move this into a constructive mode instead of this type of thing, please make suggestions for how you would rewrite this article. Of course, if you would care to rewrite the article in a sandbox and present the results here for inspection, that would be quite beneficial. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg you, in the bowels of Christ, to think that you may both be correct :) Overall "neutrality" is established by describing dispassionately the various published views in proportion to their prominence amongst experts on the subject. Thus the view of 90% of film critics is that this film is a stinker, and the article reflects that view proportionately. In relation to its scientific message, it promotes a fringe viewpoint which is pseudoscience and is not to be given "equal validity". Editors have to apply these principles in a neutral way, but not all editors will agree! . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that he is correct, in some particulars. However, what seems to be exhibited on this page repeatedly by this editor are attempts to engage in somewhat unseemly debates. I do not intend to take what might appear to be WP:BAIT. It might not be, and I apologize if I am misreading the situation. If I am pushed sufficiently, I will respond to the questions posed, but I am pretty sure that if we go down that route, this editor will not be particularly happy with that. So please, let's not go there. Instead, let's work on improving the articles on the encyclopedia.

Quibbling over the meaning of the polyseme "neutral", and how it is applied by me, or by those editors characterized by singular editing interests serving some agenda, or by NS or by the editors of one section of a policy document or another is not particularly useful in this instance. I have given explicit examples of my usage. An admin above, Dave souza, has confirmed my usage. FeloniousMonk, another admin, has also confirmed my usage more than once on this page. --Filll (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill, it is true that you accomplices have helped you stave off logic here and elsewhere. This is most usually perpetrated by preventing others from editing (by locking down the article) or by blocking (by shutting down accounts). That does not mean that your blatant disregard for neutrality has not been witnessed. How many times have you told others to go to other sites rather than addressed their valid complaints and concerns? 98.169.241.244 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the complaints department, this page is for discussing improvements to the article. Make suggestions verified by reliable sources and we'll discuss them. . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how I have "staved off logic here and elsewhere". I have not locked down any articles. I have not blocked anyone although I have written one RfC calling for a topic ban in one instance. I have stated and restated the interpretation of policy as I have been instructed. Is it incorrect? Possibly my understanding of policy is incorrect, but then someone would have to show me how the dozens of senior editors and administrators who tutored me and taught me this policy were wrong. Although you could convince me, it would take some doing. I suspect that is a low probability event.

Why do I suggest people try other sites? Well clearly not everyone is interested in applying NPOV or NOR or other Wikipedia policies. And in fact, in many instances these policies are definitely unsuitable. There are literally hundreds of other Wikis which have different operating principles and policies and conventions. These other Wikis are not inferior. We have a free market of ideas and information here, and if the public decides one of those other venues meets their needs better, then the superiority of these other wikis will eventually become apparent. Many people I have directed to these other wikis have found them to be more appropriate for their needs and interests. I am proud to note that several people I have directed to other Wikis have become administrators or taken even more responsible positions at those other Wikis and become very productive there, creating more free information and knowledge for us all to use, which of course is the ultimate goal, right? What is wrong with someone finding the place where they can be most productive?

In addition to other Wikis, clearly many people who come to Wikipedia are not interested in building an encyclopedia or writing anything, but are just interested in debating or even fighting. There are of course many debate sites on the internet, and I have directed people whose interests are in that direction to go there. Again, I ask what is the problem if I help people find a place which has what they are looking for? One site cannot be all things to all people. Do you not agree?

I have even written about these options in my draft essay on the subject. Many have applauded the approach I describe in my draft essay, including the admins User:GTBacchus and User:Carcharoth. So clearly I am not alone in this. Do you think we are all wrong? If so, why? And what would you do differently? I would also invite you to try the AGFC and demonstrate explicitly how you would manage difficult editing situations and what decisions you would make and how they are superior to those of other editors.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

First and Foremost. If the mainpage be read, at the top would be the words, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Filll, take your challenge yourself before you tell others to take it. Now, I'd strongly suggest you people continue this discussion elsewhere, as this is the talk page for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The post at the top of this thread is about the article. Disputes about the tone and neutrality and NPOVness of the article occupy a large fraction of this talk page discussion. You feel confident enough that you want to tell two admins that they are abusing the talk page? Interesting...--Filll (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am that confident because the discussion (as I see it) is not about where the articles fits the NPOV policy, but rather NPOV itself. Also, your first post had nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the editors. (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and direct you to the direct quotes I placed from other editors discussing specific changes they wanted to make in the article. And if we do not agree with NPOV is, we cannot make the article NPOV. Do you not think that is an accurate statement? For example, I believe that according to NPOV policy, this article can be about 90 percent negative about the film. According to some other editors on this page, they believe that according to their interpretation of NPOV policy, this article must not be 90 percent negative, or even 50 percent negative, or in some cases even 1 percent negative about the film. So that leads to disputes, right? I would think that would be obvious. But I guess not...--Filll (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By NPOV policy, the article cannot give undue weight to any views; all noteworthy views should need to be discussed in fair and reasonable proportion. But never, at any time, does NPOV allow for the article to assume or adopt a negative or positive position, every view must be equally neutral in how they are represented. If 90% of the things there are to say about the film are negative, then 90% of the content will be about those negative things. That's subtly different than saying 90% of the article will itself be negative. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article cannot give undue weight, which in this means that if 90 percent of the reliable sources hold one position, and 10 percent hold some other position, the article cannot give 40 percent weight to one position and 60 percent to the other without running into an WP:UNDUE problem (of course, the proportions can be determined other way besides the proportion of reliable sources, but that is a good example). Of course the article should not itself advocate any position, but should just report what the sources say. That is obvious, and I hope I never gave any other impression. And there are many definitions of "neutral" clearly, as can be seen by looking at this talk page or any talk page of a controversial article. So I think it is best to just avoid the term "neutral" since so many are confused about it or disagree as to what it means.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV does mean neutral. 'Actually, even Jimbo gave a speech on this subject a couple of years ago at one of the Wikimedia meetings where he pointed out that the term 'NPOV' was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it confused people into thinking that the articles were supposed to be neutral.' I have no idea what this refers to, actually. I do not agree with it at all, and I have no idea what I might have said 'a couple of years ago' which might have been misinterpreted in this way." --Jimbo Wales. Now, can we please take this discussion somewhere else? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is probably sanctionable; impersonating Jimbo. Very funny.--Filll (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Filll, then maybe you should take this to a place where it will get site-wide attention, that way people who do not come to this talk page have a chance to weigh in on what NPOV means. PM, agreed. (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed and discussed and discussed and a consensus has been forged among the editors on Wikipedia, long before you or I appeared, years ago on this issue. This has long long been established. Why would you believe otherwise? Goodness gracious. I only repeat what I have been instructed in, when I see people trying to apply an incorrect version of policy, over and over. This is nothing new, because it is tried all the time on controversial articles. That story is as old as the hills. If you want to change the policy, I would invite you to go to the policy page for WP:NPOV and propose something different. Maybe you can forge a new consensus.--Filll (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I didn't say anything about rewriting this article, and I think I made this point clear earlier. It's unfortunate that you think discussion over a basic policy (one instituted by your insistence that it's actually not one) is not constructive, though I'm glad that you're able to at least conceive of the possibility that you're wrong. With all due respect to the other admins whom you claim have backed you up on this (though I don't recall reading them saying this anywhere), I will only say that I have a senior WP admin who says you're wrong. His name is Jimbo Wales, and right here he says:

“ NPOV does mean neutral. "Actually, even Jimbo gave a speech on this subject a couple of years ago at one of the Wikimedia meetings where he pointed out that the term 'NPOV' was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it confused people into thinking that the articles were supposed to be neutral." I have no idea what this refers to, actually. I do not agree with it at all, and I have no idea what I might have said 'a couple of years ago' which might have been misinterpreted in this way. ”

And in addition to disproving your wild assertion that "NPOV" doesn't mean "neutral", and that he supposedly said this at a meeting somewhere, he also refutes your assertion that a proper description of source prominence proportion is "not" neutral by affirming the opposite, that an inaccurate description of a lopsided proportion as being equal would be not neutral:

“ The important question that Filll is raising is how we reconcile the notion of neutrality with the notion of "in proportion to their prominence" but for me that seems pretty obvious. If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! ”

RC is right that most of this does not seem to pertain to the article. However I would not have participated in this if it were not for Filll's attempts to rewrite core WP policies to suit his own whims, or his wild assertions that armies of admins support him. Filll, I'm hoping that this has now been resolved, so the next time you have a radical interpretation about a plainly described policy, please corroborate it with other admins, and ask them to clarify it for others before you start claiming that they have taught you this or that WP's founder has backed you up on this, when it's clear it was your own misinterpretation all along. You want to move on? Fine. But please do not presume to tell the rest of WP what NPOV means, or that we shouldn't use the word "neutral", because the only who was "confused" about this policy or who tried to rewrite it was you. And Jimmy Wales himself said so. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you are not here to write an article, why are you here? I am afraid I have had enough. Sorry, but I tried. --Filll (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I belive he was refering to this thread. <sarcasm>Also, you are going to discontinue this discussion when you were on the fringe of showing us the error of our ways? Please, Filll us in.</sarcasm> (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to recenter this discussion on the article. I thought that was your main purpose, from what you wrote above? I would suggest we try to avoid rancor if possible.--Filll (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that this topic had nothing to do with the article in the first place, you're going to have a hard time with that now aren't you? Also, yes I would like to see this discussion end, or moved elsewhere. BTW, that's not rancor, this is a Rancor. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow your claims are not particularly compelling. I wonder why that is?--Filll (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it again. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, if someone starts a discussion in which he tries to rewrite a core WP policy by claiming that it really doesn't mean what all its pages say it means, that he can cite a plethora of admins to back him up, and falsely claims that the founder himself said so, I'm going to speak up in order to point out that he's wrong. I do not have to write or rewrite the article in order to do this, and it is not for you to determine whether this is valid or not. Again, the only one who's been caught in the middle of a lie is you, so I'd restrain yourself from further rhetorical attacks upon others regarding not finding their statements "compelling". Okay? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? I do not mean to give any offense, but what lie do you believe I have spun? Do you have proof that I lied? I maintain that I have not done so, to the best of my knowledge and intent. Please do not make such serious accusations so lightly.

Just because I decline to engage in combat here in the interests of comity and decline to be provoked, please do not be mislead into believing that I have no counterarguments to offer or explanations for my statements. I just think that they have nothing to do with writing an article, following the principles of Wikipedia. And given an extremely unpleasant situation fraught with danger, I do not believe I should stoop to engaging in some long drawn-out offtopic discussion of semantics.

For example, does the definition of the word "neutrality" that you used agree with the definition of the word "neutrality" used by all those who have visited this talk page? I suspect if you did some investigation, you might find that the word "neutrality" is used by many if not most inexperienced users who have an ideological agenda in a very different way than what your usage has implied here. Because the word "neutral" is open to a variety of interpretations, it is a somewhat problematic word to bandy about in policy discussions. In my estimation, most ideologically-driven editors define a "neutral article" as one that is gives "equal validity" to all views, or even excessive validity to minority views (i.e., violating WP:UNDUE). And that is why using the words "neutral" and "neutrality" can produce complicated difficult situations at controversial articles. This should be clear from my repeated explanations. The fact that it is not is quite telling and unfortunate.

Please do not take offense at any of this. If you find this post offensive in any way shape or form, please notify me immediately and I will strike or remove the sections that offend you or irritate you. Please, I do not want to fight. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Claims that Jimbo corroborated your distortion of NPOV in some unidentified speech at some unidentified meeting is what I'm referring to. Citing allegedly countless admins who aided you in your Wikiskills as supposedly doing the same (as if they are somehow responsible for your attempt to distort the NPOV policy, when it was entirely your own responsibility, and not theirs) is as well. I suppose it is conceivably possible that these falsehoods were not deliberate on your part, but I find it unlikely in light of other bits of circumstantial evidence. But if I'm wrong, I apologize, and retract this particular accusation, at least provisionally. As far as your claim that you do not engage in "combat", this is also untrue, as you have a documented history of making sarcastic, uncivil and even threatening remarks to others, and of making condescending ad hominem statements that are neither necessary nor conducive of civil discourse. If you don't want others to conclude that you do not have counterarguments, then perhaps you should refrain from declining to answer perfectly valid arguments, something that you have done a number of times (though thankfully, not always). As for "my" definition of "neutrality" that I use, the only one I use is the one that agrees with the policy pages that describe it, and the founder of Wikipedia. As a matter of comparative validity, whether it agrees with others who have visited this Talk Page is unimportant. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above several times, using the word "neutrality" can lead to misunderstandings, because the word "neutrality" has multiple meanings, and this is of crucial importance on controversial pages. And since many have misunderstood the word "neutrality" on this page, it is important here. Otherwise, there would be no reason to even discuss it, because who cares? However, this is a topic that arises over and over. If one ignores the actual "label", which is relatively unimportant, and look at the meaning as I described above:

Let me give an example. Suppose there are two views on a subject, A and B. In an article about A, a neutral way to present A would be to include the description of A from the point of view of the proponents of A. However, that is not what we do on Wikipedia. We do not make our articles neutral, but something we call "NPOV". In an NPOV article about A, at least as I understand it and have it explained to me by people with many many more edits than you or I have, Wikipedia includes A's view of the subject, and B's view of the subject, and A's criticism or view of B and B's criticism or view of A. And if A and B are roughly the same "prominence" however we define that, the Wikipedia article will devote about as much time to the A viewpoint as the B viewpoint. However, if A is much more prominent than B, the Wikipedia article will include more of A's viewpoint in it; that is, the article will be biased towards the A view (I am using the word bias in the statistical sense, that is, biased means weighted). In fact, according to Wikipedia policies, if A is sufficiently more prominent than B, the B views might not be included at all in the Wikipedia article. Of course, when dealing with some WP:FRINGE subject that lacks prominence, this notion of "in proportion to their prominence" has to be bent a little to fairly describe the minority view, and in practice the proportion is determined by consensus in that case.

it is clear that I am referring to what some call the relative weighting of validity, and some call neutrality (although you would clearly prefer not to call it that, which is fine with me).

And the founder did say make a comment about the unfortunate choice of terms, whether he remembers or not and whether I have found a diff for it or not; it is irrelevant anyway since he is not some sort of dictator or deity, I am sure you would agree. It is quite telling that the later paragraph of the JW response described in his words exactly what I have described here repeatedly, and somehow you managed to avoid any discussion of that. Interesting... I wonder why that is? Perhaps just a lacuna.

Whether someone uses bland language or loaded language to describe a dispute, which I gather is what you are calling "neutrality" is not something anyone is challenging here, or at least anyone I have observed. If you find a diff of someone challenging the choice of bland language and arguing for loaded language on this talk page, please provide a diff. I believe that one should avoid unsourced claims and loaded language in describing this topic, as one should of all topics on Wikipedia. Who doesn't? Why argue about that?

To argue on and on and on about this seems like trying to pick a fight. I hope I am incorrect, but that is what it seems like. You have had at least two admins already back me up on my interpretation of NPOV: User:FeloniousMonk and User:Dave souza. You somehow ignored them both. I even mentioned them before. And you still ignore this fact. You dismiss their reasoning? Their authority? Their knowledge of NPOV? Do you want more admins? Why? I do not see that my interpretation of it is at odds with policy, or what you have stated, or what Jimbo stated, or what FeloniousMonk stted, or what Dave souza stated. Why are more admins important? Is there any serious dispute here or is this just to waste time and energy and cause trouble? I hope I am misunderstanding this situation. Please tell me why you want to do this?--Filll (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, you two, I hope the issue has been sufficiently clarified now. As the Red Queen might have said, "Neutral means what I say it means". There's quite common confusion when editors think that "neutral" means "giving equal weight" or "giving equal validity", and hopefully we're all agreed that on Wikipedia that is NOT what neutral means. Feel free to open a new thread below if you think that's wrong, but if you agree with that conclusion and want to continue the argument, please take it to your talk pages. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting review

"Thomas Robb: The Trap is Set"...dave souza, talk 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This review seems to be even more fringe than the standard positive reviews for the following reasons: 1. This review claims that the goal of the movie is to promote interracial relationships - and the perspective of the author is that interracial relationships are a bad thing. 2. This blogger does not seem notable (as a film critic, etc) to me, nor is he quoting any primary sources. I don't think it would be an appropriate review to cite in this article. CalebBenefiel (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on wether it should be used, but the author is indeed notable (as a KKK leader, not as a film critic). He also seems to be a real asshole... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now we have to ask, are we to give "equal validity" to an extreme minority view? . . dave souza, talk 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The two main views as determined by film critics at Rotten Tomatoes are "91% rotten" and "9% fresh." This particular review is "rotten" but for a different reason than all the "rotten" reviews at the film critic aggregate sites cited in this article. (and this review has not been cited by any film critic aggregate outlet that I could find). If you would like to include this "blog" review, please present a rationale so we can discuss it. CalebBenefiel (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on blogger, meaning it's a non-notable review written by john smith in Pennslytucky. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the question was intended to make a point. Of course it doesn't doesn't belong, because it probably presents the views of something along the lines of 0.000000001 percent. Unless this view gathers wider attention and comment in the context of this film, it's too fringey. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, this is the flaw in your question/example. All things on blogger are disregared, except in very special cases. BTW, aren't you disrupting WP to make a point? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are other blogs used as sources in the article. That's not something I'm comfortable with myself. Can we please ALL stop with the gratuitous taunts? Nobody has referenced any claim in the article to this blog. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did not taunt. I merely said that all things on blogger (not all blogs) are usually disregared. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then please everyone just indulge me as I post a general reminder not to do this. If for no other reason than doing so wears out patience after awhile, the result being people won't listen anymore. It may feel good to say something, but it boomerangs if irritated editors stop listening. It's not constructive. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Dave isn't disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He's simply making a point. Without being disruptive. As for using blogger as a source - there's nothing about blogger per se that makes it an unacceptable source - Eschaton is a reliable source for Duncan Black (atrios)'s opinion. Like any other blog, it's a matter of determining whether there's some corroborating evidence that supports the assertion that this is Robb's blog. (It probably wouldn't be that hard to verify.)

If this is verifiably the blog of a notable KKK leader, it's a notable view. But that we have to ask whether including it gives undue weight to a very fringe view. It's certainly different enough to consider mentioning. Probably too small a viewpoint to warrant mention, but worth keeping an eye on. Guettarda (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the views expressed in a Klansman or neo-NAZI blog are not notable. However, aggregate viewer ratings reported by a reliable, third-party sources are notable. In the view of most of the people who have viewed the film, it is excellent. At BoxOfficeMojo, 63% of viewers gave it an "A" grade. That belongs in the article. NCdave (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked the question about considering it, thanks for the thoughtful comments. While the self-published source is valid as a reliable source of the notable individual's views, we'd really need a secondary source showing the significance of these views to the subject of the article. Though they give a fascinating glimpse of an extreme minority view which is unusually different, I don't think we can justify including it in the article. As for the other issue NCdave raises, there seems to be a reading comprehension problem here. He says "In the view of most of the people who have viewed the film, it is excellent. At BoxOfficeMojo, 63% of viewers gave it an "A" grade", but that source shows a figure of 62.7% As (and 31.6% Fs) in a box headed Grade Breakdown, which also gives numbers totalling 408. Now I appreciate that current figures suggest each cinema only has about 14 people viewing the film each day, but it is my understanding that more than 408 people have seen the film. However, the mystery is solved if we look at the upper box headed GRADE THIS MOVIE – "Readers B- (408 votes)". It's an internet poll. That doesn't belong in the article. Nothing to see here, move along please. . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is popular opinion ever considered notable? If so, how must it be measured? Gallup poll? As you just mentioned, the "Internet poll" on boxofficemojo suggests that a significant number of people gave it a favorable rating. There are similar results at Rotten Tomatoes User Reviews. (Reviews Counted: 398 Fresh: 198 Rotten:200 Average Rating: 4.8/10). Google Video is another user rating aggregate (largely from epinions, but also from other sources) that shows user opinion at 2.6/5 (24 reviews). Are there even any Internet polls (on reputable sites) that show popular opinion closer to the number that film critics have assigned to this movie? Perhaps this does warrant further discussion. CalebBenefiel (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific experiments have shown that no credence can be given to internet polls. Cdesign proponentsists have been found out pulling tricks to fiddle Amazon ratings, this poll is unlikely to be any different. .. dave souza, talk 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Both opponents of ID and proponents of ID have tried to crash internet polls. Pharyngula now does it almost regularly. Internet poll crashing occurs for almost any controversial issue (marginally related anecdote, I once got emails back to back on two lists I subscribed to. Both were trying to crash the same poll. However they each were aiming for the exact opposite result)JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Internet polls are absolutely not a Reliable Source. Any poll where the voters are self selected (people who *want* to vote walk in and vote) are completely useless. All it takes is one link to the poll on some website with a fringe population, and you can get a couple of thousand votes and a 95% result saying all blacks should be shipped back to Africa and all jews should be shot. CalebBenefiel, if you can find a Gallup poll or any other comparable and properly run poll, then that might be includable. But obviously that sort of thing is generally never done on narrow and insignificant issues like opinions on some movie. Alsee (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)