Jump to content

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Thanks to Jimbo for clarification

And thanks to Nightstream for taking it up with Jimbo. Not sure why the conclusion Jimbo reaches doesn't seem to be shown above, but here it is:

Which brings us back to this film being 90% regarded as a turkey by film critics, and the pseudoscience it pushes being an extreme fringe view in the context of science. I think that gives us a good basis for thoughtful consultation and dialogue. .. dave souza, talk 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow it seems completely inline with what I have been told the policy is, over and over. And what I tell others that the policy is, over and over. It is interesting that it did not appear above, isnt it? And it is also interesting although I try to avoid any conflict, this is met with disgust or worse. Hmm... all interesting. Interesting that invitations to make suggestions for writing the article are dismissed. Quite interesting. But all of this is sort of moot, since of course what Jimbo says is sort of irrelevant, and has been irrelevant for a long time. I also still take back nothing; I just want to try to avoid conflict if possible.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"What we are looking for is often a way to "go meta" in a way that different parties of different beliefs can agree to. Normally, descriptions of how prevalent a particular belief is can be something that people on all sides can successfully agree upon. I hold that X is true. You hold that not-X is true. As a rough cut, we can say that although X is a view held by a minority of economists (suppose), some of them quite prominent, not-X is generally more widely held by economists, and there is a lively debate about it, or perhaps there was a lively debate about it, but now that debate has died down, or... this is all useful information for the newcomer trying to understand the field." -- Jimbo Wales.
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." [1]. RC-0722 247.5/1 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Filll) "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. I leave you with not one, but two shortcuts: WP:POINT and WP:SOAPBOX. RC-0722 247.5/1 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From the helpful response which Jimbo has now given, I think it's clear that the long forgotten statement by Jimbo must have been misremembered, and the point is that for our purposes "neutral" means representing the majority view of film critics and the scientific community as the majority view, and the views of the film producers and promoters as minority, or extreme minority views. Neutrally. Hope that clears it all up. The argument seems to have arisen in relation to showing claims in the film in the context of mainstream views, and per WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE that's what we'll do. .. dave souza, talk 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a weak argument at best. RC-0722 247.5/1 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This is going in circles. It sounds like everyone agrees with what the NPOV means. If the remaining disagreement is simply over the sematics used to say what it means, then this isn't the place to debate it--take the discussion to WP:NPOV. I also think it would be best if the "oh yeah?! oh yeah?!"-"OH yeah yeah!" "Yeah, oh yeah!" stuff were taken to a different arena.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That is what I've been trying to do all along (without the minor sidetracks). RC-0722 247.5/1 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I see two things going on (1) a group that want to claim that "neutral" means that this article not include any criticism of the movie, or minimal criticism, since that is not "neutral". They want to remove or at least downplay the fact that most mainstream film reviewers have panned the film. They want to remove any information that appears to reflect negatively on the film or the filmmakers. I believe that they are misinterpreting what "neutral" means in the context of Wikipedia, and not interpreting NPOV accurately, at least as far as I can tell (2) A group that wants to argue tortuously to try to WP:BAIT others and cause huge fights, for the sole purpose of just fighting. A number have indicated that they are not interested in writing an encyclopedia. I guess they just want to fight.

I think that there is no problem with correcting group (1) and I will continue to do so. If there is a problem with this, then please tell me why.

I have tried to avoid taking the WP:BAIT constantly dangled by group (2). Eventually, this might have to be addressed, but for now I am appealing that the energy of group (2) be turned away from fighting towards writing an article.--Filll (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about a movie, but rather a point-by-point argument based on original research to support Filll's personal beliefset. It would be really nice if articles like this one would avoid an editorial slant and just report facts. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE. .. dave souza, talk 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Dave ... you saved me from typing bullshit as my reply to the anon. Fortunately, I don't have to do that now. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
A. WP:BAIT [which no one has done, but everyone (except those on Filll's side) has been accused of] is an essay. B. Dave, you imply that articles of this nature should have a slant. C. If what Filll says is true, then my nickname Bilbo Baggins fits me more than I thought. (blip) RC-0722 247.5/1 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It's Troll. Don't feed. .. dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a troll? What kind? Bridge? Tree? Cave? RC-0722 247.5/1 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I would ask you folks to please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, such as calling them trolls. I do not agree totally with 98.169.241.244's note (I don't think regurgitating anti-Stein editorials from elsewhere counts as original research), but I think that 98.169.241.244 is correct that this article flagrantly violates Wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality, balance, and the use of reliable third-party sources. You need not agree, but you should nevertheless refrain from name-calling. NCdave (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
By their deeds ye shall know them ;) . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave, Trolls are here to do nothing but cause trouble. I have not intentionally caused any trouble. Now, since it appears I am not welcome here without being subject to namecalling (by an admin), I shall return to the shire and edit in peace. However, I leave with this simple phrase: Put a helmet on! RC-0722 247.5/1 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave, as an experienced editor you should know that throwing around trolling accusations is not going to help resolve editing difficulties. It is not going to create the collegial atmosphere we should strive for. Please consider removing that remark so that editors can get back to the business at hand. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution

The "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution" section is both inaccurate and very, very POV-biased. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"largely devoted to"

The "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution" section of the article says:

"The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust,..."

That is not at all accurate. The great bulk of the movie is devoted to a defense of academic freedom, and documenting instances in which scientists have been mistreated in various ways as a result of having given credence to Intelligent Design. The connections between Darwinism and National Socialism, etc., are made in the last third of the movie. They are an important part of the movie, but it is far from correct to say that the film is "largely devoted" to them.

In addition, the claim that the film "portray[s] evolution as responsible for" those six things is not accurate for five of the six:

  1. communism -- No. Film notes acceptance of Darwinism by Marxist leaders, but does not say that Darwin and his theory are "responsible" for communism.
  2. fascism -- No. I do not recall the film even mentioning fascism, and I'm certain I would have noticed if the film claimed that Darwinism was responsible for fascism. The only source given for the "fascism" claim is a movie review on a blog site.
  3. atheism -- No. Film lets some atheists (at least one, anyhow) tell how the study of evolution led them to embrace atheism. But that is a far cry from suggesting that Darwin and his theory is responsible for atheism, in general.
  4. eugenics -- Yes, the film portrays Darwinism as responsible for the eugenics movement.
  5. Planned Parenthood -- The film notes that PP founder Margaret Sanger was an ardent eugenicist, strongly influenced by Darwin, and that she placed her clinics in lower-class neighborhoods to try to reduce the birthrates of "inferior" people, in accordance with eugenic principles. However, that is not the same as saying that Darwin and his theory was "responsible" for the existence of PP. A better case could be made that Malthus and his theory were responsible for PP. (Also, PP doesn't really fit very well in a list of ideologies, anyhow.)
  6. NAZI atrocities -- The film promotes the view that Darwinism was a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for German National Socialism. It is thus inaccurate to say that the film portrays Darwinism as "responsible" for Nazism or NAZI atrocities; it would, however, be accurate to say that the file portrays Darwinism as "partially responsible" for Nazism.

One out of five right is flunking, badly. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, your interpretations which contravene WP:NOR. Please provide WP:V. .. dave souza, talk 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A full third of a work devoted to a particular idea does not constitute "large devotion"? I disagree. As for whether evolution is portrayed as "responsible for" a movement or ideology, or merely "accepted" by its adherents, is largely hair-splitting. We could use phrases like "portray or connote negatively by virtue of its association with or elevation by", but that seems to be such a technical difference that making it is unnecessary, IMO. The fact that some of the creationists use the qualifier "partially" may be technically true, but in terms of the overarching ideas put forward by the movie, and in an article that summarizes its salient points, it seems an distinction that, while necessary to make in the text when quoting interviewees directly, seems unnecessary to make in section headings or in summary passages. Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Largely means principally or mainly. The connection between Darwinism and the NAZIs was a prominent part of the movie, but not nearly as prominent as the movie's coverage of the academic freedom issue. The principal theme of the movie was the academic freedom issue. NCdave (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, Largely means largely. "mainly" would be hard to say under the sourcing but largely seems fair. Would you prefer "in a large part"? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid

There are other major problems in the "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution" section, as well. For instance, the text seems to deliberately use words to avoid to maximize the article's bias against Stein and the movie. E.g., consider this passage:

"Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie claiming that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler. As Scientific American notes, the film almost always inaccurately labels the modern theory of evolution with the outdated term 'Darwinism'..."

Notice how the view of Weikart is disparagingly called a "claim" (which wrongly suggests that it is inaccurate), but Rennie's silly editorial criticism of Stein's terminology becomes a fact "noted" by Scientific American magazine.

This sort of bias is pervasive. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/FAQ. .. dave souza, talk 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What about the following?
"Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie stating that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler. The film uses the term "Darwinism", which biologist have long abandoned because the modern theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone. John Rennie writes in the Scientific American that this is an attempt to portray evolution not as a evidence based science, but as a dogmatic ideology.
Opinions? Merzul (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how to fit it in, but it is a discredited "claim". That doesn't mean that "claim" is the best term to describe it, but it also means that "stating" has the problem of giving too much credence to a discredited claim. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, "claim" isn't that bad, especially since it is used on both sides, see the heading "Claims that film producers misled interviewees". I do think, however, that the "As noted by" gives the impression that we are too much siding with the source, and I tried to distinguish facts and opinions a bit. Merzul (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I favor Merzul's suggestion. I don't think "states" connotes credence, but if it is, how about "asserts"? Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Claim that NAZIs burned Darwin's books

Hitler's acceptance of and reliance upon Darwin's theory of evolution, and his enthusiastic embrace of the eugenics movement which was based on Darwin's writings, is very well documented. But this section claims that, "In fact, the works relating to Darwinism were burned by the Nazi Party."

That is inaccurate. There is no record, of which I am aware, that the NAZIs burned any of Darwin's books, let alone all of "the works relating to Darwinism." What's more, the source that is cited in support of the claim does not actually indicate that any of Darwin's books, or any other books about Darwinism, were ever burned by the NAZIs.

The source given in support of this dubious claim is the following item in a numbered list of disparaged publications, from a set of collection evaluation "guidelines" found in a 1935 issue of a NAZI journal for lending libraries:

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."

In the first place, that list was very broad, and it is not at all clear that most books which were described by that list were actually burned. (E.g., another item on the list was, "Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.")

In the second place, it does not appear that the writings of Darwin, himself, let alone most other scientific writings about Darwinism, were what was intended by the NAZI author's terminology. "Writings of a philosophical and social nature" would seem to exclude most scientific writings, and writings relating to "primitive Darwinism" (presumably as opposed to modern 1935 Darwinism) and "Monism," does not sound like a reference to Darwin's writings, in part because Häckel (not Darwin!) is the sole example given of such writings.

Häckel's "primitive Darwinism" was an obvious target for NAZI wrath, because he believed that racial characteristics were environmentally acquired, rather than strictly by bloodline. That's almost certainly why the NAZIs hated his writings. Darwin, on the other hand, did not espouse such views, and consequently was not disliked by the NAZIs. (In Häckel's defense, he did his work before the science of genetics existed.)

Inasmuch as the cited source does not state that the NAZIs burned Darwin's books, let alone all other books about Darwinism, this claim should be deleted from the article. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered this before but i'll do it again, this is a list of books to be removed from german public libraries and burned, this is refereneced to a high quality academic source, find an equally good source to challenge this as your opinion is not used on wikipedia. I pointed out previously that its is "primitive" Darwinism because darwin says that both Jews and aryans are (Shock/Horror) humans, as opposed to what the nazis know to be the TRUTHtm that the aryans are a superior species. Yes lots of books were burned including "Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life." because the nazis thought such "sickly sweet" works of fiction would leave the german people weak and unable to do what the nazis wanted doing. (Hypnosadist) 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the kind of unthoughtful, "top of the head" style arguments that show up in blogs and spread like rumors as if it were solid scholarship. I wish we'd show better scholarship here at wikipedia. The ref used here is synth, a very weak one at that. This one would be far stronger, written by an historian: "In Germany, Darwin triumphed. Here, the debate favoured the argument that characteristics were inherited, and that a strong and vigorous race could only be produced by natural selection. 'All human traits,' wrote Eugen Fischer, director from 1926 of the newly founded German eugenics institute, 'normal and pathological, physical or mental - are shaped by hereditary factors.'...It is significant that Hitler shared this scientific conception entirely. Darwinism fitted with his presumption that all life was struggle and that life favoured the fittest. Mein Kampf is peppered with references to heredity and inner nature as the principal determinants of human evolution...Even if Lamarckian science had not been discredited experimentally in inter-war Germany, Hitler would still have promoted Darwinism at its expense." The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, R. J. Overy 2004. Here's another one, again making a stronger case than one can be drawn from Die Bücherei: "Meanwhile Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) profoundly undermined the biblical basis of understanding human groups by declaring that human beings had evolved not since Adam, a mere four millennia past, but over hundreds of millennia, and by suggesting that races had evolved by a process of understanding the human race biologically, and it was a short step for certain of his followers to invoke natural selection and survival of the fittest as the basis of human behavior and racial characteristics. In the United States there were early Darwinists who appealed to the theory in support of human behavior and in the form of a competitive capitalist spirit. In Germany, however, Darwinism took a different direction: calls for social intervention that would control selection in order to avoid the degeneration of human groups." Hitler's Scientists, John Cornwell, 2004. So, No more synth! Professor marginalia (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this connects with NCDave's question/comment. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm speaking of is passage in the article: "In fact, the works relating to Darwinism were burned by the Nazi Party." The cite to the passage is a copy of an administrative list dated 70 years before this film was released, "Guidelines from Die Bücherei". The reference is impossibly oblique, and can more easily be used to argue that Hitler banned social Darwinism and other social or philosophical misapplications of Darwin--which is ridiculous. The cite and the claim that goes with it are synth.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is very very bad. As wrong as NCDave is on some issues, he is absolutely right on this one. We need a better source, or this original research must be gone! Merzul (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. We need a source that actually makes the connection between the list of book and the conclusions drawn from the list. I'm sure there are reliable secondary sources for this to consult. Merzul (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the source a bit, it's not that bad... I thought someone went through the list checking books. I'm very sorry about that. The other points of PM still stands, and most importantly, this is terribly confusing as a source! Merzul (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying once again. :) I removed the sentence. We need a source that actually makes the connection between a 1935 guideline to libraries, and the conclusions drawn from that historic source. I'm sure there are reliable secondary sources for this to consult. Merzul (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I think there was a source somewhere that related this particularly graphic illustration of the issue to the film, but it's not to hand and we'd be better to cover the issue in a way that's well sourced. Will aim to come back to this. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 07:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

left-wing blog sites and editorials are not reliable, third-party sources

This section relies heavily on left-of-center blob sites as sources, rather than the reliable, third-party sources which Wikipedia demands. For example,

  • The claim that the film portrays evolution as being responsible for fascism is supported only by the (self-described "progressive") Colorado Confidential blog site.
  • A couple hundred words are devoted to regurgitating truly vicious criticism from an editorial by Arthur Caplan.

Wikipedia is supposed to rely on reliable, third-party, secondary sources. Editorials and blog sites are not reliable, not secondary, and in Dawkins' case not third-party. None of this junk belongs in an encyclopedia article. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:RS .. dave souza, talk 14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We've all read those two Dave, and here's the issue: if left wing blogs can be sources why can't ID blogs. Saksjn (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science"

Speaking of links, why does the article repeatedly refer to "Big Science" rather than Big Science? 98.172.21.102 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that article describes PZ Myers and his tanks of zebrafish? . . dave souza, talk 06:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The answer is: because as written the article can pretend like Ben Stein coined the phrase "Big Science" and therefore Stein is paranoid and off-based. Using the term Big Science on the other hand, implies that Stein knew exactly what he meant when he used this phraseology. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Stein either doesn't know what the term means, or is lying. Just as he obviously doesn't know what "Darwinism" says about the cosmos! (hint: Darwin wrote that it was the best evidence of a Creator). ... dave souza, talk 10:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion and your interpretation. That is NOT a neutral point of view and if you were to create this argument through documentation it would be original research to support your thesis. The neutral fact is that Ben Stein said the term Big Science. It's your opinion that he is a liar and/or an idiot. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to confuse your opinion with facts.
By your twisted logic/justification, the article should use the convention that "Hitler", "Holocaust", "Planned Parenthood" and "Darwinism" all belong in quotes because Ben Stein doesn't understand these words, or he's a liar. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Sorry but you are clearly just confused at best. That Big Science article is not much of an article, and does not even have any sources. And of course, that article is not a good source for Wikipedia. And from context, I hardly think that what the film is attacking, or the filmmakers are attacking in their promotion (since there is still plenty of question if the phrase is actually used in the movie itself) has any resemblance to what is in that article. --Filll (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

98.172.21.102, Ben Stein wasn't talking about Big Science as described in that article or as commonly understood. Stein was talking about virtually 100% of all biology, and apparently almost the entire scientific community. The Human Genome Project in biology is Big Science, but much of biology and much of other other fields are not Big Science. Stein used the phrase to cover nearly the entire scientific community, which is a notably unusual usage. Alsee (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Big Science article is not the same as Stein's Big Science. And besides, Big Science isn't even in the movie, only in the advertising, so why do we even mention it? Saksjn (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Three obvious points:
  • If editors are empowered with defining the meanings that come from other people's mouths then there is no hope for rational discussion at any level.
  • If we can link to Hitler, Darwin and the Holocaust, then surely we can link to Big Science. This does not "reference" the link as a source. It's just a link.
  • Big Science is in the movie, only someone who hasn't seen the movie would think otherwise. Which begs the question: why would someone who hasn't seen the movie speak with authority about what the movie says?
If Lord Filll is maintaining that the enclyclopedia that only certain people can edit is not sourceable, then he has made my case. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The point we're making here is that YOU are "defining the meanings that come from other people's mouths", by assuming that Stein was referring to giant particle accelerators and suchlike. Those who HAVE seen the movie apparently don't think that Stein was talking about giant particle accelerators. Do you have any evidence at all that Stein was referring to giant particle accelerators, or anything similar? And Saksjn is someone who HAS seen the movie, and is under the impression that the phrase "Big Science" doesn't even appear. So, have you seen the movie? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the movie, if it was mentioned, it was brief. Sorry if I made a mistake. Saksjn (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


If it was mentioned in the movie, do you have a source? The problem with this arguing without a source is that we have people who are pro-film and anti-film both claiming it was not mentioned, and it was mentioned, depending on how they perceive the appearance or nonappearance of this term to aid their argument against the filthy democrats / liberals / scientists / Darwinists / evolutionists /atheists etc at the moment. I personally have not seen the film. I do not know if it is in the film or not, since we have no source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. I do know that it appeared in both the promotional materials and in the interviews about the film and some of the reviews of the film.
Also, I am not asking for anything other than we follow policy. Do you have a problem with Wikipedia policy? I know I do, but this is not the way to change it. It has more the appearance of trolling, so I would suggest you want to avoid that.
And if you want to link to the article Big Science, do you know what the smartest thing to do is? It is to make a special subsection of that article discussing the use that Ben Stein and the Expelled filmmakers made of this term, and what meanings they ascribed to it. With lots and lots of sources, since this is clearly quite contentious from this talk page. Stop complaining and attacking other editors and get to work instead. And if you want to worry about who can edit this encyclopedia, then demonstrate that you are interested in actually editing the encyclopedia and not just whining or fighting. --Filll (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Filll, but there is one more option, we could pipe-link it: Big Science. One source says "Stein manufactures a conspiracy theory in which Big Science, Big Media, and Big Government conspire to suppress academic freedom." [2] The only relevant article seems to be Big Government, but this too has some problems. At least, the article seems to be precisely what Stein is talking about, and it's by analogy with Big Government that he coined/usurped the term Big Science. Merzul (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As you say, there are problems. The Huffington Post appears to be genuinely liberal, which will upset our illiberal friends, and the "and" means that the author thinks Stein means all three. As you say, it's a neologism in that it gives an imprecise but negative impression to the uninformed audience. Suprised he didn't start using the Evil Empire of science. In practice, "big science" appears to be used to indicate anyone who disagrees with ID. Thus PZ with a few tanks of zebrafish (which are teeny) is portrayed as though he has 700 employees and a giant hadron collider or whatever they call these things. So, unless a really good source is found with a precise translation, "big science" is best when the sources use that term, and science is what he really means. As opposed to pseudoscience which he supports. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not in the theaters anymore?

Is the movie in the theaters still? Box Office Mojo hasn't updated any figures from this past weekend.[3] Additionally, there has been no more further mention about its earnings or status. If so, we probably mention its no longer in the theaters. Paper45tee (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's moved to discount theaters it's a good bet it finished. Now we have to wait for the DVD so we can get those stats. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still playing in a theater near me. The expelled website's "where playing" locator shows a number of theaters. We can't source claims with conjecture. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's currently running in 210 theaters. [4] A "film week" in the USA apparently runs from Friday to Thursday. Expelled has been losing 30-40% theaters per week, excepting the transition from week 1 to week 2. If this trend continues it will stay at 210 theaters until Thursday and then drop to around 125, maybe. --RenniePet (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the weekend chart, you can see it was still in 210 theaters as of this past weekend. I assume BOM will update the daily chart soon. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The injunction ran until yesterday, at which point Premise Media was allowed to file arguments to have it lifted. Has anyone heard any developments? Did Premise Media try to get the injunction lifted? If so, were they successful? Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the WSJ:

Judge Lowe seemed skeptical, and decided to stay the original TRO pending his ruling, which means that “Expelled,” currently playing in theaters around the country, cannot be reproduced or otherwise distributed.[5]

Paper45tee (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

jason collet

The only person that "stars" in the film is stein, why do we mention him? Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. He's found starring in many google hits. Is he in the film? Professor marginalia (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. There'es a lot of people in it but Stein is the only "star."

It is hard to know what to make of it. There are of course many cuts of this film. And early cuts of this film might have had Jason in it, and then later cuts did not include Jason. I did read about Jason's role in the film a few months ago. But it would not be surprising if he did not make the final cut. If and when there is a DVD released, Jason's cut scenes might very well be included in the DVD, if they are judged to be of interest. We will see.--Filll (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Merzul has renamed the "Legal issues" section to "Copyright controversy," which is fine by me, but The Killers' song still is irrelevant to the section, because there is no copyright issue (or other legal issue) relating to their song. It was properly licensed. The only issue is that the band's manager apparently didn't like the movie, which is not a copyright issue, and not a legal issue, and seems not at all noteworthy. NCdave (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If they gained the copyright permission by deception (as they appear to have done), then that's not a legal issue, but it's still a "copyright controversy". --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How would you know if the Killers were "deceived"? Because the person responsible for the band's image says so? Oddly enough, the Killers are not suing the film. Rather, their manager is merely staking out a position where they can both take money from the film, and deny any controversy which might come from the film. It's almost like when Coolio said that Weird Al Yankowich ripped off Gangsta's Paradise, but kept on cashing the checks and never took legal action against Amish Paradise. This type of posturing is perfect for grabbing the money while retaining the street cred.
Great work above NCdave. My guess is that the corrections will be rationalized away and nothing will change. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"How would you know if the Killers were "deceived"? Because the person responsible for the band's image says so?" Yes, and it wouldn't even matter if he was lying! This would still make it a "copyright controversy" (just a slightly different "controversy"). You still seem to have trouble grasping the fact that Wikipedia reports the claims of others. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Robert is right, it doesn't matter if the manager is right or wrong. And note that good suggestions do not get rationalized away, but the disrespect for our work makes it harder to take the legitimate complaints seriously. Merzul (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What on earth does the band manager's gripe have to do with copyright? There is no allegation of copyright infringement, ergo it is not relevant to this section. (The band manager's allegation that he was deceived is not credible, anyhow, since the description they were given of the film was perfectly accurate.) NCdave (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I have a very hard time understanding why WP has a duty to report the baseless claims of the band's manager (without any refutation) but at the same time WP does not have a duty to report the claims of ID theory? Much like this page the intelligent design page is a hatchet job backed up by double-speak and name calling on the discussion page. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's an ID theory? Better tell Johnson, it was missing the last time he looked ;) . . dave souza, talk 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The opposing argument I suppose is: "There's an Killer's lawsuit? Better tell Souza, it was missing the last time he looked ..."
But I am loathe to step down to that level.
Your mockery of the very idea of ID being a theory demonstrates the fact that you're so deeply lost in your own universe that you can't begin to understand that not everyone sees the world the same way you do. Maybe if you would listen once in a while rather than arrogantly shutting down critics and refuting strawmen, then you might begin to understand that the opposing viewpoint is based on reason, just like your viewpoint.
Sadly, your comment clearly indicates the debate philosophy that when logic fails: poke fun at the opposition. I am from the school of thought that believes that one should remain silent when one has nothing of value to add. An apology is not expected, but would be appropriate. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So why don't you remain so then? I have yet to see any evidence of anything to value to add. Maybe that is forthcoming?--Filll (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

Are there problems with wording with this article? Absolutely. Does the article use words to avoid? Yes it does. Why is that? Well, I do not believe I put any in there, at least intentionally. However, when an article is as popular as this one, there are a huge number of "driveby" editors who come to edit the article, who often have never edited Wikipedia before, do not know its myriad confusing and contradictory rules, and probably will never edit Wikipedia again. And a lot of cruft and nonsense gets into the article. Why doesnt this get fixed? Several reasons, but I would say principally that it is edit warring. Regular editors become burned out on cleaning up the article, because almost no improvement they make in the article is likely to stay very long. And often these kind of improvements are swept away when interlaced with completely inappropriate changes against policy that are frequently introduced. Reversions take them all away, because it is just tedious to pick out the good edits from the bad.

I also see recent evidence of continued misunderstanding of WP:NOR. I have tried to explain what I believe is the correct interpretation of WP:NOR a few times. If it is not the correct interpretation of WP:NOR, I apologize and am willing to have someone explain to me what the correct interpretation of WP:NOR is and why. However, perhaps explaining WP:NOR or talking about WP:NOR is viewed as inappropriate. I apologize if it was or if it offends anyone to mention that we should follow WP policy to able to make decisions about how to edit this article. Basically, although some might dislike the saying "verifiability not truth", but I believe that is not too far away from what the policies push us towards. I know Jimbo, who is largely irrelevant now in these kinds of policy debates, has expressed displeasure with the saying "verifiability not truth", but it is the natural consequences of the system of rules that is in place. Because, no one can agree what "truth" is, but at least a few more people can agree on what the sources state (clearly, many people cannot agree on what the sources state, so there is still plenty of room that is left for pointless fighting).--Filll (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is this supposed to be an article about a movie. Instead this is an article about refuting a movie's thesis. It comes across as fearful and biased. One can honestly argue whether the movie is full of bunk or whether it is truth based. One cannot argue what's in the movie itself. If you simply report what the movie is about you'd cut the verbiage down tremendously. If you can't state the "controversy" in a paragraph, then no one is going to read your silly argument anyway.
Can anyone rightly justify the need to have an article on this movie that is three times longer than Triumph of Will. There is no need to going ad infinitum about the most preposterous claims made in Fahrenheit_9/11. There is no mention in the article about Inconvenient Truth that the most recent climate data shows global cooling over the last ten years. The unfairness here is palpable and is evidenced by the bloated verbiage and links to 'blogs and dubious sources.
We get it. You think ID is a load of horse shit. Now, tell me again, what's so dangerous about letting someone express their viewpoint in a movie? Explain to me please, why it's so dangerous to plainly state the premise of the movie? There will be plenty of time for refutation elsewhere.
NPOV is not a justification for you to jam your viewpoint down people's throats. This is a book report, not a philosophical dissertation on the meaning of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Get over yourself already and you might begin to have a reasonable perspective.
And guess what? People aren't stupid. They're going to think whatever they want to think---no matter what you or Ben Stein say---anyway. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong premise. This is an article about the film and its surrounding controversy. The two are inseparable, as the film's producers made explicit in their first press release. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Your first clue should be the comparison the word count found in the controversy section in the above-mentioned films (or any other film on WP for that matter). 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


  • We get it. You think ID is a load of horse shit. You get it wrong then. Our views on ID are irrelevant. And you have assumed incorrectly in fact. What you should draw from the evidence presented in this article is (1) most of the reliable sources are not particularly enamored with this movie (we do not use "load of horse #$%%" here) and (2) that this article has been edited by a large number of driveby and anon editors that probably do not know the rules very well, so it is not very well written and will have to be rewritten eventually.


  • Now, tell me again, what's so dangerous about letting someone express their viewpoint in a movie? Nothing, at least in most cases. And I do not think that this is a case where letting the filmmakers express their viewpoint is dangerous, or at least directly dangerous. There is always the law of unintended consequences of course, but these things cannot be predicted easily.

How am I or anyone at Wikipedia preventing anyone from expressing their viewpoint in a movie? Are we attacking the filmmaker's websites and hacking them? Are we filing lawsuits against the filmmakers? Are we threatening the filmmakers personally? Are we picketing the theatres showing the movie? Are we stealing copies of the film and burning them? Are we ordering the destruction of this film? Are we really doing anything more than what we claimed; reflecting what the reliable sources in the relevant areas state? I do not think so, sorry. And that is exactly what we are supposed to do.

If you want a different article on Wikipedia next time, have 90 percent of the mainstream reviews come out positive instead of negative. If it is about science, have most of the science sources express positive sentiments about the movie. Then the Wikipedia article will read differently. Automatically.

I might note, are people with this viewpoint being shut up somehow, in the movie or at other wikis like Conservapedia or Iron Chariots or Creation Wiki or Research ID Wiki? As near as I can tell, not by Wikipedia and not by anyone else. Are people with this viewpoint being prevented from proclaiming their message on radio and television and in movies and in books and newspapers and magazines and in sermons and speeches and blogs and websites? As near as I can tell, not by Wikipedia and not by anyone else.

Do you think that the lawsuits have only been filed for ideological reasons? Well then you do not know intellectual property rights history very well. But none of this is really relevant. So please, try to focus on improving the article instead of these offtopic rants.--Filll (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this discussion has very little (if any) relevance to the article. RC-0722 247.5/1 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda"

What happened to this? [6] I see that it seems to have been swallowed by the archives before any action was taken. I'll put it in the "Nazism" section. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it actually covers some good points which should be incorporated into the description part. I'm rather pushed for time just now, will aim to come back to this. .. dave souza, talk 06:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That should go under the article which refutes the premise of the movie along with the links to all the other loonie blogs that disagree with the film. In the meantime, what's so hard about putting an article about the movie in the article about the movie? 98.172.21.102 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off significant views about the film, as you propose, fails WP:NPOV. Removing loonie sources would rule out the film's producers and proponents ;) . . dave souza, talk 06:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is true only if you believe the NY Times and NBC News are examples of NPOV, which of course means that NPOV is not neutral. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank You! Nightstream, could you have a look at this example of some anon who misunderstands "neutral"!!!! . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand perfectly what neutral is.
Furthermore, I have no problem with the liberal bias pervading both NBC News and the NY Times. What I have issue with is liberal ideology masquerading as neutrality at these institutions. By the same token, if Wikipedia called itself "the liberal encyclopedia that anyone who agrees with us can edit", then I would have no issue with this article or this reference. But, as we all know that is NOT WP's claim ... 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
98.169.241.244, RottenTomatoes.com compiles movie reviews from a wide assortment of movie critics from across the nation. Last I looked 33 critics gave the movie negative reviews, vs just 3 that gave it positive reviews (and if you read them, even the three positive reviews are far short of shining endorsements). Claiming "liberal bias" doesn't wash. The Neutral Point Of View statement is "Nearly all professional critics have severely trashed the movie". Not just "liberal bias" movie critics, as you attempt to assert. When less than one in ten professional movie critics rate a move above the half-way mark, that is far into the minority. Just because you disagree with almost all the reviewers does not change the Neutral Point Of View fact that nearly all reviewers panned it, and just because you disagree with them does not diminish their overwhelming Due Weight. Wikipedia Due Weight REQUIRES that that small minority get very little coverage in the article. Alsee (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The response to that is: of course they're going to trash it! If they don't, they'll get labeled as a freak. It's not that nobody thought it was a good movie, it's just that nobody wanted to lose their job over it! Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Riiiiiight. :-/ The Fox News reviewer trashed it because he feared he'd lose his job due to the liberal ideology of his bosses. Um. Well, don't stop taking the tablets. . . dave souza, talk 13:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. (Mostly.)

The truth is most movie critics are raging liberals. In this article, those who disagree with the "majority" opinion are labeled as "conservatives" and "Christians", while the flaming liberals are not identified as progressives, liberals or right wing.

Let's be honest here. Only about 7% of movie critics are conservatives in any form. (See a corollation between reviews and political viewpoint?) The converse of this is that Fahrenheit 9/11 has an 84% rating. The truth is both movies are watchable only to those who have already made up their minds and they don't mind crappy camera work. Neither film is anything great. The fact is that those ratings show more about the reviewers than the reviewed. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No let's really be honest here. There is a claimed liberal media bias. Maybe it exists, maybe it does not. To claim it does and include it in this article is WP:OR which we cannot do. Even if we have evidence that it exists, to include that evidence in this article probably violates WP:SYNTH unless some reliable source has made that connection. Do you have such a reliable source? If so, present it. I am sure we would include it.
Is it possible that the Fox film reviewer, and other reviewers from conservative and Christian publications that panned the film are secretly "closet liberals"? Is it possible that the Fox film reviewer and other reviewers from conservative and Christian publications that panned the film are doing so purely for ideological reasons? Yes of course it is possible. But we cannot make that case without a source, otherwise it violates WP:NOR. Got a source?--Filll (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The truth is most movie critics are raging liberals. - Ok, lets assume it's true. That for some reason Conservatives are all unwilling or unable to become professional movie critics. An odd assumption, but lets go with it. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia rules are that we report the Reliable Sources that are out there. It doesn't matter if every newspaper is wrong and biased, it doesn't matter if all economists are wrong and biased, it doesn't matter if all of the chemistry textbooks are wrong and biased. We Neutrally report what the existing Reliable Sources say, and where there are conflicting views, we apply Due Weight were the most prevalent view gets the most coverage, and fringe views get less coverage or even no coverage. It would be impossible to build any articles if everything turns into an endless argument over "truth" and who is right and who's wrong. If people are reasonable, they can AGREE what Reliable Sources say, even if they have the opinion that they are all wrong. So Wikipedia skips the battle over "truth" and instead Neutrally reports what Reliable Sources say. And the liberal-conspiracy premise is bogus anyway. There are quite a few explicitly conservative reviews that pan it as well. I think some of them got pulled OUT of the article because it's not really appropriate for the article to harp on every conservative that criticized the movie. P.S. You ought to sign in an account name. It's kinda awkward talking to ten digit number. Alsee (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In his book 'The Lying Liars', Al Franken did a wonderful job explaining the myth of the liberal media. In basketball, coaches will often complain about a referee's calls, even if he (the coach) really believes they are correct. This is called "working the ref". Coaches do this so that later in the game, the ref might hesitate to call another penalty on the same team. The conservatives have done more-or-less the same thing with the media - they complain loudly that the media is liberal. In response, the networks put on right wingers like Joe Scaborough, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. Glenn Beck somehow manages to avoid being canceled, despite being - by far - the lowest rated show on CNN. (Paula Zahn's show, which was canceled for low ratings, had 20% higher ratings than Beck) Raul654 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we please at least try and keep this on the topic of the movie's article? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that we simply cannot use the assumption that the media is liberal. I believe it is rather biased, (just look at the pass that Obama has gotten) but I cannot prove it. None of us can. Saksjn (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy y'all. Much to everyone's dismay, I am back from my wiki-page break. Now, as I see it, the media has a liberal slant and so do movie critics, but why are we discussing this here? Why don't we hit my favorite button on the remote (stop) and move this tape to a a different VCR. In other words, why don't we relocate this discussion to a different talk page. RC-0722 247.5/1 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article was referred to by a news article

This one here. Can someone edit the talk page so that it mentions this? The Squicks (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you want.--Filll (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming, Squicks, that you meant to say "article" instead of "Talk Page". However, I see no mention of this article in that news article, and could not find any with my browser's Finder. The only mention of Wikipedia on that page is one of the user blog comments that comes after the article. For one thing, an anonymous blog comment is not a reliable, verifiable source. For another, the mention isn't even of this article. It's of the Reductio ad Hitlerum article. Nightscream (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a hidden link in "exploited the memory" just before "of the millions whom Hitler murdered", but although it's an amusing review, it's not of any significance and the article's been linked from more reputable sources. Bit disappointing it's not linked from erudite :-/ Thanks anyway for the link :) . . dave souza, talk 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he or she meant that we should add something like the following to this talk page:
Although, I think this is for when the article is actually being talked about, not just when it is linked to. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Documentary says ...

Funny this should come from me, one of the biggest fans ofWP:WTA, but isn't the construction "documentary which says" a little too much newspaper headline style? I'm not native English, but it sounds a bit strange to my ears; while for some reason "claim" didn't sound strange. What do native speakers think, although I guess Will Beback is a native speaker, hmmm... Merzul (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixing... RC-0722 361.0/1 12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done RC-0722 361.0/1 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Update on Yoko Ono lawsuit

[7]. This source also gives a firm reliable source for the short nature of the clip in question (which they say is 15 seconds). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather a confusing report, unclear where Tim Wu comes into it apart from being a guru. However, it's evident that there are two court cases, the plaintiff in one being Yoko Ono and the plaintiff in the other being EMI records. Shouuld we expect a better source soon? . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a new source about the legal proceedings yesterday and it says "About 20 to 30 seconds of the song are played in the movie." Paper45tee (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So with all these conflicting sources why don't we just go with the primary source: THE FREAKING MOVIE! Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We really have no practical way to do that. The movie is not like a book or magazine or newspaper article that we can directly quote from to state that it says X or Y. The only way to do this is to time the clip, and that is original research, especially when there are multiple versions of the movie and it is not in the public domain and might be changed, etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm not a lawyer and so on, but I'm fairly certain that the length of the clip is far less significant than we take it to be. The key question for fair use is whether something is seen as critical commentary, so you can play the song in a documentary about John Lennon to discuss the composition, but you can't even use a few seconds for background music in a documentary about world peace without obtaining a license. On the Wiki, we can't use book covers to decorate sections, no matter how relevant that book is to the section in question, and making the thumbnail smaller will not make it any more legal :) (Flawed analogy, but at least amusing...) Anyway, I'm arguing here that we should stick with saying "a portion" or something unspecific until the lawsuit is over. Merzul (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Timing a section of a movie is not OR, it's using a primary source. It's the same freaking thing as counting how many paragraphs a section in a book is! Saksjn (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not that simple. We know there are several versions of the movie out there. After this lawsuit, there will be at least one more. When the DVD is released, that will probably be a different version too. Also, songs can fade in, and fade out. So when do you start timing? When do you stop timing? If we send 10 people into the movie with stop watches, we will probably get 10 different answers. To really do it properly, you need a copy of the film you can stop and start (as on a DVD) and do it over and over and over, possibly with a digital timer. In a movie theatre, there is always a delay between the time the song starts and the time that the person starts the stopwatch. The same is true for the end of the song. Then there is the question of how long the lyrics are and how long the music is, since these will not be the same. Then there will be other sounds present, played at the same time as the music, like Ben Stein talking and so on. So that will make it hard to time. The closer you look at this, the more complicated it gets. If it was as easy as counting the words in a paragraph and we all had copies of that paragraph, then fine. But it is not that easy. Not at all.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's really bloody irrelevant how for long the song is used in the movie. AS I said before, let the court decide if it was fair use. All of the wringing of hands going on here about the length of the "snippet" is pointless. Bottom line: Merzul is correct. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the DVD comes out I'll do your freaking complicated method to find out information any of us could find out with stopwatch easily. Saksjn (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that the DVD version will not be the same as the theatre version necessarily. Just wait for the courts to make a ruling. This is just nonsense.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Went and saw the movie again, counted the seconds which they played "imagine", they played two lines in 15 seconds. RC-0722 361.0/1 16:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but to ask, "who cares at this point?" We can rightly state that a portion of the song is used. We don't need to include the number of seconds it appears. That is a detail not needed for the reader to comprehend what is going on with the lawsuit. Why are we still discussing this? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do think that timing the portion in the movie counts as original research - it isn't something that can simply be discerned by watching the movie, it involves a measurement. Which, of course, introduces error. But mostly I agree with Ali'i - what's the point? What does this add to the reader's understanding? That point seems to be missing here. Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazism: first paragraph

The relevant discussion was archived without any decision being made, so let's see if we can do something about the following paragraph.

The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust,[22][6] a common creationist claim.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie claiming that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler.[50][51] As Scientific American notes, the film almost always inaccurately labels the modern theory of evolution with the outdated term "Darwinism" to imply an ideology.[52]

I have questions about the following issues:

  • Is there a reason or just an accident that some refs are at the end, while the ones for the holocaust are not? The footnoting for that sentence is a bit confusing.
  • Could we simply remove "a common creationist claim"?
  • Maybe change "claiming" to "asserting", although I don't feel strongly about that because "claim" seems to be used for both sides in this article.
  • Do something about "As SA notes ... to imply an ideology". The first construction really feels like us endorsing the source. That the film uses the term "Darwinism" to that effect is an opinion, and not a fact. I think it is a very reasonable and well-argued opinion, so it should definitely be included, but it is a subjective assessment so we should not present it as if we also think this assessment is true. Here is my attempt to rewrite this sentence to separate fact and opinion: The film uses the term "Darwinism", which biologist have long abandoned because the modern theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone. John Rennie writes in the Scientific American that this is an attempt to portray evolution not as a evidence based science, but as a dogmatic ideology.

Comments? Merzul (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should reword the last sentence. Also, the term "a common creationist claim" should be removed. I think the reason some refs are at the end and some are not is because that would look something like this: "The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust, a common creationist claim.[22][6][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]" Now, to me this looks really cluttered. RC-0722 247.5/1 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm irritated by the numerous "superscript parades" and working on an alternative. But the article has improved. For example, at one time there was even more obsessive emphasis given to connecting the film to creationism with link after link. The link parades result from conflicts on the talk page and have no other value besides building a protective wall against complaints from the talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Of course we did not have "superscript parades" when it was first written. However, since this movie and article were popular, a raft of visitors came by and messed up the article and the wording and the formatting. And it is a lot of work to go and fix it, and not really worth fixing until the article has quieted down. Otherwise, one's work will just be lost by edit warring etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the "a common creationist claim" (or some variant thereof) should stay. Like most (all?) other claims that the movie makes, it is a simple regurgitation of long-discredited claims made by other creationists. Within the immediate DI circle, these same claims have been made in the recent past by both Richard Weikart and Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy (which several DI members participated in). We could provide numerous more cites to this, but it would result in yet another 'superscript parade'. HrafnTalkStalk 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indication of the fact that it's regurgitating a discredited creationist claim should remain. Amhart's recent article directly adressed the film's use of Weikart's assertions and the part played by Berlinski, so that's a good source.[8] While I can understand the thought behind saying that "link parades result from conflicts on the talk page and have no other value besides building a protective wall against complaints from the talk page", that seems to me an unfair characterisation of sincere attempts to provide sources answering legitimate questions. Now that more sources directly related to the film are becoming available, these references can be reviewed. . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If it stays then it should be reworded to be more accurate with the movie. Why? Because the movie is not about creationism; it is about ID. Creationism is a "subsection," if you will, of IDism. RC-0722 247.5/1 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong way round, see intelligent design and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. .. dave souza, talk 11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What assumptions should we make? I can't think of any, considering the movie was pretty straight forward in stating it backed the ID movement instead of just creationism. RC-0722 247.5/1 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
ID is a subset of Creationism (not vice versa), specifically it is Neo-Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie makes creationist claims. The movie pushes intelligent design as well. The movie and its promotion link intelligent design and creationism in a way that intelligent design proponents have been unwilling to do in a public forum before. The DI even issued a press release about it at one point. The "common creationist claim" part should remain. If someone is to understand this movie in context, one has to understand what the issues are and a bit of the history. That is, things like intelligent design, creationism, Darwinism, blaming evolution for the Holocaust, blaming evolution for eugenics and planned parenthood (with its obvious allusions to abortion), and so on.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you guys have it backwards. Creationism is a subset of ID, not the other way around. Why? Well, because creationism is the theory that a metaphysical supreme being created us, whilst ID implies that the creator has some level of intelligence, and not necessarily supernatural. (blip) RC-0722 247.5/1 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We have several reliable sources that state the contrary. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Many sources talk of the links to creationism, so it's notable. The link parade is cluttered and I hope we can fix that. But the article at one time went overboard putting undue weight on the association, just overkill. It's much better now. "Expelled supports intelligent design, a form of creationism.[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115] The film claims scientists are punished unfairly if they believe in intelligent design creationism, [12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115] Courts have ruled intelligent design is not a science but a creationist[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115] theory and not a science. (Did you know ID is creationism? Well it is.[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115])" It was almost that bad, but it's been much improved.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Filll, I am really beginning to doubt that these sources exist. PM, I'm not saying creationism isn't linked to it, what I am saying is that creationism is a subset of ID. RC-0722 247.5/1 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)In terms of this article, what difference does it make? The article needs to report what other sources claim about it which these sources also associate to this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything that is simply "what I am saying", lacking a WP:RS, is WP:OR. As an assertion, ID is the least restrictive, and thus does not conflict with any other creationist belief system -- however it is simply one of a wide range of creationist belief-system formulations -- and is thus a subset of creationism. Furthermore, we have a large number of sources stating that ID is a subset of Creationism, not the other way around. HrafnTalkStalk 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To start with, look at

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[1] The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[2][3][4][5] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[6][7][8]

That is just a taste. There is a lot more where that came from. In fact, the previous versions of this article had a lot. And guess what? People just like yourself came along and removed them. And then, they complain that they are not there. Oh interesting, huh?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a bit more:

It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[9][10][11][12] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[13][14][15]

You want more? There is lots more.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, one of the very first New York Times articles about this film called intelligent design a "creationist idea". Of course your ideological cousins in fits of outrage removed that, but it was there. You can find it in the history.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RC0722 - I would recommend the latest edition of Ronald Numbers' The Creationists as a good (and fairly sympathetic) starting point. ID quite clearly is a subset of creationism, and not the other way around. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, thank you for providing refs (finally). Guettarda, 2 things. 1. My name is with a hyphen (-) 2. ID is not clearly a subset of creationism. RC-0722 247.5/1 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
RC0722 - ID is most certainly a subset of creationism. I don't know how you can rationally hold the opposite position. 99.245.90.58 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
I can hold that position because ID states that intelligence has to be there for life to be born, whilst creationism states that the intelligence is a supreme being(s). RC-0722 361.0/1 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That is fine, you can hold whatever beliefs you want, as long as you do not try to force them on other people or use them to hurt others. However, for the purposes of this article, your own personal beliefs are WP:OR and do not belong in the article or on this talk page. This is not a debate forum--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. That ID is a subset of creationism is a widely accepted notion, RC0722. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.127.234 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Twelve minutes is too long for you to wait? Particularly when the intelligent design and creationism articles are chalk full of this stuff? You never both to read Wikipedia articles on the subjects you are opining about to see what they say? And this argument has been had dozens of times previously on this page, and references provided. In fact, as I said before, one of the first New York Times articles on this movie had it right in the article, which we quoted. Sorry, but I am not impressed with your snide comment. Please strike it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Dean's statement? It is still in the article-see footnote #25.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Filll, I refuse to strike my comment. Why? Well because in the past you have verbatimly stated that you had "hundreds of sources" backing your claims, and yet refused to provide them. Thank you for finally providing some evidince backing your claim. RC-0722 361.0/1 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Well if you will not strike it, then we know what to think of you, don't we? And so you are claiming that I said I had hundreds of sources stating that "ID is a form of creationism" and refused to produce them? Please provide a diff.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A. You know exactly what conversation I was refering to and I'll even give you a clue: it isn't this discussion. B. I don't really care what you and your redshirts think of me. RC-0722 361.0/1 18:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You know exactly what conversation I was refering to and I'll even give you a clue: it isn't this discussion. Then you admit it is completely inappropriate and misleading to bring it up here, right?
  • I don't really care what you and your redshirts think of me. Calling other editors "redshirts" probably is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, don't you think? Also, you should care what your fellow editors think of you since this is a collaborative consensual environment.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
A. If I cared what everyone thought of me, I would be very depressed. B. This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion. If you have a problem with me, take it somewhere else. (blip) RC-0722 361.0/1 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common creationist claim

Let me make it a bit more clear what I don't like about "a common creationist claim". I think the most relevant criticism is the following from Expelled Exposed:

Expelled’s inflammatory implication that Darwin and the science of evolution “led to” eugenics, Nazis, and Stalinism is deeply offensive and detrimental to public discussion and understanding of science, religion, and history.

That view has been echoed in many reviews, hasn't it? That's also the main idea in the current introduction to the discussion about the Nazism issue, but we are over-whelming our readers with footnotes and minor issues, such as "a common creationist claim", which I think distracts from the main criticism expressed in our sources about the film. Merzul (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I will remove our connection that the claim is a common creationist one, until we can find a source that makes that argument directly with respect to the film and that's what we use as a source. Merzul (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think waiting all of about 12 hours means nothing. When the pro-intelligent design proponents here have insisted repeatedly that material stay on the page for a minimum of 120 hours before action is taken, I think 12 hours is a bit short. Particularly when you have previously been told repeatedly that this is a bad idea and many people disagree with you. Strikes me as a very VERY bad move, don't you think?--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a bit impatient, but well, it is hard to see what I mean unless I make the edit. The end result, thanks to Dave Souza, is that the paragraph in question is more informative. I won't object, if you want to put back "a common creationist claim", and all the refs. My opinion is that it adds very little and gives the impression of a POV-insertion. I don't dispute that this is a common creationist claim, but if it is useful background information, maybe we could consider formulating it in a way that doesn't sound like we are sick and tired of these creationist arguments. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Merzul (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. RC-0722 361.0/1 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold

I will be bold in fixing this paragraph, it is quite horrible. First, the statement that it is about all the Fascism, Planned Parenthood, etc., is based on Dan Whipple in Coloradio Confidential. Neither names mean anything to me, and he says:

After a half hour or so, "Expelled" wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood. One of the few funny parts of the film, though, is Stein's interview with British philosopher of science Richard Dawkins.

I'm trying to find a more accurate source that can at least distinguish a philosopher from a scientist. Merzul (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen it elsewhere but can't recall where just at the minute. Obviously the article developed as very limited sources first became available, and needs to be updated with better references. . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I tried to fix it, but I'm not very happy with the result although I tried my best, too much prose attributions maybe. We can revert that, but I believe very strongly that all those pre-movie refs to back up "a common claim" should be kept out. Merzul (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, though ironically Weikart's statement comes from an (immediately) pre-movie primary source :) Your summary seemed to me to miss the argument Weikard presents, so I've rephrased it and added another source commenting on Weikarts argument and his part in the film. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Ah, thank you, Dave Souza. I think that context you added is much more interesting than "a common claim". And nice copy-edits as well to make it more close to the sources. Now, some work to integrate the flow a bit and basically it's done. I have to go now, will check tomorrow, just wanted to thank you for those edits. Merzul (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Actually, I read it again now, and there is no problem with the flow, incredible copy-editing skills there. I probably had fragments of my own writing haunting me :) The next paragraph might disrupt the flow, but I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do about it. Merzul (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just hope that someday we can achieve a clean looking article. Saksjn (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer running in the theaters

Sorry if this has already been noted here - can't be bothered searching the archives.

Expelled is not on the list of theaters for this week. [9]

So it had a total run of five weeks. [10] [11] [12]

I'm wondering about the economics. Those three sites say the gross income was approx. $7.5 mil. But what percentage of the gross goes back to the producers, after the theaters get their cut and the marketing is paid for? On IMDB it says the film had a budget of approx. $3.5 mil. Did they make money or lose? (Do they care about the money - they presumably have other motives.) --RenniePet (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the distributor gets about half of that, and I don't think advertising is counted in the film's budget, so it probably lost money. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, advertising is (most of the time) accounted for in the budget. As for individual theaters I have no clue. RC-0722 361.0/1 03:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, other almost as unreliable commentators say that the budget doesn't include advertising, and that the producers stated that they'd spent a multiple of the budget on advertising. Verification needed. .. dave souza, talk 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was still in 83 venues as of 22 May.[13] Reports of death may be premature ;) . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. (I'm sure it wasn't on the list when I posted my message, but it's always possible I made a mistake...) --RenniePet (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Actually, other almost as unreliable commentators say that the budget doesn't include advertising, and that the producers stated that they'd spent a multiple of the budget on advertising. Verification needed." Wow. I'm unreliable now? Well, I will have you know that I don't need to source it because I had no intention of putting it in the article. Good day. (blip) RC-0722 361.0/1 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Just to note this down, this means the fifth week had 210 theatres, and the sixth 83. It'll probably dribble on in one or two theatres for a while, but its days are definitely numbered, and the chance to see it has passed for most. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to my morning newspaper, it's still playing in one theater in the area.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Wrong! Check the movies website for current theater locations http://www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 May 2008

THis is relevant how? All movies released to theatres run out of theatres willing/wanting/needing to show it eventually. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This is relevant because the section title is "No longer running in the theaters" and Matehzar posted a link to current theater locations. If there is any doubt to the accuracy of that list, the theaters could be called to confirm showtimes. Calebb (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article need to state that it is out of theaters; is it in discount theaters now, and do they count? Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Writer's credentials

I am interested in the credentials of the writer of this entry.

Specifically, has he actually seen the movie?

Did he research the web sites of the "Expelled," to get there take on the events in their lives.

Does the writer hold any positions from well know groups that have come out against this film.

This article strikes me as something that would be better suited for Free Inquiry, not as an article for an Encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 May 2008

The article has many editors working on it. I saw the film but my opinion does not belong in the article. The article has almost 200 footnotes, including many from sources involved in the film, so it can't be faulted for lack of references. The affiliations of the sources cited may have significance here, not the editors'. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from Expelled

I've redirected Expelled to this article. Judging from article stats, the vast majority of visitors to that (former) dab page are coming to this article.-Wafulz (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. RC-0722 361.0/1 17:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, here are the stats: Expelled, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, The Expelled.-Wafulz (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, after looking at the stats, I'd say that's a good call redirecting. RC-0722 361.0/1 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in Caroline Crocker section

The juxtaposition of the creationist claims with the claims about Nazi atrocities is enough to give readers pause. There is no need to rub the reader's nose in it. Bwrs (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the source that characterized the many examples taken from a Crocker lecture at NVCC as "discredited" creationism claims also admitted not knowing if that was exactly what she taught at George Mason University, where she claims she was penalized. The NCSE based their claim of "discredited science" teaching on what was published in the Washington Post from NVCC, as well as from slides of hers from the Coral Ministries website, admitting "Though it’s not known whether Crocker used the same slides while teaching at George Mason". The claim in the article here should be tweaked just slightly so as not to be more assertive about what she taught at George Mason than either of the two sources cited. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't have a big issue with losing "discredited", the description here is an extremely brief summary of what the Washington Post describes as "The lecture she was to deliver had caused her to lose a job at a previous university, she told me earlier". So we're relying on Crocker's statement to a reporter, and a reliable source describing what she taught students at NVCC. We don't mention the slides. It might help to head the section with See main article: Caroline Crocker. .. dave souza, talk 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It does help losing discredited because the Expelled Exposed was backing up the charge "discredited" with examples from the slides and the NVCC. Crocker does seem to admit in the Wash Post article that the lecture is the same as that given at George Mason, but if that isn't enough to sew it up for EE it shouldn't be enough here either (especially in line with BLP concerns and all).Professor marginalia (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

respone belongs at bottom of article ?

It seems odd to me that we have the response from the media covered at the top of the article even before an overview of what the film is about and the points it makes. That sort of thing belongs near the bottom with it's own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.139.218 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be added

NY judge: Film can use John Lennon song 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a ruling against the preliminary injunction, but includes the opinion that a fair use defense is likely to prevail. See also – [14], [15] and [16] . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory Article

Half of the introduction of this article is dedicated to negative reviews of the film. I believe that these should be placed under a "controversy" section, and that the introduction should be a brief synopsis of the film itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of this comment would make me think that you had not actually read the article. Both the first paragraph of the lead and the first section of the article are synopsis of the film's content. Yes there is much content about the controversy of the article and the bad reviews, but they are in proportion to the movie. (i.e. controversy over the movie is much more widespread than actual content of movie, bad reviews overwhelm the good.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For an explanation of the style used in the introduction, see WP:LEAD. Anything in the body of the article (including the controversy) gets summarised in the lead. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs

One of the areas this article should be improved is to prune some of the infatuated blogmentary. There are nearly 200 cites, a fourth of them to blogs, and one of them authored by a community college math teacher/blogger identifying himself as "Zeno". One of the more notable and RS justifiable, PZ's blog, has been cited over a dozen times-that's a lot. But many of these blog cites are used, not because they're offering a balanced representation of general opinion, but because there was something peculiarly unique about it, a juicy editorialized quotation to use here or quirky supposition taken to play up in the article here. The blogs offer much of the less encyclopedic material, such as coverage of PZ's intervention in the conference call, which I don't recall mentioned by any sources outside of the blogosphere. The article is unfocused, the main points are unclear, and it's more Entertainment Tonight than it should be due to the gossipy bloat. Looking at claims sourced to blogs is a good place to start improving this.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess after the release of the film, there are now more reliable sources so many, so going through and upgrading sources is not a bad idea. Also, shortening and focusing the material in the process. Less is More. Only problem, of course, is that sharpening and focusing an article is terribly hard. Do you have specific suggestions as to where to start? Merzul (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree to that. Saksjn (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd start with some of the most dubious, like the back and forth between Myers and Smith over unauthorized use of copyright material. Both of them are chasing rumors, neither of them have any particular knowledge or expertise of copyright, neither of them played a role in the dispute, and despite the hoopla, neither turned out to be very accurate prognosticators on the copyright type stories. Myers and Smith aren't reliable sources for every possible subject, one of those being copyright disputes, so I think better sources could be found on this, concentrating on what did happen rather than what two bloggers thought did or would happen. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I started with two blog refs used in the Lennon suit. The court order itself is superior ref and the 2 blog refs are somewhat less accurate (confusing temporary restraining order with injunction for example), and failed to notice that the filmmakers consented to the TRO. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've also tightened the XVIVO copyright controversy section to stick to the claims made in the demand letter and in the complaint for declarative judgment-any connection between this film and Dembski's use of Inner Life at DI is self-published blog hunchwork and no source yet shows this connection has been made by the actual disputants involved (yet, anyway).Professor marginalia (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems good to me. You've also stripped down the overview to remove citations to bloggs. That part was constructed using available sources to outline the "plot summary" in response to requests that the article include a synopsis of the film. The stripped down version is much less informative, missing out aspects like Stein featuring in a lecture hall at the start and finish, but covers the main points in outline and is shorter. I've corrected a point that the Variety critic confused a bit: although he writes of "Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas", the term and the concept was Herbert Spencer's. . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortening

I've not checked this article for a long time and it is still as lengthy as it was. Did all of the editors abandon the endeavor to cut it down? Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, I haven't seen this on my watchlist very often lately. RC-0722 361.0/1 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In fairness when I put the tag on it, in the morning of April 29, it was roughly 45KB longer. Immediately after I did that it was still growing, but it started getting shorter by that night. It kept reducing until about May 3 when it got down to a 105KB. After that it started slowly growing again, but it's nowhere near its previous high. So all totaled declining period lasted 4 days, but the length has been comparatively stable at 110-115 for the last month.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is still inordinately long because of the continuing commitment to rebut the film point for point rather than to cover it as an encyclopedia article would normally do for a small scale movie/documentary. A controversy section would cover the controversy in about two or three paragraphs. The bias inherent and previously mentioned by others in the archives calls into question the commitment to a neutral POV by the editors on this piece. As it is the length and one sidedness of the entry does more to establish the bias that the movie claims exists than a shorter version would particularly since the Intelligent design sections of Wikipedia already address the central issues of the intelligent design debate. The desire to rebut point for point therefore seems more emotional than it is practical TFTLCD (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:NPOV we show various views about the points made in the film, without giving undue weight to the extreme minority views promoted by the film's producers. Since the film exists to make these points, removing them would make this article incomplete and uniformative. . . dave souza, talk 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

From Darwin to Hitler

Any truth to the claim that the film's "star (Ben Stein) has said he wanted to call "From Darwin to Hitler'."[17] No doubt taken from Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler who appears in the movie. If we can find a better source this should be included. Paper45tee (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a quote from Stein in a NYTimes article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's right. Cordelia Dean's NYT article, ref. 4, refers to Stein: "He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.” " Any rumours that he thought of calling it Springtime for Hitler are entirely unsubstantiated. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


The last laugh

I guess the last laugh will go to Ben Stein. While the left has been busy railing against this movie, the center and right have made important progress:

The film has prompted some states to consider legislation that would insulate teachers and students who believe there is evidence of "design" in nature, Walt Ruloff, a co-producer for the film, told Cybercast News Service.
In fact, within the next two weeks, one Louisiana state legislator expects his bill to reach the desk of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) where it will become law. The Louisiana Science Education Act, which passed by a vote of 35-0 in the state senate, has broad bipartisan support, said Rep. Ben Nevers, the bill's chief sponsor.

Should the article include something about Louisiana (and other states as they follow suit)? 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a section already on the academic freedom bills. It should be updated as the new situations develop.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, the Louisiana legislature, who brought upon themselves Edwards v. Aguillard -- before laying claim to the "last laugh", it pays to make sure there's not people waiting in the wings to laugh at you. HrafnTalkStalk 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
These bills have been around since 2004, is it really accurate to suggest such a strong causality between this "documentary" and the current legislature?Lightnin Boltz (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Walt Ruloff is pushing the idea of some vague influence of the film, but the bill's chief sponsor "Nevers told Cybercast News Service he has not seen the film". So, no connection. WP is not a crystal ball, and the bill has yet to be signed. Interesting read, but I don't think it's a reliable source. Wonder when they'll publish this "scientific theory" of intelligent design that they claim their "scientists are working on"? . . dave souza, talk 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is a known creationist, I think there's very little chance of him not signing. It's as good as done, and when it is done we'll put the information on the relevant article. HrafnTalkStalk 11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, his statement on ID is pretty scary. Looks like his laws of entropy will create chaos out of order in Louisiana schools :-/ dave souza, talk 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Article size issues

I know I'm not the first person to point this out, but this article is far too long. It's currently 112KB; per guidelines at WP:Article size, any article over 100KB should 'almost certainly' be divided. Exceptions may be made for articles on topics with extremely broad scope, but that is not the case here: this is an article on one film, and not even a particularly significant one, seeing how it earned only $7 million domestically. Wikipedia's guidelines basically demand that this article be cut down or split into smaller articles.

My recommendation would be, as an immediate solution, to cut this article down to bare information on the film itself and break commentary about it into a separate article, Criticism of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. 'Criticism of X' articles are usually avoided, but here I don't see any other solution: it's either that, or lose the information altogether when this article is cut down to meet Wikipedia's style guidelines. This is the approach that was taken with the article on another controversial documentary, Fitna (film) - see the spin-off page, International reaction to Fitna. Perhaps something similar would work here. Terraxos (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already been done, see Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed :) As you point out, this film is pretty insignificant as a film, but is entirely notable for its propaganda promoting fringe pseeudoscience, presenting a series of claims which have to be shown in the context of mainstream views to meet NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight and WP:FRINGE. Trimming is in progress, with thanks to those finding the time to do it, it's a long slog to cut it down while maintaining due balance. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, there are only about 60kB of prose. Most of the rest is sources. This is quite normal for articles on controversial topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is disengenious, flippant remarks like the ones made by users such as you dave souza that will continue to keep this article long, unwieldly, and completely useless. No real discussion can occur, nor can constructive edits. I attempted to engage in this discussion I don't know how many archives ago. Do you, those of you who make comments like these, honestly think that your smarmy, back-handed way of talking goes unnoticed? Do you honestly believe yourselves unbiased? Or are you so busy loudly declaiming others and congratulating yourself for "slipping in a dig at those 'religious types'" that you forget what an article needs to look like? If your are one of the people claiming to 'maintain due balance,' then I would encourage any other editor to make sure they automatically distrusted your edits. Your bias towards evoltuion is obvious, and if you can't put this belief of yours on the back-burner long enough to make even a passing comment without showing contempt, then perhaps you need to remove yourself from the editing process of this page. I have done so myself both for this reason, and the firm belief that this article will most likely never get beyond the rambling drivel that it now looks like. Even the talk pages are an utter mess of yammering. I won't really be checking back on this page, because I am willing to bet that in a week my comments will have been archived because the discussion page will have gotten too long...again! People keep on harping on about how "this just happens with controversial articles" but really, at what point do we all as editors say that it has to stop?Rocdahut (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, and didn't they say that ID is about science, not religion? . . dave souza, talk 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been many "disingenuous, flippant remarks" made on this talk page but it's something of an unfair accusation to use in this thread. I agree that editors are having a little too much fun getting in their snarky digs sometimes here. I'd like to see all sides remember to stay professional and not bring their own or anyone else's emotions to the editing. It does not reflect well on the credibility of article that editors' personal views are made plain at times on the talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ebert still silent

Last time when I asked here about why Roger Ebert was silent on the film, without a review (in the past he would review basically all notable films), an editor cited the film being so new and Ebert's injury. Now, he has reviewed films coming out after Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, such as Speed Racer and Kung Fu Panda, while still not giving a review to this one. Anyone can explain this anomaly? Or did he provide an explanation of not reviewing it? Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers like Ebert typically review movies from reviewer screenings. Ebert's unlikely to make it a point to catch up and review every film released during his absences from work. Maybe he will when it comes out on DVD, I don't know. He did leave a comment on his "movie answer man" column. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I must have missed it. I will probably go take a look myself when it is available at Blockbuster, to see how this controversy has arisen. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Why the scare quotes on "big science"? Shouldn't it instead be linked to Big Science? ParksAreFun (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and can be found in the archives. In short, the consensus was that the film used "big science" in a different sense than the article on Big Science. The film uses "big science" to refer to the scientific establishment, while the article on Big Science discusses large scale science experiments. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Parsing Darwin

Science is not philosophy, by radio host John Moore in today's National Post accuses Expelled of misquoting Darwin in order to make its point:

Expelled is at its most risible when it tries to establish a direct line from Darwin to eugenics and genocide. Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him we are sorry … we don't mean to diss Darwin."

Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this appears to relate to the showings due in Canada. Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun, Saturday, June 21, 2008, gives good coverage, with equally interesting quotes from Stein: "When I alerted him to the alteration of the Darwin quote and read him the full passage, he said he was "kind of dismayed if that's true." He also said he would check it out, so I look forward to Stein disavowing at least that part of the movie.", and regarding the Anti-Defamation League's statement, Stein told him bluntly, "It's none of their f---ing business." The extended quotation is a bit long, all these comments will have to be incorporated concisely. Will try to help soon if not beaten to it! The Vancouver Sun article opens by referring to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new anti-science "documentary" which opens across Canada on June 27" so that date should be added. By the way, what is the … character meant to look like in "are sorry … we don't"? Can we replace that with a standard font, as it looks like A in a box to me. . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

EMA honors Stein with Freedom of Expression Award June 24

EMA honors Stein with Freedom of Expression Award recognizes outspoken individuals, Cheryl Cheng, Video Business, 2008-06-10 "Known for his outspoken economic and political beliefs, writer, actor, filmmaker, economist and lawyer Ben Stein will be honored with the Freedom of Expression Award at the Entertainment Merchants Assn.’s Home Entertainment Awards on June 24." --Faith (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) *(better RS for same article; most likely the original story) Home Media Magazine --Faith (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But more relevant to the Ben Stein article than this one.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think so, since it's directly for Expelled. --Faith (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The source you provided doesn't say that. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Might want to give it another go as it does indicate that exactly. --Faith (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't, actually. Here's from the press release, "The Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) will recognize writer, actor, filmmaker, economist, and lawyer Ben Stein for his articulate expositions of his economic and political beliefs, often contrary to the prevailing Hollywood orthodoxy, by presenting him with its 'Freedom of Expression Award,' EMA announced today." The award is bestowed to acknowledge a body of work in the "home entertainment industry". Expelled is not even yet available in the "home entertainment sector". This award is to Ben Stein, not the film, and isn't a major or notable award in any case. We don't need more trivia in this article-it's already too long.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing you didn't read the entire press release, which states in part, "There are very few like Ben Stein, who continues to impact popular culture in a variety of ways, from his broadcast and print work, to his most recent involvement in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” stated Tom O’Malley, President, Vivendi Entertainment. “His voice is one of the most respected not only in Hollywood, but all over America, and we’re delighted that he is being recognized for all of his insightful and impactful work on this film." [18] --Faith (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Stein's work on this film is obviously just one thing, and the most recent thing he has done that he is honored for. Based on my impression watching the film, there isn't much of any "articulate exposition of his economic or political beliefs" in it except anti-Nazism or totalitarianism, which are hardly controversial positions in terms of "political beliefs". Professor marginalia (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's WP:WFTE; we don't have to agree to cover it properly. --Faith (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not challenging the validity of giving him the award. I'm challenging your interpretation that the award was a direct result of Stein's work in this one particular film. Repeating the reasons I disagree this article should mention the award are: a) the sources do not point just to this film, the sources list this film because it is the most recent example of Stein's controversial works b) this interpretation is supported by the fact that his economic and political work is mentioned specifically and this film is not even about that c) this already bloated article should stay focused on issues directly related to this film and not Ben Stein's career and d) it can't be assumed without sources to show it's true why Stein would win an award from a DVD business association for his work on this one Hollywood film in particular before it's even yet been distributed in DVD. This film isn't even available in the home entertainment market yet, so why assume this award is to honor its contribution to that industry?Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I was following a line from several articles and saw he was getting an award. It still appears to me that it's for Expelled, but /Care. Place it where you wish. --Faith (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But, note, I was correct: "Veteran actor and social commentator Ben Stein won the Freedom of Expression Award for his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which showcases educators who have been singled out for publicly bringing religion into the debate on the origins of mankind".[19] --Faith (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to comments related to the article on its talk page. This is not a place to discuss the subject or past disputes. - Kuzain (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please mind your own business when you are unaware of the history of the conversation. Noting I was correct was supporting the addition in the article, which is obviously a comment related to the article. --Faith (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, the article only or this will be brought to the attention of a moderator. - Kuzain (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"In nominal dollars?"

Seems like someone is trying to insert a little POV OR to downplay the success of this film. What does that phrase have to do with anything? Is it used anywhere else in the same manner (i.e. about movies' performances) elsewhere on Wikipedia? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the intention of the word 'nominal' in this case. If you look at the 7th definition here you'll see that the amount referred to is in fact a nominal amount as opposed to a real amount, in order for the real worth to be measured in comparison to other documentaries (as the dollar stands today) all of the documentaries in the preceding years from 1982 to the present would have to be adjusted for inflation. Thats my understanding anyway. --Woland (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, the link you provided does not include the 7th definition of nominal. RC-0722 361.0/1 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Now it does.--Woland (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Good eats. RC-0722 361.0/1 17:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent> The source cited for its 12th position ranks it by nominal "domestic total gross", while offering an inflation adjusted ranking for premier pass holders. It appears to be close behind Tupac: Resurrection, which ran for 6 weeks in 2003, and if it continues to run long enough and attract enough cinema goers might get into 11th place in nominal terms, while remaining behind Tupac: Resurrection in inflation adjusted terms. A battle of the giants! . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nominal" in the article is wikilinked to Real versus nominal value, which explains the meaning of the term in this context. It is the correct term for inflation-unadjusted figures in economics, finance, etc. HrafnTalkStalk 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

These excuses are nonsense. I've Googled "nominal dollars" for Wikipedia [20] and Expelled is the only movie article that shows up. No "nominal dollars" for Michael Moore's and Al Gore's movies. Gosh, I wonder why. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you don't understand something does not make it "nonsense". If you don't like the way liberal documentaries are treated, you are welcome to go edit their pages. If you don't like the way inflation is discussed, you are welcome to edit Real versus nominal value. If you can't understand that 1982 dollars are different than 2008 dollars, then complaining about economic lingo should not be your starting point. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to change the subject. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I did no such thing. The topic was "nominal dollars" and "you complaining". I pointed out a remedy: (1) Learn what "nominal dollars" means (2) Edit the other articles. If you are too lazy or stubborn to take action to prevent yourself from being annoyed by the content of articles here, then nobody can help you. You are familiar with the concept of a Wiki, right? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is your accusations that are nonsensical. "Nominal dollars" is the correct economic term for the figure given. I really don't give a pair of fetid dingos kidneys as to whether it is used for any other film article (maybe they all give the figure in 'real dollars'). Stop trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. There is no POV, just correct economic terminology. HrafnTalkStalk 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"just correct economic terminology" ...for this and only this movie... 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to go around and check to see if other articles are using real or nominal figures and then try to fix stuff. Otherwise try to explain why this differential is "POV." I have next to no knowledge of economics and figured out what it was saying by looking up 'nominal' in the dictionary. --Woland (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This and only this movie article makes a big deal of the film's placing in this rather unimportant league. It's topped in that ranking by Tupac: Resurrection, an article which doesn't show the film's ranking. Perhaps we should just omit the ranking from this article as well? . . dave souza, talk 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"in nominal dollars" is absolutely correct, and I don't think it really needs changed. It could be changed to "not accounting for inflation", but that's slightly longer. This seems to be a non-issue. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why this movie and only this movie is described on WP as such? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You *do* realize that adjusting for inflation will decrease the movie's ranking, right? If anything, giving the nominal (as opposed to inflation-adjusted) value is bias in favor of this movie. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly none of them were edited by an economist, so none of them knew the right term. HrafnTalkStalk 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Because you haven't edited them in yet? I don't concern myself with every movie article on Wikipedia, so I cannot be sure why they don't include it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I can explain exactly why this movie and only this movie is described on WP as such. Some editor or editors were keen to add the exciting news that this was the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States ever. Presumably because they thought it sounded impressive. However, the source only goes back to 1982, so that had to change, and the source explicitly states that the figures are not inflation adjusted, in other words nominal, with inflation adjusted figures available for premium accounts. So, it's the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States - (in nominal dollars, from 1982 to the present). Of course we could just do what is done on the article for that impressive high ranking film Tupac - Ressurection and not include the ranking. Up to y'all. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


lol! Now this is funny. To see what would happen, I inserted the exact same text into the articles for the top 5 documentaries. On two of them, the text was moved to being relegated as a footnote. Two have not been touched yet. Ah, but on the third, we have this wonderful exchange of comments on the edit summary page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Inconvenient_Truth&action=history

  1. 00:27, 1 July 2008 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) m (56,800 bytes) (Reverted to revision 222712638 by KimDabelsteinPetersen; rv As new as the movie is - inflation is sufficiently small to have no impact on the figure - so the information is irrelevant.. using [[WP:TWINK) (undo)
  1. (cur) (last) 23:59, 30 June 2008 GoRight (Talk | contribs) m (56,848 bytes) (rv: Too new to be in nominal dollars? How does that statement make any sense? It merely means in dollars not adjusted for inflation. Source does not claim to have adjusted for inflation.) (undo)
  1. (cur) (last) 19:16, 30 June 2008 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) m (56,800 bytes) (Reverted to revision 222594578 by 63.225.233.215; rv unnecessary inclusion (and i doubt if its correct). The movie is to new for it to be in nominal dollars.. using TW) (undo)

So who's right? The people who want such a statement included in this article or Miss KimDabelsteinPetersen? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen is egregiously wrong. If we were comparing two 1998 movies (or even a 1998 movie with a 1997 one) the fact that the dollars were nominal would not be a problem. If however we were (for example) comparing a 2008 movie to a 1988 one (or worse a 1968 one), it would be significant issue. It is not the date that matters, but the date difference (strictly speaking the amount of inflation over the intervening period), and very modern movies are just as likely to generate large date differences as very old ones. HrafnTalkStalk 05:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So who's right? Following normal discussion, An_Inconvenient_Truth has been improved in line with this article. All good. Feel free to add the same information to the rest of the top 12. . . dave souza, talk 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think what is missing is that in three of the films you introduced the language to, it was irrelevant. The text is relevant when comparing movies over time (for instance ranking the highest grossing documentaries of the past 30 years). In the instances where you were changed or reverted, (excepting the Inconvenient Truth article), you added the phrase after a statement such as, "It earned $35 million dollars." The parenthetical didn't mean anything. If you add the parenthetical after a statement such as, "It earned $35 million, making it the 6th highest grossing documentary." then the qualifiers need to come into play, and the parenthetical is fine, and rightly should be there. Please let me know where I can help if someone is disagreeing with you. Mahalo and thank you. --Ali'i 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Canada

The Canadian numbers are in ($24,374 for Canada on 36 theaters nationwide) and the press reports are also out. I think Box Office should be changed to US Box Office and Canadian Box Office should be added giving the break down and reaction for Canada. Kenntand (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"It's none of their f---ing business." :) Yes please, if you could add something that will be much appreciated, and these quotes from Stein are relevant to other sections of the article. Sorry I'm rather overextended just now myself. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Much thanks. One thing, in light of the enthusiasm for rankings, should we note that it soared to 20th position on the Canadian box office list,[21] coming in close behind another film which opened at the same time, Thoda Pyaar Thoda Magic. In Hindi. . . dave souza, talk 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ron Godden

A review by a non-famous person on an internet message board is not notable. Can someone remove this external link? I can only "View source", possibly because I am a new editor. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lightnin Boltz (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted with no explanation or note on the talk page. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed again. Kenntand (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"controversial"

About 42 seconds into the Expelled trailer currently comprising the front page of http://rampantfilms.com , it says, "Join Ben Stein in this year's most controversial documentary film." I have no idea whether the narration was written by liberals, neocons, or nematodes, but there is a strong implication that the filmmakers themselves consider their film to be controversial.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

American propaganda films

If this movie is a propaganda film, so are Michael Moore's recent political films along with Al Gore's environmental horror flick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.34.50 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The category "American propaganda films" should be removed from this article unless all other films which have been described by opponents as "propaganda" are likewise included. The definition of "propaganda" (taken from propaganda) is so broad that it can be applied to any documentary or work of scholarship which argues in support of a thesis:

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large number of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience.

Unless you want Category:American propaganda films to be coextensive with Category:American documentary films, some more restrictive and precise criteria must be established for determining when an article merits inclusion.

Please discuss here. -- 75.21.74.124 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss? It's propaganda with little attempt made towards Truth. Period.
Instead of a pro-Creationism 'education' film, it's a rabidly anti-Science rant.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

by "American propaganda films", I would understand films produced by the US government for the purpose of propaganda. Including each piece of insincere pseudoscientific trash is probably over the top and makes this stuff appear grander than it really is. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, "American" defined as "official U.S.of.A". Even citing the movie as American in origin isn't accurate. Didn't they use Canadian production companies?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the category "American propaganda films" should be reserved for government-sponsored propaganda. I'm removing that category from this article. Eseymour (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We found that a majority of film critics described the film as being in the propaganda genre, which does not require a film to be government sponsored. Presumably you'll have no problem with the relevant articles appearing in the "propaganda films" category, without any implication that an American government has sponsored the propaganda. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every documentary which has a slant should be considered propaganda. If "Expelled" is included in that category, then you'll also have to include "An Inconvienient Truth" and all of Michael Moore's films, just for starters. Eseymour (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't every documentary with a slant be considered propaganda? The only alternative is to define "propaganda film" as: "any documentary with which I personally disagree," which unfortunately is how most Wiki editors are using the term. "Expelled", "Inconvenient Truth" and "Fahrenheit 911" are all propoganda films, and should be labelled as such. Plazak (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a question of our opinions. A significant majority of the professional film reviewers described this film as propaganda, and none said that it wasn't propaganda. If the same applies to other films, then they too should be included in the category. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that professional film reviewers, like most Wiki editors and the general public, tend to use "propaganda" subjectively as a term to throw discredit on views with which they personally disagree. If we use it in this sense, then all it means is that the views expressed by the film are unpopular with most reviewers. Plazak (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion, got verification from a source? Several of the reviewers pointed specifically to propaganda techniques, and of course several great films are propaganda. All your comment means is that you want to discount reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"Propaganda film" must be defined as something other than "a documentary with a slant," because almost every documentary has some kind of slant. Furthermore, that definition dilutes the meaning of "propaganda." The problem is that it's ultimately a subjective term. And combing through a bunch of movie critics' reviews of the movie to see how many of them used the word "propaganda" does nothing to alleviate the subjectiveness. (BTW, it's meaningless that no one said "it's not propaganda"--that's not typically the kind of remark you see in a movie review: "Great action sequences, sharp dialogue, not propaganda!") And Plazak is right that film critics don't use the term in any technical sense, but simply as an insult. Because "propaganda" is such a loaded term, I suggest that we should err on the side of caution and not put films in that category which do not unequivocally belong there. Eseymour (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that Wiki editors check out the definition in the Wikipedia article on Propaganda: "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large number of people." This certainly covers films by Gore and Moore, who forthrightly set out to influence public opinion. The article goes on to note: "Propaganda often (my italics) presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." Note that the techniques of "lying by omission" and "loaded messages" are often present in propaganda but are not required for something to be propaganda. I believe that most dictionaries give similar definitions. The trouble is that many people, including many Wiki editors and film reviewers, latch on to the presence of what they believe are discredible propoganda techniques, and neglect the fact that these techniques are not required for something to fit the definition of propaganda. Plazak (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We did read that definition, which, as you said, would cover every "documentary with a slant". And as has been previously stated, this is essentially every documentary. So if you use that as your criteria for when a film belongs in the category, Category:American propaganda films will be coextensive with Category:American documentary films, thus making the category useless. But there's no rule that says we should use that particular definition to determine which movies belong in the category, and indeed if you look at the other films in the category, every one of them is either a government produced film, or a film produced during a wartime in support of the government and the war. From that point of view, Expelled clearly does not belong. It may be frequently characterized as propaganda, but the category is really intended for films which can be unambiguously and uncontroversially labeled as propaganda. For example, Prelude to War is considered a propaganda film by historians, which is very different from being labeled as propaganda by film critics.
I would propose that the category is intended for use with, and should only be used for, films which would be described as propaganda by historians, not film critics.
--75.21.74.124 (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment. Plazak makes a fair point that you can define propaganda as not necessarily having to include loaded messages or misinformation, etc., but when you look at the small number of films included in this category, it's clear that the precedent on Wikipedia is not to include every film which is intended to influence opinions or behaviors. Eseymour (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above on the point that movie critics as a group have no special expertise in defining propaganda. Their job is to watch a lot of movies and write entertainingly about them. We should not depend on them for our definition of propaganda any more than we would depend on them to judge the technical merits of the creation/evolution debate. Plazak (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I weighed in on this before, and it seems nothing is going to change but I'll say it again. While this movie fits at least one definition of "propaganda" I don't think it belongs in the category. WP:CAT says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." It is not self-evident that it is a propaganda film (i.e. it is not called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: An American Propaganda Film"), and its inclusion is controversial. I think the well founded accusations of it being a propaganda film should be limited to the text of the article, where it can be well cited. That would be the most NPOV, as leaving a category out ipso facto avoids a POV. We wouldn't have in in the category "American propaganda films" nor in a category "American non-propaganda films" (if such existed). It should be left to the article itself where it can be covered fully. -R. fiend (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem we're wrestling with here is that the film from almost start to finish is deceptive and misleading, and thanks to talk radio and other sources, we've come to think of all propaganda as deceptive and misleading.
I see this very differently from, for example, a Christian pro-Creationism film in which proponents earnestly argue for their belief. If they're honest, even if they aren't able to prove every particular, it can be a film that has integrity. I may not be, say, a Mormon, but I highly respect people who are because they are earnest in their beliefs.
If we look at Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, as far as we know today, the film is scientifically sound and there's no agenda to mislead, even if 50 years down the line, the premises do not pan out (and most of us pray they don't).
In a column I wrote, I too compared the film to Michael Moore. Moore, some argue, occasionally plays fast and loose, and one study of one film deemed it only 93-95% accurate, most of the dispute regarding bin Laden's family. I've not heard quantitative studies (only qualitative) of Stein's film, but frankly I haven't identified anything that IS accurate.
With this in mind and considering the overloaded meaning(s), perhaps we should seek a new term to supplant "propaganda".
"Bullshit" is one that comes to mind.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's nice and all, and I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on its content, but I imagine you're largely right (though there is some hyperbole in your statement methinks; I believe the film states at some point that Darwin believed humans evolved from earlier species and that the Nazis killed millions of people, and I don't anyone is denying that much is true), but that doesn't address the simple matter of policy: "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article". I have nothing against stating quite plainly and early on that the film has widely been regarded as a piece of anti-evolution propaganda from the ID crowd, I just don't like it being pigeonholed as such from the get-go by an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. It seems a pretty plain breach of policy, and I hardly think its removal is any sort of whitewash. -R. fiend (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. Wikipedia is not "neutral" in the way you are describing. It is NPOV, which is not quite the same. I am not sure you want to know the difference, but we can explain it to you if you want.

Also, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. And numerous reliable sources call this film propaganda, as has been repeatedly discussed here on this talk page (see the archives). So if you want something else, you have to present reliable sources that state it is not propaganda. For example, find a New York Times article in which it is explicitly stated that this film is not propaganda, and bring the reliable source here to the talk page.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes, I've heard that a million times before, however, as I'm not arguing that the film is not propaganda I don't need to cite anything stating such. I'm merely looking to uphold the policy that says "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article". Leave in all the sources that call it propaganda, and explain why they do so, but uphold our categorization policies at the same time. One could easily find reliable sources calling both Menachim Begin and Yassir Arafat terrorists, but they aren't categorized as such, because that would be endorsing such a characterization. The same policy should be upheld here. -R. fiend (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What constitutes a "reliable source" that a film is propaganda. As I have noted above, the term is commonly used in a manner untrue to its actual definition, and that movie reviewers as a whole have no special expertise in identifying propaganda. Plazak (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The point is not whether the film is propaganda, the point is that the category is being misused in this instance. Please, I urge everyone to take a look at the other films that are in this category - every single one is a World War I/World War II government made or government sponsored propaganda piece designed to get the American voters and soldiers to support some specific government policy, or similar. It is quite clear that the intent of the category is not to include every film that meets the definition at propaganda, as that would be crazy; the intent of the category is to provide a means of collecting wartime propaganda films produced by or for the US government in one location. Expelled may be a dishonest and B.S. filled piece of creationist propaganda, but it simply doesn't fit in with the purpose of the category. Furthermore, it's hard to look at this single recent political film being placed with obvious examples of government wartime propaganda and not see that its inclusion in the category is about as far as it gets from NPoV.
--75.21.74.124 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Very good point (and one everyone else seems to miss), we are discussing the categorization of the film and nothing else. Not whether it is 40% accurate vs. 93% accurate, or whether other sources have called it "not a propaganda film" (if a reviewer calls some film "a festering piece of shit and the about the worst film ever" do we need someone to call it "not a festering piece of shit nor the worst film ever" to have it removed from category:festering pieces of shit that are about the worst film ever?), not whether it is, in fact, a propaganda film. Right now this is the only film in Category:American propaganda films that aren't in the subcategories of WWI, WWII, anti-drug, or anti-communist film. That doesn't seem odd and POV to anyone? Even Loose Change isn't in the category. Before another person comments back "but it's propaganda! Reliable sources say so!" can they defend its inclusion when it appears to violate categorization policy? -R. fiend (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You raise 2 good issues, R. Addressing a point you made earlier, I'm not at all offended you question if hyperbole might be involved as I made a couple of very strong statements. In my defense, after research for my column, I am certain my contentions are sound and well-founded. Scientific American published more than one article on the misleading posture of Expelled, understand– not just a difference of opinion but a gross manipulation of facts approaching fraud. Numerous articles have addressed these issues as well, and a couple of Christian groups have formed web sites critical of the dishonesty in Expelled. I believe one expressed regret for potential damage to Mr. Stein's reputation.
Darwin was mentioned above, and I'll use that to make my point on a small scale. The movie quoted selected words and sentences to make Darwin sound like a cold supporter of radical eugenics, but in reading the few sentences surrounding Darwin's statement, you realize Darwin was writing with great compassion, the opposite of what the film implied. I could go on at length about the pervasive chicanery in their interviews, their editing, and even their promotion, but I encourage readers turn to factural sources.
That brings us to a second good point you make. Like you, I don't much care about movie reviewers' opinions and I feel Category:American propaganda films might not be appropriate. Indeed, I believe it is inadequate, mainly because Expelled's level of duplicity is jaw-dropping.
I confess to an outraged personal PoV here in that I despise dishonesty. I'll defend people's right to believe whatever they wish, but I dig in my heels when someone tries to deceive.
The Wedge Strategy illustrates what we're up against. In other words, the argument here isn't about creationism or someone's believe the earth is only 6000 years old, but that there's a concerted effort to attack scientific knowledge and mislead the public.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC), with respect.
Thank you for your response, however once again I don't feel most of it is germane to the topic at hand. I'm not here to defend the film, or even to discuss its contents. I haven't seen it yet (I'm waiting for its DVD release) but I m well aware of its level of deceit, and its factual statements may even be confined to "Hi, I'm Ben Stein..." That doesn't matter. My issue is with Wikipedia policy regarding categorization. We could debate whether or not this film is propaganda til the cows come home. It is pretty clear it meets some definitions, but not others (e.g. no government sponsorship), and it's pretty clear that a lot of what I suppose are reliable sources call it (or compare it to) propaganda. (It also should be noted that the definition of propaganda the WP article on the topic gives is so broad as to include moat forms of art and any form of advertising.) All that can be covered in the article. Putting in this category, by all appearances, violates the policy I have repeatedly quoted above. No one is responding to that. I recall someone stating in an earlier debate about this that the category isn't endorsing the view that the movie is propaganda, it's merely an NPOV "navigational aid" to help people find similar movies. That this is now the only movie in that category makes such a statement ring even more ridiculous. Let's just remove it from the category and leave the discussion of propaganda to the article itself. No one is going to say to themselves "Hmmm, this movie isn't in the category 'Propaganda'. Every word of it must be true!" -R. fiend (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
As you say, it's a navigation aid to lead users to articles covering similar topics. This film is described by several reliable sources as a propaganda film, using propaganda techniques, and on the basis of that expert opinion is appropriately categorised in the genre. In a related discussion the view was put that "the only type of film that should be excluded would be films who have supporters/fans/advocates in the mainstream who dispute the label", and I've found no such dispute. It may be disputed by fringe views. If the criterion is to remove all articles from a category on the grounds that some editors think it's unfair, but have produced no sources to verify their opinion, the categories become effectively useless for any topic under debate. If a similar consensus of expert opinion views other films as belonging in the category, then they too should appear in the category. . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the criterion is to remove articles from a category based on existing policy: "7. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Additionally, much as we all might like to, I think it would be difficult to dismiss ID proponents as "fringe views." I'm not going to do a widespread search for the film's apologists describing it as "not propaganda" as that is a pretty rare description of any movie ("The Dark Knight: 4 stars! A terrific thrill ride! And not propaganda!"), though I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to find some people of note who consider the film honest and straightforward or some such description, which is effectively disputing the label of propaganda. Perhaps anyone defending the movie would be considered ipso facto "fringe", I don't know. Additionally the idea of it being a navigational tool is a joke, as there are no other movies in this category. In any case, much of that is not significant to the categorization dispute. The propaganda label is not self-evident, as the movie does not bill itself as a propaganda piece, and it is controversial. The policy seems pretty clear here. -R. fiend (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The movie is controversial, and is described as such in its press release, but is there any evidence that the categorisation of it in the propaganda genre is controversial? So far I've only seen unsupported assertions by editors here. . dave souza, talk 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, you're looking for me to quote a film reviewer saying "Expelled is not propaganda" which is an almost absurd way to describe anything. One could argue that simply being referred to as "propaganda" is in itself controversial, but I'd rather not go down that road. The main objection is on the grounds of self-evidence: the producers do not consider or describe it as propaganda, and it is clearly not self-evident that it is. In fact, the article points to only a few examples of it being called that, and Scientific American appears to call only the section linking Darwin and the Nazis "propaganda" (it is, I suppose, a minor point) New Scientist says "it seemed more like a...propaganda film" (emphasis mine) which is effectively saying it is not one, just very much like one. So we have a few people calling it propaganda, most reviewers not saying it is (or isn't) and yet based on a handful of quotes Wikipedia states in no uncertain terms that it is a propaganda film, and refuses to acknowledge that by doing so it might be in the slightest way controversial. How many people need to say it's propaganda in order for it to be in the category? If a reviewer calls it "Worst Film Ever" would we put it in a Worst film ever category, or simply reference in the text that "X called it the worst film ever"? The latter, I think. Why not in this case? I have no problem with the statement "Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda" being included (though there is the minor point I made about Scientific American). The films defenders (and there are some) who think it is an honest portrayal of "Big Science" clearly do not consider it propaganda (though trying to find such a quote would be akin to trying to find someone calling it "not the worst film ever"). Simply removing from the category does not endorse the view that it isn't propaganda, it makes no endorsement either way, and adheres to Wikipedia policy. -R. fiend (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


R., you have the best line of the whole trip:
its factual statements may even be confined to "Hi, I'm Ben Stein..."
I am confused, though. Are you saying the film is not propaganda because (a) it doesn't label itself as probaganda and (b) it's not government sponsored?
Pardon me if I interpret this wrong (which I may well be doing), but if so, wouldn't we be in a position of arguing Boortz, Hannity, and Oberlin are not propagandists? You're a good writer, but I keep feeling I'm missing something.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's not propaganda, I'm saying it is not the place for Wikipedia to decide it is merely based on some reviews, and that its categorization as such is contrary to stated policy. I would be equally as adamant about its removal from a category:Non-propaganda films, should it exist and be categorized such. As for Hannity, et al., I'm not going to make any call there; it's irrelevant to this topic. I will, however, point out that none of them appear to be in category:propaganda. -R. fiend (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See! The propaganda's working!

My view is that it isn't us saying it, there's big names saying it: Scientific American, The Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, and American Association for the Advancement of Science. I agree with you that movie reviews would be insufficient, at least in this case.

Further, many of the people appearing in the film have publicly stated it is propaganda. I don't want to see it categorized as "American Propaganda", but I don't see any way we can't say it isn't propaganda.

>As for Hannity, et al., I'm not going to make any call there; it's irrelevant to this topic.

I raised the question in all seriousness. If we can't call propaganda propaganda, what do we call it? A rose by any other name?

I agree with you that the article shouldn't use the P-word from the "get-go", but that's 3 paragraphis down.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC), with respect

No one's saying it isn't propaganda, and removing the category (which you seem to favor) isn't saying so either. Putting in the category American propaganda films is saying, in no uncertain terms, that it is a propaganda film. If we wouldn't put it in the opening sentence for POV concerns, why is it in the category (and keep in mind in some settings categories appear right at the top, just below the title)?
I don't want to get into a whole debate on what is and isn't propaganda. That's a separate issue. If Hannity is propaganda then isn't Moore? If O'Reilly is than isn't Olberman? This is not the place for such a discussion. Let's just not add any of those people to the category. -R. fiend (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely YES to everything you say in your 2nd paragraph.
A problem is the movie's propaganda in sheep's clothing, masquerading as a "documentary".
Can we do this?
  • change American Propaganda Films to simply Propagand Films
UnicornTapestry, I notice you included the propaganda films category without removing American propaganda films. Per WP:SUBCAT, it should be in one or the other (or neither), not both. 75.21.74.124 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • consider whether American Documentary Films is appropriate
I won't get all religious about the 2nd proposal (pardon the pun).
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think removing American Documentary films would be at all appropriate. Documentary Film defines a documentary as a film "based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to 'document' reality", and I think it's clear that Ben Stein & co. are attempting to document their (warped and misguided) view of reality. (To some extent they may be deliberately lying in the film, and certainly they have lied about the film, but mostly I think they are just approaching things from a particular point of view.) The article goes on to say
The nature of documentary films has changed in the past 20 years from the cinema verité tradition. Landmark films such as The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris incorporated stylized re-enactments, and Michael Moore's Roger & Me placed far more interpretive control with the director. Indeed, the commercial success of these documentaries may derive from this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics sometimes refer to these works as "mondo films" or "docu-ganda." However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.
In other words, the bias in this documentary is merely one instance of a larger shift in documentary film-making towards films which advocate for some thesis. And while the passage does mention that some critics question the "documentary" label, these works are still referred to as documentaries by filmmakers and film critics, and indeed Expelled is described as a documentary even by the film critics who call it propaganda.[22][23][24] The New York Times may call it "one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time," but it is still a documentary.
--75.21.74.124 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You make an excellent point. Expelled is so manipulative and deceitful, it's difficult to stomach it as a "documentary", but as you say, who knows what warped vision they have. Consider my 2nd suggestion withdrawn.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To be truthful to the fact that this movie is a filthy piece of propaganda and to be honest to Wikipedia-reading--but-not-editing public, their should be a category of some sort indicating that it is propaganda. Originally, I was the one add Category:Propaganda, an act that I very proud of. At some point someone changed it to the current category. I personally don't care what category it is in, but it needs to be in a category that clearly labels it as propaganda. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Previous debates

I went and located previous debates on this topic in the archives, in case anything would be enlightening. So that others don't have to duplicate this effort, they are here, here, here, and here.

My current thinking is that the reason we can't reach a consensus is the lack of any criteria for inclusion at Category:American propaganda films, which is why I initially proposed that the debate should occur there. It is clear that there is a consensus that this film is propaganda, and equally clear that this film does not fit the pattern shown by other films in that category. (In the interest of full disclosure, part of that pattern is due to me removing films such as Loose Change. My reasoning in those removals was that the word "propaganda" was completely absent from every article other than this one, and if the category of propaganda films included every film with a PoV it would be useless.) I still think the best course of action is to first establish a consensus for what types of films belong in the category, and second to populate the category with appropriate films. Anything else is likely to keep us arguing in circles.

--75.21.74.124 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

D'accord. That makes sense.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think there are some problems with this. First of all, any consensus reached on this talk page is unlikely to be accepted for other articles. Furthermore, I think this category is inherently problematical, and should be avoided to a large extent. The whole argument that some sources call this movie propaganda and no sources seem to specifically say "this film is not propaganda" is a tricky argument, and it reminds me of a discussion I had on another article, which was a pain in the ass. For an exaggerated hypothetical, imagine someone publishes something stating that George Washington had 4 nipples, and an editor changes his article to reflect this. He then refuses to remove it until someone can find a source saying that George Washington had two nipples. Could anyone find such a statement? Nor will anyone likely find a statement that a film isn't propaganda.
But back to the original point. What films do warrant being pidgeonholed into a propaganda category? I'd say only those that are undoubtedly propaganda, which I guess would be confined to films put out by the government in order to manipulate the populace using exaggerated or false claims. While those aren't the only ones that could meet the definition, they are probably the only ones it would be difficult to dispute. Since categories and binary, you're either in one or you aren't, anything in that category has to meet the criteria in spades. It's the equivalent of saying straight out "this is a propaganda film." For other articles, we should cover the issue with a "various sources [x, y, z] have called this movie propaganda." -R. fiend (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Whew. I see your point, but I feel it's an impossibly high standard. For example, during WW-II, Hollywood cranked out numerous propaganda films from Bugs Bunny to Sherlock Holmes. British and German filmmakers cranked out dozens of propaganda movies. Such a decision jeopardizes categorizing these movies.
Contrarily, not all government films are propaganda, such as instructional and training films.
A binary either/or standard is difficult to apply to a continuum. I understand that avoids trying to pigeonhole films well in the grey area, but that's not the case with this film. If a movie is within the grey area, I agree it shouldn't be classified. That's not the case here.
Even if we discount that Expelled lacks journalism or documentarian integrity, it's still propaganda. We're not even claiming it's false propaganda, and we have many who accuse the films of being propaganda:
* scientists, virtually without exception
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* National Center for Science Education
* a majority of film critics (80% according to Rotten Tomatoes)
* many religionists and religious organizations
* The Clergy Letter Project
* multiple news periodicals including
* Scientific American
* The Chicago Tribune
* The New York Times
* people who were featured in the film
* plus we have the Wedge strategy which lays out the plan to propagandize
All of these lay out the case for propaganda. I think this sets aside the question that Wikipedia is making the decision that it's propaganda. Instead, Wikipedia is reporting the consensus of professionals. I think we could make the case we'd be negligent if we failed to report Expelled as propaganda.
best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, now you're stating that everyone who panned the movie is calling it propaganda, which is simply untrue. 80% on Rotten Tomatoes? I didn't read them all, to be sure, but I don't recall the word "propaganda" appearing in any I saw. You haven't cited a specific example for any of those, though a few are provided by the article. And merely saying "the wedge strategy" is far too vague to hold water. One thing they all do agree on is that the movie is bad. Should we put it in category:bad movies? I think I need to reiterate that the real issue is categorization policy, and whether or not it is self-evident that Expelled is propaganda. Surely this is not the only film that "lacks journalism or documentarian integrity" but it is the only film in the category. Can we really justify that? I once again feel I have to stress that not include it in the category is not saying it is not a propaganda film, and the its classification as such should still be covered within the article. -R. fiend (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Real Problem™

To me, the real problem is not that we're labeling Expelled as propaganda, but that we are not applying the category in a consistent fashion. If you look at the contents of the category, they certainly don't seem to be chosen in a neutral fashion. This is true both now (when the only article outside of the subcats of WWI, WWII, cold war, and social guidance/drug education is Expelled, which appears not once but three times) and before I removed most of the contents (when the articles present vs. the articles absent suggested, to me at least, a liberal bias; e.g. the inclusion of Expelled because film critics described it as propaganda, but the abscence of Fahrenheit 9/11, also described by film critics as propaganda[25][26] ). I'm not suggesting that there was any intent of any sort, which I don't believe is present, but nevertheless I feel that we could be more neutral. If there were at least some clear criteria laid out on the category page and then consistently applied, I would feel a lot better about the inclusion of Expelled in the category.

--75.21.74.124 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The real problem, as far as this film is concerned is that we have a bunch of people saying, in effect, "I hate this film its awful its propaganda its all lies and we have to tell everybody this right away and make sure everybody knows it." Such knee-jerk responses don't really help. No one has defined propaganda clearly or explained how this film is unique in being so.
Look at it this way, as far as I can tell, the only part of this article that says, in effect, "Expelled is a propaganda film" is its inclusion in this category, and that is, as all categories are, completely unsourced. The article itself says, quite properly, that these respected sources consider it a propaganda film: x, y, and z. If we were to change category:American propaganda films to category:films considered propaganda, or something along those lines, I think the matter would be settled. (However, it would open up a mess of a debate about which others belong in that category, but I suppose that could eventually be hammered out too.) I suppose someone could argue that its placement in American propaganda films category is not the same as outright calling it a propaganda film, but that is a position I would dispute, and a separate semantic debate. The fact that propaganda is poorly defined, and somewhat open to interpretation, further complicates the issue. We should also keep in mind that the sources calling Expelled propaganda are generally film reviews, which are opinion pieces, and are not exactly authoritative. -R. fiend (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"Unique"? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, not "unique" anymore. Now what's the word for being one of two instead of one of a kind? Twonique? Just this and a 60 year old cartoon. -R. fiend (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Which merely serves to prove that there aren't enough films tagged as propaganda. The Why We Fight series, The Green Berets (movie), Fahrenheit 9/11. Crusade in the Pacific, etc all belong in that category. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You're free to try to remedy that, but I have to warn you, you're in for a debate of this sort times the number of films you attempt to add. Trying to include any Michael Moore film, in particular, will not be pretty. There is simply no definitive definition of propaganda, and categorization policy discourages categories which are not self-evident and controversial. -R. fiend (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of films tagged as propaganda, but most of them are in subcategories. Why We Fight was already in Category:American World War II propaganda films, which is quite well populated. Dave Souza just added The Green Berets to the category, and I moved it into Category:American anti-communist propaganda films. 75.21.74.124 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact remains that this and one other are the only non-war propaganda films, counting the Cold War as a war (there are anti-drug films in a sub-category, but I notice that category does not have "propaganda" in the title). It still doesn't seem right, and I don't envision too many other films being added without a lot of controversy. -R. fiend (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that people are misunderstanding the Propaganda category and Wikipedia. We have reliable sources that state this film is propaganda. Lots of them. If there are reliable sources for other films as propaganda, they should also be in the category. If it is fairly obvious that a given film is propaganda, it arguably could also be included in the propaganda category. However, to argue whether this film should be in the category is a bit of a waste of time, since we go with the sources, and numerous sources state that it is propaganda. See the archives for more.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy to consider a handful of opinion pieces the definitive word on anything? Anyone going to address the policy that says this category shouldn't be used in this case, or the fact that the article itself doesn't even say that it is a propaganda film? -R. fiend (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My friend, dozens upon dozens of scientists, science orgs, science mags, and participants in the film say it's propaganda.
Also, the article itself mentions in several places that the film is propaganda and furthermore states it is deceitful propaganda.
Addressing your your remaining (middle) point, why should this film be excepted from being included in propaganda?
I feel your emotional investment and frustration, but I don't know how else to answer. If you have a religious objection to the film being classified as propaganda, I draw your attention to churches, chaplains, and other religious organizations that have expressed displeasure (to put it mildly) that the film uses dishonesty to try to win a point.
It not only meets the criteria for propaganda, it meets the criteria for mendacious, insincere, false, disingenuous, untrustworthy, untruthful, unscrupulous, unprincipled, duplicitous propaganda.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide references for at least a substantial sample of the scientists and the like who call it "propaganda." I'm curious to see them. Some people have stated that professional film critics are experts in what is and is not propaganda (that may be true, or it may not be, I'm not sure), but are scientists? Again, I don't know. Furthermore, could you point out specifically in the article where it says Expelled is propaganda, and not merely stating that others have referred to it as such? -R. fiend (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I do not understand what part of the explanation you do not understand. These objections sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. We edit by consensus here in any case, and it is not clear to me that you have the consensus. Am I wrong? --Filll (talk | wpc) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that there is no consensus at the moment; at best there is a majority in favor of the status quo with some opposing views (R. Fiend and myself, and plazak and Eseymour raised some questions with the current inclusion above, but have been less active in the debate). I've provided a couple of suggestions about how we can reach consensus, mainly calling for some clear criteria for inclusion to be laid down at Category talk:American propaganda films, which we can then follow. I think some debate there from the people involved in the dispute here, hopefully garnering some attention from editors who have been involved in similar debates on other pages, might produce a consensus establishing when a film belongs in the category. If we had a concrete set of guidelines to follow, it would both be easier to reach a consensus here and easier to maintain consistency between the inclusion/non-inclusion of this and other films. I'm open to other suggestions for how to reach a compromise or consensus.
--75.21.74.124 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


It's clear there is a consensus unless your definition is 100% of Wikipedians and 100% of people who call themselves scientists and 100% of movie reviewers and 100% of religionists. To thwart calling propaganda "propaganda" is propaganda spin in and of itself. Among scientists (REAL scientists) and reviewers alone, there must be 90% agreement the movie is not just propaganda, but nasty propaganda. It's further documented as being a "Wedge mission" designed to undercut science. If anything, we're being kind leaving in the "documentary" label since documentaries should contain some element of truth.
My definition of consensus is the same as everyone else's: a general agreement among interested parties upon a course of action. I'm not asking for 100% of everyone to agree, or even 100% of Wikipedians, but simply an honest attempt by the people involved in this debate to reach an agreement upon some course of action. Here there is no consensus, because there are two factions who disagree over whether Expelled belongs in the propaganda category. I do not believe I am trying to thwart calling "propaganda" propaganda; I merely believe that the word propaganda can take on several different meanings. Before we can fairly assign a film to the propaganda category, we need to establish an operational definition of propaganda for the purposes of inclusion in the category. Some definitions are so broad as to be useless, while others are much narrower, and may restrict the word so as to be synonymous with "government propaganda". It seemed to me, upon viewing the majority of the contents of the category, that it was meant to include government propaganda, which Expelled is clearly not. I'm not averse to adopting a different operational definition, as long as it is applied consistently. But I believe that the important thing, whatever operational definition is chosen, is to apply the category label in a consistent and NPoV fashion, which is not currently being done, and I believe that we cannot proceed without an operational definition of "propaganda film" for the purposes of the category. I think that calling the current situation "consensus" is completely missing the point of WP:Consensus. Telling me to read the references is also missing the point, because before I can evaluate whether the film should be included in the propaganda category, I must first know what sorts of films belong in that category.
As for the documentary label, I believe I've explained quite clearly above why it is correct, not "kind", to categorize it with documentary films.
Finally, none of this has anything to do with the accuracy (or lack thereof) in the film. Any definition of propaganda I've seen refers to intent, not content. A completely factual documentary, or a work of fiction which makes no claim at representing truth can therefore be propaganda. Compare this film to What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Both are complete bullshit as far as science goes, but most reasonable definitions of propaganda will exclude What the Bleep as it doesn't seek to promulgate any particular political viewpoint, while some would include Expelled, which does.
--75.21.74.124 (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe we have to make up or contrive any special definition for Wikipedia. I simply use the OED definition which I referred to elsewhere. Wiktionary is imperfect, but it says "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." However, the agenda behind this movie seems to evoke an emotional response. No matter how many people, professionals, facts, or definitions pile up, some appear locked in to supporting this movie as some kind of special class of non-propaganda propaganda. With more than 90% of professionals in the fields of science and film on the one side, we still have Wikipedians who insist the movie's propaganda can't possibly be propaganda. With all due respect, I don't see that we'll ever achieve complete agreement among Wikipedians (or non-professionals), but we can get a quorum.
See, I think that definition is way too broad. By that logic, every sex ed film ever is propaganda just because they warn about the dangers of unprotected sex and advise people not to engage in it. Bill Nye "The Science Guy" tries to change people's attitudes about science - are his TV shows propaganda films? If that's your definition, the question becomes not "Is Expelled propaganda?" but rather "Well, what in the galaxy ain't?" skeptical scientist (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. that was me. I started this debate logged out, and tried to be consistent about it so that I wouldn't appear to be a sock puppet, but I suppose that it was inevitable that I'd forget eventually. I'll post logged in from now on. 75.21.74.124 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that the movie is a massive embarrassment to the religious community. If you're a devout Young Earth creationist, you should be embarrassed by this movie. Most religions strive toward a Greater Truth, and yet this movie drops to the lowest possible position of deceit and dishonesty (i.e, lying) to try to make a point it can't achieve via honorable means. What kind of integrity is that? I have the impression that some haven't (a) bothered to do basic research, (b) read the references quoted in the article and other places, and (c) seen the movie. I deliberately list (c) last because you have to do basic research to comprehend what they've done, such as quoting piecemeal sentences of Darwin to render opposite meanings to his statements. READ THE REFERENCES.
In answer to the previous question about which scientists oppose it (virtually all), the answer is in the article itself. (I listed a reference to a web article that listed many by name, but it was subsequently removed.) If you visit nothing more than the Scientific American web site, you'll find numerous dissertations that lay open the movie.
Besides the above-going, here is a site sponsored by the NCSE:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
and another link for the Clergy Letter Project:
http://www.clergyletterproject.net/index.php
with all due diligence, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Define "REAL scientists" with neutral, reliable sources. RC-0722 361.0/1 01:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"If anything, we're being kind leaving in the "documentary" label since documentaries should contain some element of truth." You may not agree completely with the movie, but you mean to tell me that common facts presented in the movie (e.g. Hitler was a mass murderer) do not give the movie even a little element of factual accuracy? I would like to see someone argue that the film is propaganda without bashing the film itself at the same time. RC-0722 361.0/1 01:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Oooookaaaaaay. Hitler was a mass murderer. Does that preclude the film from being propaganda? What about the movie's implication that Hitler's decision to become a mass murderer came from evil atheist scientists like Darwin? Puh-leeeese. The desperation of that Hitler statement is extremely insulting to the rest of us.
It seems if we and the scientists and the religionists and the movie reviews point out its propaganda, you call it "bashing". The movie's propaganda and dishonest propaganda backed up by multiple well-documented facts and esteemed opinions. What else is necessary?
I read your user page, and your statement "This User Believes that Evolution is a false theory, and that Creation is right" may be an impediment here. That's okay and that's not at issue. No matter if you're a Young Earth creationist or not, I would hope and trust you believe in honesty. If you follow the many citations given, you'll find this film undermines such beliefs, not supports it.
I am cutting in
I disagree with you diagnosis. It is a serious blow to his ability to be neutral on this film or neutral in this discussion. Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. Facts are neutral, ignoring facts in PoV. RC has a PoV. People who acknowledge the facts and don't hide them who the creationists dub "evolutionists" are the neutral ones. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
So I have a POV just because I "ignore the facts?" RC-0722 361.0/1 14:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the neutral scientific sources we bring in acknowledging this film as propaganda cannot be acknowledged by creationists like you who do not recognize the facts that they are based upon. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I received the following email from RC:

Take a look at the Scientific American, AAAS, NCSE, and various other sources that have been cited. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hardly consider the NCSE a neutral source on this subject. RC-0722 361.0/1 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Right because they dare to admit that the overwhelming consensus of biologists supports evolution and that ID is not science. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My cut out
with best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Minutes after hitting the SAVE PAGE button, I came across this in an unrelated blog: "Because in my heart of hearts I believe that every unchallenged lie makes the world a little dumber, uglier, and more dangerous." What a simple, profound, and wonderful statement.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but notice any verification of the claims that "dozens and dozens" of scientists, et al, have called it propaganda, or even that the article itself does, is not forthcoming. Furthermore, I see no consensus for inclusion or exclusion of the category. I do note, however, that my assertions that inclusion of the category is against policy have been utterly ignored. Instead we have some editors asserting over and over again that the film is terrible and is obviously propaganda, and since some sources call it that it is obviously irrefutable. And, of course, we have repeated references to the content of the movie, which is not the issue here. -R. fiend (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

READ THE REFERENCES! Please. It can save a lot of discussion.
grumbling, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
First, I haven't seen the film, I wonder how many of the above commentators have. I understand that there it makes a direct link from (Darwin) Evolution via eugenics to the Final Solution. If that is so, then the film is propaganda. The only question that I would raise would be the need to specify "American". (my 2¢) TheresaWilson (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Theresa, I thought "American" wasn't appropriate since technically it was a North American project involving Canadian companies as well. However, that appeared to open another front.
Which references? There are 173 footnotes in this article, and I'm not going to read them all scanning for the word "propaganda". Reading the article, I noticed the word used about 4 times, once in the introduction, quoting 3 sources, once by Dawkins, once by the AAAS, and by two other reviews. The article itself, contrary to your assertions, does not call the film propaganda. It (quite rightly) quotes other sources that do, which is a significant difference. Putting it an a category reflecting this, such as "films considered propaganda" or some such, would be much more acceptable. Furthermore, this film being largely an anti-"Big Science" tirade, is "Big Science" itself a reliable source for critiquing the movie? Wouldn't that be like taking the word of the Bush administration on their analysis to Fahernheit 9/11? Or the NRA on Bowling for Columbine? Or Exxon on An Inconvenient Truth? Certainly entities the movie attacks are not going to be unbiased. -R. fiend (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm becoming confused. We're criticized if we say it's propaganda, but we're also criticized if we fall back upon science and film reviewer experts?
"Big Science" is a term concocted in this sense to create a paper arch-enemy to rail against. The real attack is against the scientific method. (See Wedge Strategy.) Your question is tantamount to asking if Holocaust victims are reliable sources for criticizing Nazis? Who better to offer a defense than the people it attacks? Again, not having read the source material is causing us to have needless discussions. It's better to debate facts than opinion.
I have read virtually ALL the material (for an article) which is why we should be incensed, and people really should before criticizing those of us who have. Please read at a minimum the links given above. While I also recommend viewing the movie (which I recommended earlier), I agree with you R that it's not strictly necessary. You don't need to see a snuff film to know it's wrong.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my absence for awhile. I think R. fiend has made the strongest argument against categorizing this film as propaganda, i.e. it's not self-evident, nor is it NPOV. "Propaganda films" is a difficult category, because of the negative connotations it carries. Including "Expelled" but not any of Michael Moore's films in the category is NPOV. We have two options for restoring NPOV to the "Propaganda films" category--either we remove "Expelled" or we add a large number of other films with a slant. The latter is going to be very difficult, as it will repeat this debate on a large number of other talk pages. Eseymour (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the multitude of notes, references, and related articles. People need to do their homework; don't you agree? Once you're grounded in what producers have done and the total lack of integrity, there's no other conclusion than this movie is one of the worst examples of propaganda possible, untruth piled upon lie. As R.fiend said, it's possible the only factual statement may be "Hello, I'm Ben Stein."
Regarding NPoV: We're taking a movie which has an extreme slanted and dishonest PoV and Wikipedia authors have dealt with it in a fair, unbiased, and well-documented way, trying hard to separate opinion from fact. The problem in trying to dissect such a slanted film is that proponents squirm when their actions are brought to light.
Regarding Michael Moore: It's not unreasonable that one or more of his films are candidates for being labelled propaganda. That's not at issue. If ever a movie should be labeled propaganda, this is one. This is a movie that, if you read the evidence, is not merely propaganda but incredibly horrid propaganda, an insult to both religious people, scientists, and one's intelligence.
People may have hoped this movie might be the "Darwin killer", but believe me, this isn't. Lying should never triumph. (I'm leveling that at the movie, not at the people here.)
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Again, I think we're getting off-topic here. I specifically put "Big Science" in quotes in order to appear not to endorse such terminology, but to reference what Expelled is referring to in snidely in their own highly questionable terms. I guess I didn't get the point across. Anyway, the point is, the movie is highly critical of the scientific establishment; I think we can all agree on that. Therefore the scientific establishment, which the AAAS is undoubtedly part of, is not going to be an unbiased source when discussing the film. Unicorntapestry asks who a better source is on a group than the people that group attacks. Honestly? Just about anyone. Anyone else at least has a fighting chance of offering an unbiased analysis. If the only people who were critical of the Nazis were their victims we would have a much different view of them. Thankfully, condemnation of the Nazis and their atrocities is nearly unanimous, and we can rely on all sorts of perspectives to reach the same conclusion. Are we really supposed to accept the word of those who suffered the most from any group to be definitive? Are the real experts on whether or not Johnson or Nixon are terrorizing imperialist scum the victims of atrocities committed in Vietnam? Is the best source on Gerry Adams the family of an IRA bombing victim? Is a man who lost his legs in Shock and Awe going to be the most reliable source on President Bush? Should we put him in category:War criminals on this man's say-so? I would think not. We don't consider Karl Rove a definitive source when discussing Fahrenheit 9/11, and with good reason.
Additionally, we keep falling back into analysis of the film's contents, which is highly problematical. Theresa Wilson says that if the film attempts to connect the Holocaust with Darwin (which by all accounts it seems to do), then it's propaganda. While that may well be true, to say so would constitute original research. Is the definition of propaganda "anything that tries to tie Darwin with the Holocaust"? Unless it is (and it isn't) stating that such a statement = "propaganda" is merely one editor's analysis. Not far from stating "If An Inconvenient Truth tries to tie the loss of snow on Kilimanjaro with anthropogenic global warming then it's propaganda." Unicorntapestry is constantly repeating the same mantra that the movie is vile lies and horrible filth masquerading as a documentary. Whether or not that's true isn't really the point, as we have no working definition of propaganda. Lies don't necessarily make propaganda, and propaganda doesn't have to be lies. The article itself does a reasonably good job of covering the film's controversial statements and refuting many of them, but it never directly calls the film propaganda except through use of the category. Numerous people seem to have very strong opinions on this film which can't be allowed to affect our judgment if we want this article to be NPOV. They seem to think a Wikipedia article on the film should be written along the same lines as what they have at ExpeledExposed or Rationalwiki. That isn't the case.
Reliable sources are important, but still present several issues, the "self-evidency" being an important one. Additionally, the number of sources and their reliability would have to be taken into account. How many sources calling a film propaganda does one need for Wikipedia to accept it as an indisputable fact? 1? 5? 12? 44? Would whatever magic number we choose hold up for other articles? And what constitute a reliable source? I really don't think someone with an obvious axe to grind, like having been interviewed under false pretenses and made to look bad (Dawkins), can be called a reliable source is a case such as this. Yes, in this case we have quite a few sources calling the film propaganda, yet the call is controversial and the sources are mostly opinion pieces. Is there any other case in which such sources are considered definitive? -R. fiend (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If the content doesn't define the category then justify (for instance) the "Science Fiction" categorisation of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, nowhere within the article is there any definite source for this categorisation, but it obviously is and anyone who denied it would be wrong (or is this "original research"?). I maintain that this "documentary", by the same criterion, is propaganda. TheresaWilson (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If it is self-evident that 1984 is sci-fi, and if it is not controversial, then the category is appropriate per the guidelines. It is not self-evident that this film is propaganda. Anyway, I would have no objection to 1984 being removed from that category. Wouldn't phase me in the least. Nor should that be read as a denial that it is in fact science-fiction. -R. fiend (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It is self evident that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎ is propaganda. TheresaWilson (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Because you say so? I don't think that's going to fly. Is the actual title of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: An American Propaganda film? Where does the film of its makers identify itself as propaganda? "Just look at the movie! It's obvious!" is that what Wikipedia accepts as a reliable source. The fact that we have no working definition of propaganda further complicates the issue. -R. fiend (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The existence of this dispute is evidence that it is not self-evident that Expelled is propaganda. Personally, I hoped this movie would be interesting and witty since it starred Ben Stein. But I've been very disappointed with the apparent lack of integrity of the producers, and the way it went over the top with the evolution/Nazi comparison. Nevertheless, I think you need something more than 1) expressing an opinion and 2) dishonesty to classify a film as propaganda. Eseymour (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Quote used in: the official website of the film:"One outstanding movie can do more to influence the culture than dozens of scholarly books". If that isn't propaganda, then what is? TheresaWilson (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And, I've just noticed at the above website, every page is headed with:
"Welcome to GetExpelled.com / This site is specifically designed for students, teachers, pastors, youth leaders and organisations to provide useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding this highly anticipated film." promote the ideas - propaganda? TheresaWilson (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That statement, in itself, does not make the film propaganda. It simply states that a movie can do more to influence the culture than dozens of books. That statement could apply to AIT (although I would hardly consider it an outstanding movie, but others would). RC-0722 361.0/1 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No level of irrefutable proof will ever satisfy some.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitive sources?

The point has been raised that reliable sources have labeled "Expelled" as propaganda. That is fine for inclusion of a claim in the article, but I suggest that in order to include an article in a category you need a definitive source. In this case, I'd say that would be a scholarly work by a historian or film scholar (not just a film critic) who is using a technical definition of "propaganda." Eseymour (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would please read the multiple references, a reasonable person would find it difficult to reach any other opinion. Scientific American and numerous other sources have already made the case. In any case, this issue as been dealt with at length.
I know that as a religious person, you might wish to give a pro-creationism movie every possible break, but this film is tainted. It is slimy with deceit and dishonesty. That is why some religious groups have risen to oppose the movie.
with kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"I know that as a religious person, you might wish to give a pro-creationism movie every possible break, but this film is tainted. It is filthy with deceit and dishonesty. That is why some religious groups have risen to oppose the movie." Please stop bashing for no reason and stay on topic. RC-0722 361.0/1 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Kindly stop using the term "bashing" against people whose ideas you oppose. It's neither productive or correct.
I have a strong aversion toward being deceived. Others may be more accepting of deceit, but in any case, truthfulness≠bashing
not bashing, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Bashing is exactly what you are doing, and for no reason I might add. We are trying to discuss whether the catagory American Propaganda films should stay or be removed; not whether expelled is "deceitful" or not.
Now, as far as I can see (or remember), the most compelling argument I've heard (actually it's the only I remember) for inclusion is that the film is "deceitful" RC-0722 361.0/1 15:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Bashing is what I'm experiencing from you. I have treated you with respect, and I'd appreciate it if you could return the same. Please do not torpedo criticism for the sake of blind support of the movie's mission. I have asked you to read the references and consider the accumulated evidence. Instead, you accuse those of us who have taken the effort to do our homework of "bashing". Bashing, sadly, is what people do to each other, not obvious pieces of propaganda.
Please refrain from bashing me (or anyone else). Thank you.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How am I attacking you? Also, I'm not "torpedoing any criticism for the sake of blind support," nor am I doing it because I disagree with it. However I am "torpedoing" it because it is irrelevant to the discussion. RC-0722 361.0/1 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am disappointed you have proved my point.
respectfully, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

^RC, UT did not bash you and you appear to bashing him. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The point has been repeatedly made that several "reliable sources" have called the film propaganda. By and large, the sources claimed are not reliable sources: WP:RS tells us that "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact," which would seem to apply to movie reviews. The only other source to be found in the article is the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and I don't think they can be a reliable source that the movie is propaganda (although I would have no trouble accepting them as a reliable source for specific inaccuracies in the movie). Their expertise is in science and education, not propaganda, and I'm not sure whether it's fair to call them a "third party source" in this matter. --skeptical scientist (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Polemical films?

This suggestion probably won't appease anyone, but what about creating a new category of "Polemic|Polemical films"? User:Eseymour|Eseymour (User talk:Eseymour|talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(rolling eyes)
--User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry (User talk:UnicornTapestry|talk) 22:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a suggestion in good faith. If you have a thoughtful response to that, please offer it. If you are finding it difficult to be WP:CIVIL|civil, you may want to take a break from this discussion. User:Eseymour|Eseymour (User talk:Eseymour|talk) 16:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I imagine no one would object to that category, though I'm sure we'd have substantial opposition to using that in place of category:propaganda films. -User:R. fiend|R. fiend (User talk:R. fiend|talk) 02:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What about finding sources that use the term as a category or genre of films? We've shown a number of reputable sources with expertise in firms describing this film as coming in the propaganda genre, or employing propaganda film techniques. . . User:Dave souza|dave souza, User talk:Dave souza|talk 18:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you give us the sources? User:RC-0722|RC-0722 Special:Contributions/RC-0722|361.0/User talk:RC-0722|1 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=gnvp-DopzlAC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=polemical+films&source=web&ots=NlOQxpaaOw&sig=0ldH4jvaIDOscwwkSPjbakx-s14&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result Here is an excerpt from a book by a film studies professor which categorizes several films as "polemical films." I found this one on the first page of http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=polemical+films Google results. I'm sure I could find more. I think it's a better category, both because it's more accurate and it carries less connotative baggage. User:Eseymour|Eseymour (User talk:Eseymour|talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No-one will ever admit that "their side" uses propaganda so it seems that this suggestion is, in fact a good compromise: "Polemical: Of or relating to a controversy, argument, or refutation. " (American Heritage Dictionary). Everyone will agree (?) that the word applies fairly to this film, and others, without being pejorative. It is a word which can be applied to almost any propaganda (!) film and leave it neutral. There can be no dispute as to the accuracy in this particular case, the film is controversial, argumentative and attempts refutation. I think that Eseymour has hit upon a valid compromise. User:TheresaWilson|TheresaWilson (User talk:TheresaWilson|talk) 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I would find this an acceptable compromise, provided the polemical films category were populated with other appropriate films. User:skeptical scientist|skeptical scientist (User talk:skeptical scientist|talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Such as? User:RC-0722|RC-0722 Special:Contributions/RC-0722|361.0/User talk:RC-0722|1 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh! There's one or two around, I'm sure. If everyone roots around we'll have a well populated category in days if not hours. User:TheresaWilson|TheresaWilson (User talk:TheresaWilson|talk) 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Just googled polemical film - 165000 hits, so there must be one or two that justify the cat here on WP. User:TheresaWilson|TheresaWilson (User talk:TheresaWilson|talk) 00:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
So would the catagory replace the propaganda, or would this be an addition? User:RC-0722|RC-0722 Special:Contributions/RC-0722|361.0/User talk:RC-0722|1 01:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I was assuming it would replace propaganda films. Otherwise that's not much of a compromise. --User:skeptical scientist|skeptical scientist (User talk:skeptical scientist|talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
True. User:RC-0722|RC-0722 Special:Contributions/RC-0722|361.0/User talk:RC-0722|1 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not view this as a good option in any case. It is propaganda. It has been cited. We should not put euphemisms in place to keep it out of a propaganda category. User:Thegreyanomaly|Thegreyanomaly (User talk:Thegreyanomaly|talk) 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Euphemisms, yes. We're weakening the meaning of words. As Beryl Lundin said, "If you can control a people's vocabulary, you can control the people."
In my not-so-humble opinion, this film is offensive to both supporters of creationism, ID, and science. It depends on people not questioning its claims. Many Christians have come out against the movie (Clergy Letter Project, named above) and they had the strength to call it propaganda. Except for investors who mopped up afterward, it's unclear to me how we could in good conscience not call it what it is. I haven't heard anyone refute R.fiend's line that the only truthful statement might be, "Hi, I'm Ben Stein."
This is only a pimple on the face of history, but shouldn't we consider our consequences? If not here, do we have the guts elsewhere to call obvious propaganda propaganda? Why even have a 'propaganda' category if we can't use it when it's needed?
We're exhorted to 'be bold'. We should give readers a reason not to call us Wimpipedia.
--User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry (User talk:UnicornTapestry|talk) 04:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
We're exhorted to be bold, but not reckless. Furthermore, boldness often serves as a good first step to reaching a consensus, and doesn't take the place of trying to reach a consensus or instruct that the consensus itself should be controversial WP:BRD. Remember we're an encyclopedia, and "boldness" should not be an excuse to compromise the encyclopedic guidelines, especially WP:NPOV. The real question here is what is the purpose of the propaganda category? Is it designed to include anything a reviewer or reviewers might label as such? I think the initial intent was to categorize historical wartime propaganda films, not modern films which may share common features with those historical examples. I could be wrong about this, but in any case, we should be especially careful of NPOV when filling this category; I think the best way to do that is to establish criteria for inclusion which can then be consistently followed. User:skeptical scientist|skeptical scientist (User talk:skeptical scientist|talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#I_am_cutting_in. Neutral organizations have dubbed this propaganda. It has been cited as propaganda. Euphemisms weaken the truth. Wikipedia is not supposed to lie to or bullshit its readers. Calling it polemic instead of what it is is bullshitting the readers. User:Thegreyanomaly|Thegreyanomaly (User talk:Thegreyanomaly|talk) 05:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


I agree. We have mainstream media, newspapers, magazines, amazon.com, rotten tomatoes, at least 2 clergy organizations, Scientific American, every scientific society and organization I know of, who are unequivocal that this is bad, unfitting, intelligence insulting propaganda.
Despite bloggers (and Conservapedia)) urging readers to flood Amazon with positive reviews,[16][17] customers overwhelmingly voted it propaganda, more than any other category, more than the 'creationism' category itself. One viewer said "Nothing could undermine the credibility of the Intelligent Design crowd faster than this dishonest, venal attempt to make an end run around the legitimate scientific vetting process." Another said "Best Propoganda since Mien Kampf". One Christian called it "shameful… dishonest". Another review called it underhanded, manipulative, demonizing, a major fabrication, irreligious, and compares the situation to the plight of Galileo, receiving a customer approval of nearly 1400 out of 1475.
As people keep denying fact upon fact, some keep insisting that propaganda has to be political. Because they may not have seen the movie, they fail to realized the film IS VERY political. It dishonestly attempts to link Darwin and science as the root cause of Nazism and the holocaust. It attempts to undercut government funding for science, one of the reasons America has fallen from its leading position in the world. NASA's funding alone has been cut from 4% of the national budget to a tiny fraction of one percent. Our school systems (including the that under the President's first Secretary of Education), are graduating 50% or fewer students. France, UK, Canada, Japan, and not China are making scientific advances while we diddle. With a stated goal of defeating materialistic science and pretending that Darwin somehow promoted eugenics and inspired Hitler IS political and IS propaganda. This differs from holocaust deniers only on a matter of scale.
It seems to me that if we can't honestly call propaganda what it is, we might as well be Conservapedia.
The question is, does Wikipedia have the guts to call propaganda propaganda?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good example (copied from archive 10)

(Sorry to resurrect this but I decided to wait to cool down, then forgot about it). Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Forgive me, but it still appears you have completely missed the point of the essay. The point of the essay is that the existance of one crap article, is not justifcation for another crap article. In other words, I can't argue we should have an article on X because we also have an article on Y. But we are not debating, as far as I'm aware, that both these articles should exist. (On a tangent I would also agree that it is dumb for Stein to make Expelled because Travolta made Battlefield Earth but I'm not aware that Stein justified making Expelled because Travolta made Battlefield Earth so that doesn't seem particularly relevant and in any case, doesn't really help us improve the article.) To some extent, the essay also applies if I was trying to say "we should do something like X (which is a POS article with major issues)" since clearly it doesn't make sense for us to repeat the mistakes of other articles. But none of this is the case, the issue at hand, is not anything to do with the existance of one article, or of one film, or whatever justfying the existance of the other article, or film, or whatever. The issue at hand is we have here a B class article and on the other hand, a FA article. These articles both cover films that are crap and have a fair amount of controversy around them to boot. This means that both articles need to cover similar topics and of course as is always the case on wikipedia in a NPOV and fair way. Sadly, a lot of people particularly ID supporters, don't seem to understand what an NPOV and fair way is. Covering the film fairly means that yes, a big chunk of the article is going to be filled with the criticism of and controversy surrounding the subject. Wikipedia doesn't generally work on precedent, but there's also no point re-inventing the wheel. When someone has done something before, it's worthwhile seeing how they did it to see what, if any lessons can be learned. Another point I was trying to make is that it's worthwhile for editors particularly those who feel strongly about something to look at something which they don't really care so much about, or perhaps even have exactly the opposite feelings about. To put it a different way, Battlefield Earth is a POS film with a number of controversies (not just on financing but on the way Travolta pushed it through due to his personal beliefs reasons despite the opposition of quite a lot of people) but the article is one of our best. It's resonable to expect that the way they've dealt with the fact they're covering a POS film, offers us pointers, on how we can deal with what is essentially a POS film with also a lot of controversy (albeit more and mostly of a different nature). I'm not saying the example is even close to perfect and of course, there may be multiple ways to do things and we may choose to do something differently, in itself the fact that people of a FA did something in one way is not really justification for us to do it the same way. In other words, I can't argue, we should do stuff in this way because the BE did stuff in this way, but I never did I was simply suggesting it might offer us pointers on how to do things, which we would still be free to debate without reference to BE if we felt wasn't the best way. Indeed it wasn't even so much about pointers, but more about the overall tone of the article, the way for example, as Dave below put it, the article wasn't afraid to point out problems with the film. BTW, I've just noticed that there are surprisingly few supporters of John Travolta and/or scientology who've tried to defend the film in the article talk page (I guess they realise, as I suspect does JT, that the film is a lost cause and will prefer to forget it more then anything else) so they don't have the level of debate we've had. But then again, if we want to look at how to handle debate, there are definitely a lot of articles, FAs and not to look at (and many we should try to avoid). Indeed in some ways the low level of debate may mean it's easier for editors to see that in the absence of strong personal beliefs it's usually a lot easier for editors to see how something should go. Again, I'm not saying that Battlefield Earth is a perfect example, but as an FA (which sadly there is only around 2000 of) it is an example of what we want to achieve since ultimately we should want to make this article the best possible. There are indeed other articles which will offer pointers on what we should do, perhaps some will even offer more pointers than Battlefield Earth. We don't even necessarily always need to look at FAs since none FAs can offer pointers too. But IMHO, and yes I still stick with this after all this time, it is indeed a fine example of a FA, covering a fairly similar topic (a POS film with a bunch of controversies) to what we are trying to cover. Many editors, particularly those who feel the article is too negative, could probably learn a lot from reading it, and thinking about it and thinking about this article in comparison, doing the best to put aside their personal feelings. Ultimately my hope is most editors realise that when the majority of secondary sources say one thing, then the article is likewise going to say that and cover that in most depth. Since it's been so long, let me explain why I'm bringing this up again beyond the fact I forgot about it. Firstly, don't get me wrong, I accept that some people may find the example I offer useless to them. That is their right. Perhaps no one finds it useful, this would be unfortunate and I apologise for wasting everyone's time. I was aware of the article because of it's TFA and felt that particularly given the level or debate at the time, it might be useful to give editors an FA on a similar topic to ours in the hope that at least one editor, after reading it, will get some pointers in how they should handle stuff in this article. I'm not trying to force editors to find my example useful since I'm sure many won't. I had hoped that most editors would at least see the similarity even if they don't find the FA useful personally. But I can accept it if there are those who don't. What I found incredibly annoying and the reason why I responded perhaps a little too harshly then, and the receive I feel the need to continue this here is that you for whatever reason were/are unable to simply accept I was offering an example which I felt other editors might find useful in helping them become better editors in this article. I made it clear repeatedly that I was not trying to ask for any particular changes to this article in light of BE. Indeed in case this is not already obvious, I'm trying to argue we are in fact largely on the right track with this article, as partially demonstrated by BE. Again, I understand you may not agree. You may find this example completely useless and I have no problem with you expressing your view that in your opinion, the example I offered is completely useless to editors of this article. What I don't understand, is why you felt it necessary to completely attack my example, offered in good faith because it meant that realisticly, few editors are likely to even check out my example unless I explained why I didn't agree with your attack on my example. It wastes my time, it wastes your time and doesn't IMHo achieve anything constructive. (If I was trying to say, well BE did A, we should do A too and you were saying well BE did A but they're different in this way, so that is why we do B instead I could understand. But I was not doing so, and you did not seem (at least to me) to be saying that instead you seem to be saying the example you're offering is completely useless to everyone and here's why "", why are you wasting your time, our time, and talk page space with an example which is completely useless and not going to benefit anyone in any way?. Perhaps this was not your intention, in which case I apologise but it was, and is, what I felt your response was intented and why I took offence at the time. If this was your intention, and you stick by it, then that's your right. No hard feelings whatever the case, I just sometimes prefer to explain my POV before dropping an issue.) Anyway this is probably all I have to say on the matter. If you still don't agree that the example is likely to be of any use to anyone, then so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 July 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)
Finally, someone who gets my point, I think. I would agree that the controversy is mostly trivial, although there is IMHO more then the financial aspect (since there's the Travolta-scientology link, and the way he forced through a film a lot of people though was a bad idea). This article clearly is going to have more to cover and in more depth about the controversies. But as you say, the article isn't shy in pointing out the problems with the film, and nor should we. And upon reading that article, most readers are going to come away with an overall negative view of the film, and the same with this article. The fact that the film is fictional does make a resonable difference, but fictional or not, if a film is shit, the article is going to give the reader the impression it is shit. And if the film is controversial, it's going to cover the controversies in a resonable amount of depth. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 July 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)

But don't you see? Both articles cover the fact that critics didn't like them in resonable depth, as do we. Both articles cover the controversy they generated, as do we. If I'm not mistaken, you are one of those who feel the article is too negative. Do you feel the same about the BE article? Do you think that the BE article covers positive reviews well enough or does it need more positive reviews? Do you think it covers the controversy too much? Do you think it doesn't cover what the film is about enough? Looking back at this article now, bearing in mind that this film has probably been panned even more then BE (because no one really cared about BE) and has generated even more controversy; do you not think as a FA, we should expect to have even more coverage of negative reviews and the controversy, and and are likely to give the reader a perhaps even worse overall negative impression of film then the BE article? Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead doesn't make much sense

Copied from the first paragraph:

The movie claims that "Big Science" suppresses criticism of both the evidence for evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the theory explaining this evidence.

That is really hard to parse for some reason. Can this be changed to something like

The movie claims that "Big Science" suppresses criticism of both the evidence for evolution and the theory explaining this evidence, the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Also, "Big Science" isn't very illuminating. Can it be replaced with the definition scientists and the scientific enterprise that is given further in the article? Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I for one agree with your sentence clarification.
Regarding Big Science, the definition the movie wants us to accept isn't synonymous with that used in science fiction or by the scientific community, yet your point is well taken. Rather than strike "Big Science" (because it's used in the movie), could you reword it to a phrase or reference along the order of "as used in the movie" with a general agreement of others?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
How about: The movie claims that what it calls "Big Science" (the scientific establishment in the United States) suppresses ... Plazak (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The definition scientists and the scientific enterprise is better, as their "big science" really just means anyone who disagrees with them. Thus assistant professor PZ Myers with a few tanks of zebrafish typifies "Big Science". . . . dave souza, talk 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
While I don't doubt the accuracy of your description, that is not really what the film alleges. The thesis of the film is that there is a scientific establishment that controls American academic and research institutions, and scientific journals, and that this establishment discriminates against minority viewpoints regarding evolution, and against those scientists who hold those viewpoints. In fairness to the film, the article should (at least in the lead paragraph) accurately reflect the claims made in the film. There is plenty of opportunity later in the article to discuss the accuracy, or lack of, of the film's arguments. Plazak (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable if Ben used "Big Science*" with a footnote worded along the lines of his proposal? As Dave suggests, the movie implies a conspiracy theory, but as Plazak points out, we can't state it and stay neutral. We have to let the facts about the movie 'show' it rather than 'tell' it.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
An asterisk leading to a footnote is a bit clumsy. What is wrong with just simply and clearly stating the thesis of the movie in the lead, and leaving analysis of that thesis for the main body of the article? Also, I would be careful in attributing a conspiracy theory to the movie. I don't recall from the movie that Stein says or implies that the scientific establishment gets together to plot against scientists with creationist/AI views. What he does say is that the scientific establishment shares a common outlook that results in supression of opposing viewpoints. Plazak (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the sentence to define what Stein means by "Big Science". I don't think it should prove too controversial, but if you don't like it, discuss. I'd almost like to see an article on the use of the word "Big" as a pejorative when discussing large establishments and institutions. There are enough different examples these days it might prove useful. -R. fiend (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Plazak (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Ben (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm back!!!!!!! From a nice long summer break. Looking forwards to working with you guys again soon. Saksjn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nice to see you. Looking through the cited sources, the only one that uses the phrase "Big Science" is p. 3 on the Scientific American 6 things article, and it says nothing in that section about "the major scientific establishments in the United States" but instead refers explicitly to the scientific method. So I've modified it accordingly. As is often the case with ID, the meaning is vague and undefined, and could equally mean the scientific community, but we follow the source. . . dave souza, talk 08:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That isn't exactly what the source says, and Scientific American is not a reliable source on what Stein and the producers of Expelled mean when they use the term, which is what the sentence is about. If the film doesn't make it clear what they mean by the term, then it isn't our place to speculate, so we'll have to leave the term undefined. I think people can figure out what it means. Besides, the edit makes no sense; how can the scientific method suppress criticism? -R. fiend (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
They're a reliable source responding to the use of the term, but no-one knows just what Stein and co. mean by the phrase, other than it's big and scary, so I agree it's probably best to leave out a definition. Of course the scientific method suppresses untestable claims like "the intelligent designer dunnit" as it requires testable evidence, and the supernatural is unpredictable. . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We've debated this before. "Big Science" was only used in the advertising for the film and never showed up in the film. So it probably should be in a section on advertising not on the lead. Make sense? Saksjn (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about that, but without evidence that it's in the film, we shouldn't say so in the lead. So I've substituted "scientists" which conveys the essential meaning. Any better sources? . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How bout main stream science? Saksjn (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New source

The Expelled Controversy: Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division?, Jeffrey P. Schloss (former DI fellow), published by the American Scientific Affiliation. Not much new information, but a lot there that might provide an RS for what would previously have been SYNTH or OR. HrafnTalkStalk 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It reads pretty well, and the Pandas commentary reports various responses to the paper. In the comments, Rich Blinne | August 13, 2008 12:35 PM | says that "I am a member of the ASA and I have some more backround information. The review in question was actually commissioned by us. We were seeing altogether too many “partisan” responses to Expelled and believed that Dr. Schloss would give a good, unbiased, review." . . dave souza, talk 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to Rationalwiki article

This article appears to be protected right now and I can't edit the link out as an IP editor, but I object to linking to an article on Rationalwiki, which is not a serious site nor anything remotely approaching the standards of WP:RS - they split their effort between trying to be to Conservapedia what Wikipedia Review is to Wikipedia, stalking Conservapedia users, and lowbrow comedy and satire. Linking to them is unwarranted linkspam. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the rationalwiki entry from see also. I'm leaving the one in references-critical sites, because that seems like a useful point by point rebuttal of the "leader's guide". skeptical scientist (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are propaganda categories appropriate for this article?

Are propaganda categories appropriate for this article?

No. The propaganda issue is discussed in the article. There's no point in having a navigational category for a single film! While NPOV is handled very well in the article, it's impossible to do so with as much grace when you're slapping a category label on something. As a person who personally believes this film is propaganda, I think it is important to note that there is a big difference between citing specific instances of a film being called something and categorizing it as something. Movingboxes (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's been a while since I've been involved in an RfC, and it appears things have changed. At some point a bot is supposed to come along and do something, but I have no idea if I'm supposed to wait for that before commenting (I'm the one who posted this RfC, just so people know). It seems comments have started already so I'll mention my take (which has been stated repeatedly above).
    • WP:CAT says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." This article fails both. Whatever one may think of it, it is not self-evidently propaganda (eg, it is not called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: A Propaganda Film).
    • The same page also says "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc." Inclusion is effectively saying "Expelled is a propaganda film". The article itself does not say this, as such a statement is not backed up by reliable sources. The article does say it has been called propaganda, but that is a different matter.
    • On that topic, the sources referring to it as propaganda are opinion pieces, mostly film reviews. WP:RS says "great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." (emphasis theirs). The article is just fine when it cites these sources, as it is presenting them as the opinions of the reviewers. Propaganda film categories, however, attempt to sneak the statement that this film is propaganda into the article.
  • In an effort to reach a mutually agreeable solution, a discussion was started at WP:CFD, with one of the proposals being to rename category:American Propaganda films to something like "American films described as propaganda." There was no consensus for such a change. It seems to me that if this category is to be included, it must be proven to be propaganda, not merely described as such by some people. So far there seems to be a lack of consensus on this issue, with some arguing that a non-consensus means the article goes back to how it was, and others arguing that a non-consensus defaults to non-inclusion of the disputed category. I obviously fall into the latter group. Articles are uncategorized until people add categories to them, so their "natural state" they should default to is non-inclusion of the disputed category. Even when the category was included for a substantial amount of time, edits do not get squatters rights. In this case the category lasted for a while not because it wasn't disputed, but because one group was more effective in circling their wagons around it.
  • Finally, categories are meant to be navigational tools, not labels. Basically all other films have been removed form these categories (I've removed some myself, for the same basic reasons), and the remaining ones are all in sub-cats of a historical nature (generally from the Cold War back to WWI). Those cases are much different than this one. This is not a useful navigational tool, but an uncited, POV label. Leave the accusations of propaganda to the text of the article, where it is currently fairly covered. -R. fiend (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • To repeat my position: I think it is legitimate to have Category:Propaganda films, and indeed, would hold that most of the entries on it are legitimately included. The issue here is that the reviewers calling it "propaganda" are doing so to pass judgement on the content of the film, not to categorize it by type. It seems to me that it is essentially of the same ilk as Michael Moore's films, or for that matter, the Gore film which it is intended to oppose. All of these are political documentaries, of greater or lesser legitimacy of argument. Mangoe (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    If the intent of reviewers is to pass judgment, and not to categorize the film by type, then why would we use that as a justification to categorize it by type, while we're under a mandate not to pass judgment? How is that an argument for adding a category, the very purpose of which is to categorize by type? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Mangoe, when you say that it is legitimate to have the category, do you mean it is legitimate for the category to exist, or for it to be have this article in that category? We're not discussing deleting the category, so if that's what you're saying there's no need to worry. The second part of your statement seems to imply that the category is not right for this movie. Can you clarify? -R. fiend (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Elie Weisel has a quote "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim". Ben in this case is the oppressor, science the victim. Is this isn't the place to put the propaganda category, where does it go? This film has one of the strongest cases of being propaganda. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If this film isn't the place to put the label "propaganda", then it's because other films have been deemed such by historians, and this one hasn't yet received that honor. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
R. fiend makes a good case. But I am uncertain as to whether he is merely cherrypicking WP:CAT to make a case. I have seen much more broader definitions used for what makes an article eligible for inclusion in a category.
I am satisfied, and in the interest of accuracy will abide and support consensus if it deems that the category is inappropriate. Providing that if Category:American films described as propaganda ever gets created this article goes in it. (Note: I am not advocating creation of such a category).--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You may well be right about the broader definitions being used in other articles, but I don't think that's terribly relevant to this; I think in most cases it's a matter of over-categorization. A epidemic problem on Wikipedia is people adding anything they can think of to an article without thought or discussion. This often manifests itself in "Trivia" sections, those articles that are a series of one line non-connected paragraphs, and the addition of every conceivable template or category to an article. It's an issue, to be sure, but if the categories aren't POV labels, it's not terribly relevant to this. -R. fiend (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The clear majority expert opinion of this film as shown by published film critics is that it is a propaganda film and, as far as I've seen, no reliable sources have been produced showing objections to that description. While some use the description to express disdain for the truthfulness or quality of the film, as a category propaganda films includes several of the finest films ever made, as recognised by film critics / historians. Several of the film reviews describe this film as using propaganda film techniques, and on that basis the film belongs in this category. If other films similarly are described as using such techniques and no reliable source rejects the label, they too belong in the category. That in no way implies the validity or otherwise of the films, but concerns to remove the category due to perceptions that it's derogatory seem to me to be whitewashing divorced from the history of film-making. . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Dave Souza, do you honestly deny that the term is largely perceived as negative? History of film-making aside, when a term has the same negative connotations as "propaganda", the term must be used very carefully by an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. That's why film articles such as Triumph of the Will and Prelude to War make statements like "X is a propaganda film" in the lead, while this article makes statements like "X is a controversial film which has been called propaganda by multiple film reviews". Since categorization as a propaganda film essentially makes the statement "X is a propaganda film", we must avoid doing so when articles themselves cannot say "X is a propaganda film", which is why it is appropriate to categorize well-known examples like Triumph of the Will and Prelude to War as propaganda films, but Expelled requires a more delicate treatment within the article describing exactly who is calling it propaganda and why. \
    • ZayZayEM, I'm not sure what types of things you were referring to when you said, "I have seen much more broader definitions used for what makes an article eligible for inclusion in a category," but my guess would be that the difference is that the term 'propaganda' is so heavily loaded. When a category doesn't have any negative connotations or NPoV issues, there's really no harm in being relatively loose in the criteria for categorization; on the other hand, when a category has serious NPoV issues as this one does, Wikipedia should take the utmost care to use it only when it is unquestionably correct.
    • --skeptical scientist (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Categorisation makes the statement that this film can be looked up as one associated with the propaganda genre, nothing more and nothing less. Both Mrs. Miniver and Triumph of the Will are brilliant films in the propaganda genre, a quality which has nothing to do with whether or not one approves of the message in the film. . . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to take issue with two of your statements. First, this one, in which you seem to deny that putting it in this category says, or even implies, that this is a propaganda film, instead merely implying an association with propaganda (I think this is what you're saying). I think that's a bit of a stretch, and WP:CAT disagrees ("(article) is (category)"). Others who support the inclusion on this category have admitted it is a label more than a navigational tool, and it seems pretty clear that's what it is.
Furthermore, you say "The clear majority expert opinion of this film as shown by published film critics is that it is a propaganda film." I'd like to see evidence of that. Another editor made a similar comment, only he assumed any negative review of the film to be the equivalent of calling it propaganda, which is clearly not legitimate. I'll agree that the clear majority expert opinion is that the film is lousy, but that is a different issue (and I wouldn't condone "Lousy films" to be a category for this movie). You also set a pretty high bar for others to clear, looking for sources that contradict this explicit label, meaning we have to find reviews calling the film "not propaganda," which is not a typical way to describe anything. For what it's worth, there are reviews say it is like propaganda, which is saying it is not the same as propaganda, but no one is likely to find anyone saying "this is not a propaganda movie" any more than we are likely to find someone saying "this is not the worst film of the year". -R. fiend (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's some interesting comments from one review (McKillop, Matt. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Retrieved 2008-09-02.) (ellipses are mine):

Expelled works in much the same way as a Michael Moore documentary -- a raft of provocation and very little persuasion.

Perhaps the worst part of Expelled comes when Stein tries to connect the theory of evolution and Nazism. [....] This is shameless demagoguery, and it's not persuasive or constructive.

In interviews leading up to the release of Expelled, many of these scientists [interviewed for the film] have said that their quotes were taken out of context and that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves in the interviews. Listening to these men throughout the course of the movie, it's hard to feel much sympathy for them. [....] And that's the one thing that Expelled manages to expose -- the rancor and malice on both ends of this issue. It isn't an argument so much as it's a war, complete with soldiers and battles and funding and propaganda.

OK, he uses the "P" word. But he brings us up against the issue (by inference) that any virtually any documentary made these days can be classified as "propaganda" on the terms being used in these reviews. So, for that matter, could the many "issue" films made. But the last bit is, I think, the most telling. McKillop doesn't exactly come out and call the film "propaganda", but certainly implies it pretty strongly. More importantly, though, he makes it clear that the use of the word is in analogy to its stricter sense. I think for the category we need to stick to that stricter sense. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


One of the major problems is that Expelled is not only propaganda, but one of the most blatantly false pieces I've come across. R. fiend] has said the only truthful line might be, "Hi, I'm Ben Stein."

The film-making technique has been compared to Michael Moore– I've compared and contrasted myself. Moore's critics tend to question his conclusions more than his content, challenging about 5% of his 'facts'.

Contrast that with Expelled, in which more than 90% of its 'facts' are called into question if not outright demonstrably false.

I've heard various 'defenses' for the movie, none I've found satisfying. A listener on Neil Boortz said Stein was a comedian and the film was meant to be a joke on the scientific establishment. I haven't noticed anyone laughing except investors.

I've heard it called a 'pseudo-documentary', but Blair Witch Project is an example of a pseudo-documentary.

ZayZayEM mentions that scientists and film critics have called it propaganda and pretty much proved its deception. It's also important to note that religious groups (documented elsewhere) have also condemned the film as propaganda.

GTBacchus's comment that "one man's propaganda is another man's truth" is a 1984ish myth which clouds rather than illuminates, although he was forthright in mentioning he hadn't seen the movie. Elie Weisel's quote "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim" is more on the mark. More importantly, many who argue against propaganda haven't read the references. Seeing the film is not sufficient to make a judgment; you have to understand the tricks and shenanigans the filmmakers engaged in.

Thegreyanomaly made a statement that was roundly criticized, but I have to agree with him: taking a principled stand and calling a spade a spade isn't grounds for accusing someone of not having a NPOV.

I feel it was inappropriate for R. fiend to remove it from the propaganda list, conceivably an act of propaganda itself. If we can't categorize Expelled as it should be– propaganda in the extreme– we should turn in our testicles and join Conservapedia.

(By the way, I'm one of the people who's naïve about such terms as Synth, OR, and RS.)

skeptical scientist urges calm and I agree. It's funny, but I've come to respect y'all on both sides. It's just some of us (not including me, of course) happen to be wrong. (grin)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since my comment is cited here, I feel I should respond. When I said that one man's propaganda is another man's truth, I wasn't entirely clear, it seems. I wasn't saying that the film under consideration is true from any particular perspective, nor that every piece of propaganda can validly be seen as true. My point was simply that we can report what sources say. Rather than simply saying that the film is propaganda, we can say "Sources A, B and Q called the film propaganda, citing reasons X, Y and Z." That's our job anyway, as an encyclopedia.

That occurs, of course, within the body of the article itself. Whether or not we use a Propaganda films category is a more general question, because we have to consider whether that category is useful as a whole. I would maintain that, although this film may unquestionably be propaganda (such is my impression from what I've read of it), the category is problematic.

There is going to be a non-empty gray area where there are films about which one could make cases both for and against those films being propaganda. The context of my statement was a suggestion that a category based on a film having been described as propaganda in reliable sources might be easier to handle. I don't find that suggestion to be 1984-ish at all, but rather consistent with our encyclopedic mandate to reflect what sources say without passing our own judgments. I apologize for my clumsiness of expression if my statement came across otherwise. I think the category is problematic, and should be replaced by a more objectively determinable one. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a hatchet job - I'm impressed

Wow, what a hatchet job - I'm impressed. You guys don't even let this thing up for air for one sentence. I've never seen a more complete obliteration of the subject. Absolutely stunning! Now I have to see it. 75.49.223.74 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to bring up specific things that you think are wrong.--Woland (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It's really not an entry on the film is it? It is however a concrete overwhelming argument as to why the film is wrong. I don't care enough to look, but I do wonder if the Michael Moore films or other controversial films masquerading as pseudo-documentaries are also so thoroughly and verifiably debunked? I guess NPOV is not really relevant when the truth is at stake.75.49.223.74 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
See WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ. . . dave souza, talk 08:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing that seems unfair in this article is the consistent association of Intelligent Design with religion. Many of the proponents were clear that they were NOT religious, and some were even less committed, simply saying that Evolution was unsatisfactory. The refusal to ever allow these people to be discussed without labelling them as "religious" is troubling. Maybe they're bad scientists, I don't know. But at least let them say what they are, instead of deciding that it is impossible to disagree without having religious motivations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.127.82 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • * I think this article is missing the point. I think the film is about scientific paradigms, and that the current paradigm is on the verge of shifting. The impending shift illustrated by the Berlin wall, constructed to limit and contain ideas, the destruction of which symbolized the return of freedom of thought. Mudpuppy3000 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)mudpuppy3000
The article is not "missing the point" though. The article is based on reliable secondary sources and what they say about it. We can't go around inserting our POVs about "paradigm shifts" into articles. That isn't what an encyclopedia is about. --Woland (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • * ^Hmm, I understand the encyclopedia part. Didn't mean to use a POV. That makes it a challenge to comment! But I've reviewed the sources and a great many of them (majority) are negative criticism's of the film, so perhaps that is why the article seems so slanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudpuppy3000 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, because the positive sources are few and far between, not because they aren't represented.--Woland (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The article largely strikes me as in-line with the policies of verifiability and NPoV. As said above, if you have specific objections, please present them and/or fix them yourself. However, there is a great deal of evidence backing up both the theory of evolution and the close ties between the ID movement and older conservative Christian creationist movements, and pointing to it in the article is not out of line.

As has often been said, the truth has a liberal bias.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As a researcher I find that often in arguments such as this the gensis (no religous pun intended) of arguments are a slant upon ones perception of the base fact, after going throu multiple perceptions the slant is greater. Further more one who has a vested intrest in a subject for personal gain or fullfillment. Should remove themselves from judgement and become what they are proponents not unbiased interpeters.

I would argue that a good share of evidence brought in this article is overwhelminly biased and miss leading as well as antaginistic. One could arguably fill quotes from every religous group in support and make this article biased in another direction. Ben Steins evidence should be examinied and direct quotations from those involved should be considered. Running commentary has no place or consideration inside a piece.

Finally most of the sources would be thrown out for potential bias or plane old illrevelance (what authority voice does half those quoted have on the subject). Quantity does not make up for quality. If you want a true argumentive view select equal number of quality arguments and let them stand on thier own merit. In closing the article does not lead someone to an informed comperhensive view but leads instead a reader to a conclusion. Which to be frank completely flies in the face of what an encylopidia (get an oxfords/webster dictinoary and look it up) is suppose to be and is a disgrace to intellectual honesty. Regardless if the proponets of the movie is right or wrong. Shame on you all. Research Engineer (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Category inclusion

Include this film in the category "Freedom of Expression". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.103.22 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite a stretch to me. -R. fiend (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing

I moved and expanded the mention that Expelled does not define or defend ID out of the intro, where it seemed a bit POV and glossed over. I think it's important that people reading this article are informed that the movie does not try to be a scientific explanation for ID, but is almost entirely about trying to convince people that there is some conspiracy against it. Anyone looking for the "science" behind ID, or looking for a movie equivalent of some thing The Edge of Evolution or Of Pandas and People will not be well served by this movie, as that is not its aim, and it's important to state that clearly. -R. fiend (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that to the overview, it's obviously a significant point about the film which you put well. I've introduced trimmed coverage of the point into the lead in the context of the film showing alleged persecution of ID proponents, and have expanded the overview paragraph to note that the film critiques evolution without defining it or giving a basic explanation of the theory. . . dave souza, talk 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I rephrased what you wrote slightly. I felt it should be clear that the film doesn't attempt to address the subject from a scientific standpoint, while the article previously may have given the impression that it tried and failed. Also, while it doesn't give any definition of ID that would satisfy a scientist, it does give a cursory definition of the concept. Anyone seeing the movie will have a general idea of what it's talking about, at least. R. fiend (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite much of article to dispassionately describe film content and its key points

This article shows more signs of warfare than a battlefield.

Since the film is controversial, why not get a neutral summary of it (as might appear in a catalog) and then a brief summary of its key disputed issues - worded in short descriptive sentences. Currently, there is way too much film critique disguised as description.Dna dances (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarises expert opinion, giving due weight to majority expert views. If you provide a reliable source giving third party verification of the "neutral summary" you propose, that will be welcome. However, remember that a catalog is commonly presented by those selling a product, and hence is a primary source, while to meet our "no original research" policy articles should be based on secondary sources, treating primary sources with great care to avoid synthesis. Of course "film critique" is a name for third party views about films, and these have a major part to play in the article. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is still way too obsessive, way too long, undue weight times ten. As one indication how this article can be seen as "overworking" the subject ad nauseum, Kitzmiller v Dover is half the size of this. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
No kidding. I came here for info on the movie in comparison with Religulous, only to find nothing but disproving every point the article makes. Isn't there a page for the debate on creationism vs evolution, and shouldn't arguments against the points made in the movie direct there? a minor criticism section is warranted (or even a major section if the film is that controversial), but each section carries on a debate, displaying each side of the coin, repeatedly. state the nature of the movie, then in another section tear it apart if need be; but give the reader a summary before tearing it apart. just my $.02 however...204.191.77.209 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's inevitable that an article about something so controversial is going to eventually focus on the creationism v evolution debate but I agree with the above poster that it needs more of a summary of what the aim of the film is. The major issue I think is with the overview section which isn't currently acting as a synopsis/overview of the film and the arguments it features but instead is just taking the most controversial parts and then discussing them in a biased way. The Nazi part looks to have more than necessary space, it could be trimmed and fitted in so as to reflect how it is part of the film (I haven't watched the film and support evolution but the impression I got was the main argument of the film was that academic discussion is suppressed when talking about creationism, not Nazism which is a minor part) and more time devoted to general summaries rather than quotes which seem to come mostly from controversial figures on either side and don't fit in with the idea of an overview. A lot of the review comments in the overview section aren't any help at all in understanding what the film is about because they immediately dive into the creationism vs evolution debate, The same goes for a lot of comments from blogs and articles that seem to be specifically attacking or defending one point in the film and don't seem to belong in an overview section.84.70.206.87 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been rewriting parts to address exactly what some of your problems are. Most significantly, I've been rewriting the sections of the figures profiled in the movie. Previously they were mostly mini-bios on the people, with a POV slant, mentioning the film hardly at all. I've tried to change that so the focus is more on how they are portrayed in the film, making the counter-arguments secondary. There is still perhaps more that can be done, and at times the focus of the articles does stray from the film itself. I've also tried to tackle the quote issue, specifically taking the random quotes that started many of the sections and inserting them into the sections in some context. I still question whether some of them even belong, really, but I'll let others weigh in before removing such things. I think the article is improving, but there is still more than can be done. As for the Nazi issue, while it is not the primary subject of the film, it isn't some tiny footnote either. The amount of space the article devotes to it is probably fine. I'll watch that part again (I saw the movie once when it first came out on DVD, and reluctantly rented it again in order to improve this article, though I only watched selected scenes this time). I think the article is starting to look more like an encyclopedia article on a movie rather than a arm of the Expelled Exposed website, and I like to see this continue. -R. fiend (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


THis article is not an explanation of Expelled.......the tone and style are clearly that of critics of the film systematically going through it and giving their side. If that's what Wikipedia wants, you've got it. It's not objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.95.186 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is the attitude displayed in the vast majority of reviews, and most reliable sources. I agree that we could use some reworking, but a strong negative slant is going to remain if we're to reflect thought on the issue. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Box office section

I have a HUGE problem with the Canadian Box office section. It seems the only reason Stephan included it was to put a otherwise unverified quote from the Globe and Mail claiming that Stien used the f word in complaining about the ADL. The original article had the good sense to not include the actual word, which Stephan decided to include without dashes. Are we now including profanity in this post. For these reasons I think the entire section should be deleted!Mathezar (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the only Stephan here: I did what? The only edit I made here in the last time was fixing two broken URLs (see last section). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I really don't care but you might want to read WP: Wikipedia is not censored. --Woland (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
First off, please do not assume ulterior motives of your fellow editors: always AGF. And per your problem, censorship is not a legitimate reason to delete sourced content. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Woland, are you really responding to my position or my opinion? And Woland and Aunt Entropy are you two actually making the ridiculous claim that inserting profanity into an original text that at least had to good sense of editing it out follows the Wikipedia censorship guideline?!? If that is your position you are both just plain wrong. The censorship policy does not question whether profanity can be removed from a post, just that Wikipedia is not responsible if it happens to creep into a post. My problem is why is this quote even included and why was the original text edited to include the profanity. I am correcting the quote to reflect the original source and my hope is to get the whole section removed all together.Mathezar (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the source quotes Stein as saying "f---ing", then that's what should appear in the article and it would be WP:OR or a naughty mind to translate that into English, so I agree to that extent with Mathezar and have reinstated that quotation accordingly. The quote is significant in showing Stein's response to one of the main targets of the movie. Regarding R. fiend's comment below, I don't have a problem with it being moved to the response section instead of appearing under Box office. dave souza, talk 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems the issue is more with the section being a vehicle for more criticism of the film, rather than a section on the film's take in Canada. To be honest, if the Canadian reviews warrant inclusion in the article, they probably belong in the response section, as it makes little difference which side of the border such reviews come from. Likewise, both box-office sections are short enough that they could be combined into one section on total box office. The colorful language isn't really a problem, but the question could be asked if it's necessary, or if it's in the wrong section (I would say the answer to the second question is yes). -R. fiend (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article so long?

Serious question--why is this article so long? Great, it's controversial. That's splendid. But seeing as how there are already pages dedicated to the ID/evolution controversy, why does this article need to flesh out every detail of every argument presented and every counter-argument to every argument in the film found anywhere on these here intarnets? It's ludicrous. Shawshank Redemption is the #1 rated film of all time on IMDB. Regardless of your opinion on either Expelled or Shawshank, it remains clear that from a perspective of significance, Shawshank dwarfs Expelled. Yet Shawshank's article is about the size of the promotion section of this article alone, and shorter than the completely separate article on the reaction to Expelled. Why? What possible reason is there for such a massive article on a single film? 95% of this article could be eliminated, and the result would be a marked improvement of the quality of the article.

This thing has been hijacked by Wikiwarriors from both sides who feel compelled to do battle on this page, and it's absurd. It's not like someone leaning in one direction on the ID/evolution debate is going to get through the first 3,000 words, suddenly read "Chuck Norris gave the film a positive review" or Nell Minow didn't like the film and say, "By Jove, I've been mistaken! I need to do a 180 degree shift on my ideas behind ID/Evolution post haste!" So why is this all here?

I ask that people think about what Wiki is and the purpose it serves. It's a great place for people to look up a subject that their seeking familiarity with--NOT MASTERY. This isn't a doctoral dissertation. It's a place for you to say, "Helen was saying something about that droning teacher from Ferris Bueller's Day Off is against evolution and made some film about it. Lemme Wiki it and see what she's talking about." Then you get the brass tacks that you expect: when it was released, general summary of content (NOT a blow-by-blow), general reaction, sales, and maybe an interesting legal side note. But seriously, who comes to Wiki to found out that the producers gave away a free limited-edition bobble head Ben Stein doll to people that mustered up 25 people to see this? Are you kidding me? This is totally and obscenely over-done.

Can we get some gears in motion for Wikiwarriors from both sides to recognize that this has gone so far out of proportion as to be a huge waste and make some moves for scaling the whole thing down? The 174 sources cited serve as a testament enough to the fact that there's enough info out there on this film that we don't need all of this here. Simplicity is the greatest elegance, and this article could sure do with some elegance. Dolewhite (talk)

Uh, thanks for the suggestion, but no - more informative articles are better than less informative ones. Your suggestion runs counter to our goal of making people more informed. Raul654 (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that detail is good, since articles are generally organized anyway so that a person can get the basics from the lead sections or overviews. Some of Dolewhite's issue may be with organization, though, which maybe could be improved. I'm seeing one example in the lead, where the fourth sentence largely repeats the second, while the third sentence addresses a very different idea. This kind of jumping around can give the feeling of information overload. If there are bigger problems, I think Dolewhite would need to be more specific. Mackan79 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I was plenty specific: reduce the size by a good 95%. There's so much here that no one is going to read it to become informed. The only people who would actually read an article this long on such a topic are the shriekers on both sides of the debate wrestling for control. Take a look at the Wiki page for "What Wikipedia is Not." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. That's all this article is at this point. Again, I ask, what is the value of some point about Ben Stein bobbleheads? What's the utility of such a factoid? All it does is create a bunch of noise so anything useful or worthwhile gets lost in the crowd. Dolewhite (talk)

I think I was plenty specific: reduce the size by a good 95% - Uh, no thanks. Perhaps you'd be happier editing on Conservapedia. Raul654 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic how this laughable, bias-saturated article is being defended so passionately, and the protests of those who have valid reason for complaint are being silenced and ignored. Are we really going to pretend that only liberal sources are reliable? Props to you folks for proving the entire point of the film, that anyone with an alternative suggestion is wrong and should be utterly shut down by the establishment. After all, you must be right because you're in the majority. And the majority is always right. I anxiously await the opportunity to be expelled for this edit. Go Darwin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.246.211 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "liberal" about being pro-science. What we have are non-political, reliable, scientific sources that have condemned the film: and various religious sources that have praised it. We have reported both: but we're not going to hide what the scientifc consensus is on this issue. Why should we? --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to start a drinking game for this article. Every time some anon makes a drive-by complaint and says "I expect to be expelled for this edit", everybody takes a shot. And every time someone whines that it's too long, everybody take a shot. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the best idea I've heard in a long time. Um, you're buying, right? Doc Tropics 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to whine about this article being too long. Seriously. This must be the most over-rated film of the decade. "Somebody made a crappy movie about ID vs. academia", over how many kilobytes can you possibly stretch this simple statement? It may be time to move on. Wikipedia articles do not have the aim to mirror everything ever written on the web about a given topic. Your suggestion runs counter to our goal of making people more informed in defense of endless repetitive content isn't so much reflective of the spirit of Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia as of Usenet vs. Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is too long too. It was approx this long before the film was even released. The laborious retelling of the events at prescreenings can go, I think. It leaves a gossipy, "Hollywood Tonite!" like stamp on the article. The prescreen incidents with Dawkins and Myers are notable, the rest not so much. The events described by Strange Fruit blogger don't warrant mention here. Giving five sources to a simple sentence like, "In advance of the film's release, executive director Walt Ruloff, and producers Mark Mathis and Logan Craft provided interviews to various Christian media outlets, explaining what they thought of the movie, why people should see the movie, and why it would have an impact on the evolution debate" is another sign of the overkill. One of the reasons the article has grown so long is there are many different aspects to cover that are about events surrounding the film. Some of it can be easily trimmed. The Darwin quote-mining dispute can be reduced to about three sentences. There's much more quoting than is necessary in general. The Imagine suit was dropped-being a minor issue now, it only needs a brief sentence or two, and doesn't warrant mention in two sections. I'd remove completely the Expelled Challenge section unless mainstream sources can be found. We have sourced it to promo materials and a blog--that's it. These kinds of claims at wikipedia are routinely removed for being improperly sourced at wikipedia, per WP:OR and WP:RS.
This article has 113 bytes, 170 footnotes--it is as long as the article devoted to United States presidential election, 2008. Spin-offs go into even more detail. The Sternberg controversy has 47 footnotes. The Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed another 30 footnotes-(most of them related to claims made on blogs written by people with no evident background or expertise in fair use and copyright law). Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed-55 footnotes (this is more of an exhaustive literature review than an encyclopedia article). That's overdoing it.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The treatment this film gets seems to be an exception to how we do most movie articles here, and people seem to hold that opinion that 'reliably sourced' is the equivalent to 'necessary for inclusion'. This is an encyclopedia article, not a scientific analysis of the movie. If we wanted to, we could write a thousand pages of fully sourced material on Winston Churchill (and if you look at biographies of him, people have), but that doesn't mean we do. We should separate the could from the should here as well. I think this movie is old and distant enough now that we can do some pruning. Like many things, when it is brand new everyone writes everything about it, thinking it's enormously important and every detail must be covered, but as it fades into history we see it more in perspective and realize it's just another lousy movie with an agenda. Obviously the guy who wanted to trim it by 95% is full of BS (and I assume that was hyperbole), but I think we could do more to put it in perspective and try to prevent the significant portions from being overrun by irrelevancies. Professor marginalia seems to make some good points, and I for one think the reports of reports of cancellations can't elicit much more of a response than "who cares?" (though I think that has at least been trimmed from an earlier version). Maybe we should give it another few months for emotions over this to cool off, but it does seem like there is quite a bit of chaff here. -R. fiend (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a typical situation of WP:Recentism, an article written while a controversy was unfolding. The natural progress these articles make is that after the controversy dies down and the hot-heads flock to some other flareup, more relaxed editors patiently prune the irrelevant tidbits until the article settles down in readable shape. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article should be shortened to discuss the basic documentary itself--not necessarily just reactions to it. Use of capacious references to critics or unneccesary phrases such as "he CLAIMS" are redundant: of course a documentary "CLAIMS" a point. Don't insult your reader's intelligence with useless information like this; it shows a bias on the part of the author(s). A good guide would be the article on the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11; as controversial and heated as it was, it presents a better NPOV with less superfluous information. EarlWhitehaven (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Have most of the editors of this page even seen the movie?

It seems that since most of the info on this page seems to be a rehashing of the media response to the movie, is it germane to ask the whether the editors, namely Souza and Schultz, have even seen the film?

If it turns out that people are making major contributions to this post without even seeing the movie in question that it is a poor reflection on the content of this and other Wikipedia pages. Mathezar (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The above post is a poor reflection on Mathezar's understanding of Wikipedia policies, specifically Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. . . dave souza, talk 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
And who is Schultz and which major contributions to this article has he (or she?) made? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw the film. The media response is germane, it is not germane if editors here have seen the film. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree to an extent, although I feel the fact that many editors here seem not to have seen the movie further illustrates how this article is an exception to most movie articles, which are generally written by people who have seen the film, often several times. I also believe that having a good deal of knowledge about the subject of an article is quite useful when writing that article, and when that subject is a movie, viewing that movie can only help. While many may be experts on intelligent design or evolution, those are not the subjects on this article. -R. fiend (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think documentaries need to be clearly distinguished from works of fiction in this respect. A work of fiction wants to be evaluated on its own terms. A documentary needs to be evaluated with respect to the topic it proposes to be documenting. A work of fiction cannot fail completely as long as it finds an audience who enjoys watching it. A documentary can fail utterly and completely, even if there are many people who "liked it", just by being wrong about the stuff it is discussing.

What we have here, however, is yet another case. We are looking at a propaganda film which only pretends to be a documentary. On the surface, its aim is to document something. But in reality, the movie has the aim of fuelling the ID "dispute" and reinforcing the bond among ID adherents. In this sense, the movie can fail completely as a documentary and yet be a success as a propaganda piece. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say linguistically, if you have a controversial film, as agreed in the peer review of this article, then there must be both opinions that it contains facts, and opinions that it contains propaganda, in which case it is not a consensus that it is a successful propaganda piece. Jok2000 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, sorry I misspelled your name. I absolutely LOVED the responses to my original question. I'll paraphrase the position in my own words as I see it: "We don't need to see the movie to know that it is pure propagandist crap! We can just believe sources that were made to look stupid in the film and make up our own minds about Expelled, thank you very much!"

BTW, those staunch supporters of leaving this biased post just as it is didn't even admit that they didn't see the film, just gave reasons as to why they don't need to see the film. Beautiful! Mathezar (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem about the misspelling, but now that you seem to mean me: What major contributions have I made to the article? I think I have a grand total of 5 edits, and most of them are trivial fixes, while the only large one is a revert to the consensus version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a separate page for criticism?

After reading through the article, I see that most of it consists of criticism of the film, rather than information on the film itself. Personally, I believe that this much controversy over one film calls for a separate page titled something like "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (criticism)", or something to that extent. Well, either that or a section titled "Criticism" that could hold ⅔ of the article. ΒЯЕИМАИ ⁹⁴ (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the place for excluding or segregating majority views. . . dave souza, talk 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not the place for excluding or segregating majority views..." --I disagree with the premise; Wikipedia articles are not the place for "views" but RELEVANT FACTS (remember those?). In fact, :) that is what the gist of WP:NPOV is all about: the "N" is for "NEUTRAL" and the "V" stands for "VIEW". If we were to take your philosophy, Adolf Hitler's page would be nothing but the "majority" negative views and we would learn nothing of the substance of who he was, etc. This is exactly what is happening in this article: we learn nothing of the substance (relevant facts) of the actual MOVIE itself, but plenty of what its detractors have to say (irrelevant facts). EarlWhitehaven (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The article includes relevant facts, and reflects clear majority views both in terms of science and of film criticism. You seem to want to confine this article to the views of the film's proponents, in clear breach of WP:NPOV and against the requirement of WP:V that articles be based on should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources. The relevant facts of the movie itself are covered, if you think other "facts" need inclusion please show suitable secondary sources. . . dave souza, talk 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Souza: Wow: "reflects clear majority views both in terms of science and of film criticism"--most educated people are familiar with these "clear majority views" without the over the top (133+) reminders. However, that is NOT supposed to be the purpose of this article on "Expelled: a documentary." "Expelled" is about a particular niche view of science (granted, not a widely accepted view) that is purported to be discriminated against in academia. This article should reflect just that. Criticisms (like in MOST documentary articles) should be confined to a summary of criticism and/or a separate article. Your average user trying to find information on a specific topic shouldn't have to wade through so much criticism to get to the substance. You know it makes sense. You have seen it done hundreds of times as a Wikipedia admin. There is no reason to state otherwise. Don't believe me? Check out other Wiki articles on "controversial" documentaries; I'll give you 5 of the hundreds: Human Remains (1998 film), Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Fahrenheit 9/11, Loose Change (film), The Men Who Killed Kennedy. The PREMISE of these documentaries are discussed in the article from a NPOV. Of course, the content is controversial, but these articles have maintained a level of neutrality in their pure statement of facts. To do otherwise is to distort the academic honesty of WP:NPOV. Earl Whitehaven (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL and WP:STRUCTURE. The film makes assertions supporting pseudoscience which are not quickly dealt with, and which have properly been assessed by reliable expert sources. Due WP:WEIGHT has to be given to these assessments. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"The film makes assertions..." --that is the point of a documentary: to make assertions. It is NOT the central point of a Wikipedia article to deal with these assertions, rather, these articles are to present the assertions from a NPOV. Wikipedia needs respect the intelligence of its audience to weigh the evidence and make their own decisions. Michael Moore made assertions "not quickly dealt with" in Fahrenheit 9/11; so did Fred Leuchter about the Holocaust in Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.; Dylan Avery made assertions about the US Government in Loose Change (film). In each case, its respective Wikipedia article presents the subject matter of THE DOCUMENTARY from a NPOV, sans the copious amounts of criticism like that found in this article (Expelled). In each case, as in the large majority of documentary articles, the academic criticisms of the content is either confined to its own section or dealt with in a related article. I am not arguing against presenting the criticism; all readers should be aware of, and have access to the assesments of "reliable experts", but that is not the central POINT of this article. You know this already, Dr. Souza. It is a disservice to Wikipedia and an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers to claim otherwise.
Respectfully, Earl Whitehaven (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


___________
This is probably the worst Wikipedia article i have read. all it does is focus on the criticism. Wikipedia is supposed to unbiasedly focus on the facts. It should only talk about that the film is and cover the criticism appropriately not read like an attack on the film. Seriously 99% of documentaries are biased crap why is article about this movie (which I have not seen) goes on and on and on like this in any other area it would have been tagged as biased. Seriously you cannot say that a comic has detailed art without it being challenged but 80% of this article focuses on how off it is and in the few areas it mentions points made in the film it gives as much space to peoples response. 168.156.167.7 (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is often misunderstood. What neutrality is about, in real terms of how Wikipedia works, is finding a compromise that's acceptable to a consensus of Wikipedians. If that means that Intelligent Design is more unacceptable than say Quantum mysticism or Orgone than that's what neutrality means. If that means this movie is agreed to be more harmful than The Eternal Jew than that's what neutrality means. It's about compromise and consensus of the kind of Wikipedians. Later the consensus can change.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"'...neutrality...is finding a comprimise that's acceptable to a consensus of Wikipedians...'" T. Anthony: this may be the 'practice', but since we could reference WP: NPOV for months and very few actually seem to read it, I will paste it here so there is no ambiguity:

Neutral point of view: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

This article about Expelled needs to present the subject matter of the DOCUMENTARY, neither "endorsing nor discourag[ing] viewpoints". Readers should not be assaulted (100+ sources classifies as assaulting the reader) with unecessary information. The information, rather, should be relevant, succinct and NOT presented in such a way that implies that the "popular view, or some sort of intermediate view...is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only perjoratively." Neither should we present an article on this, or any DOCUMENTARY, and proceed to have a full blown "Evolution is better than ID" discussion; that is the purpose of linking to other more in depth articles such as Intelligent Design. It is also why we should have a separate criticism article for more in depth research. Readers are intelligent enough to "form their own opinons". Earl Whitehaven (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to have understood WP:NPOV, and I'd recommend that you read it with care. Many intelligent people have been misled by pseudoscientific propaganda, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX for advertising, propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind. . . dave souza, talk 10:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been there, but getting worked about what neutrality "should be" is just going to drive you to frustration. It's better to be aware of the actual reality and doing the best you can within it. Neutrality is about finding a compromise all can accept. Wikipedians being what they are that means you have to find a compromise irreligious men under 35 will accept. If you can't do that you shouldn't be working here. (And indeed at times I've decided this means I shouldn't be working here)--T. Anthony (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you have a lot of work ahead of you. If writing about a propaganda film without countering every point made is turning Wikipedia into a soapbox then you better get started rewriting a bunch of articles. You can start here, if you like. You'll notice the article never says the film is actually wrong. Imagine the intelligent people being taken by this pseudoscientific propaganda, and Wikipedia's complacency in it. -R. fiend (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that the first line of this article should be "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 anti-evolution propaganda film." in parallel to the first sentence of The Eternal Jew? I'd be perfectly happy with that! I think that the big problem with this article is that instead of compromising on neutral language, people are just tossing "both sides" into the article. Yeah, it's an ugly, bloated article, but instead of complaining about it, please fix it! The purpose of film articles is NOT to present the "plot" (argument) in great detail (with or without debunking), but to give a quick plot summary and then go into critical reception and impact and the like. Except for the wishy-washy beginning, the Intro actually mostly has a good organization, and if the article mirrored it, this would be a much better article. - Enuja (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course that is not what I was saying (and I think you know it). My point is that editors such as dave souza seem to think that if the article does not counter ever point made in Expelled, then we are somehow endorsing the view of the movie. This is not true, and The Eternal Jew's article demonstrates this. Seems to be a good enough article to me, and yet it does not counter ever anti-Semitic assertion made by that film. Does this make Wikipedia an branch of Der Stürmer? I think not. I think this article has improved substantially from it's nadir, when it consisted of long sections of anti-ID arguments, and sections on people like Sternberg and Crocker without making any mention of the film whatsoever, as if they, and not the film, were the subjects of this article. I still think it tends to waste way too much verbage on a point/counterpoint presentation instead of being an encyclopedia article, but the neutrality issue has been improved on substantially. Now if people would just stop changing it to "Expelled is a propaganda film" rather than "X has accused Expelled of being a propaganda film" and adding the propaganda category to it, we could at least put one matter to rest and move on to other issues. -R. fiend (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics

material added at 05:29, 6 July 2009, by Yopienso:

Yet, oddly enough, this article does not complete Darwin's original paragraph, footnoted above, which certainly does suggest practicing a mild form of eugenics.

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

I've removed it from the article as synthesis, drawing a novel conclusion unsupported by a secondary source. To clarify things I've also shown the SciAmn source for the selection as well as the link to Darwin's original writings. There's a case that can be made that what Darwin was advocating is the same as Dor Yeshorim, where there's some argument as to whether that can legitimately be called liberal eugenics. However, NOR policy means that we need a source for that case directly relating it to the article subject, and I've not seen one. . . dave souza, talk 08:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize I didn't edit properly, inserting an opinion comment into the main text of the article, and had intended to improve it myself. It's altogether proper, Dave, that you have moved it. However, as soon as I find time--perhaps today--I'm going to replace the part you inexplicably left out: "...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 see its omission as dishonest as Stein's. Can the reader suppose the weaker and inferior would voluntarily refrain from reproducing? Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As Darwin said, "this is more to be hoped for than expected". He was opposed to coercion, and did not see a clear way to achieve the aim. However, Dor Yeshorim gets the weaker couples to voluntarily refrain from marrying and reproducing. We've used the selection that SciAm chose, if you think that's dishonest then find a reliable source making the selection you think is appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We've used the selection that SciAm chose, if you think that's dishonest then find a reliable source making the selection you think is appropriate. . .

It took me awhile to follow this. Now I see you're preferring a partial quote from a Scientific American article against quote-mining (How ironic!) while I used the second source footnoted in the article, note #76--Darwin's original words. All I did was click on the footnote and discover the paragraph had been truncated, presumably because the rest of it shows Darwin hoped people would reproduce in such a way as to eliminate inferior traits and propagate superior ones. I thought you had cut it off, but now I see you were only referring to SA's version. With true respect for Darwin and for you but precious little for SA, and certainly not supposing either he or you would advocate the kind of eugenics that was practiced by the Nazis and to a lesser extent by the U.S. and other free governments in the 1900's, I maintain that if he did not actually set his foot on the slippery slope, he did cast his eyes upon it. Who determines how weak or inferior? How many people identify themselves as such? We all have congenital weaknesses and inferiorities, both physical and mental. No one is the "perfect Aryan."

If that's a digression, I apologize. My point is, Wikipedia is built on the hope of disseminating knowledge, not suppressing it, so let's finish Darwin's paragraph. 209.161.180.190 Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, Dor Yeshorim is not about perfect Aryans. Which is why we look to reliable secondary sources to avoid the sort of WP:SYN you're committing in your interpretation of a primary source. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I've come to a step new to me: dispute resolution. All I've asked for is to include the rest of Darwin's paragraph. It was there for two minutes. Up until now I have construed Wiki's somewhat left-leaning tone to be a reflection of the interests of its participants and not a deliberate editorial tyranny. I am not synthesizing anything, but merely finishing the entire quote. Any reader can easily conclude for himself that Darwin was headed for eugenics with that statement, and so I have no need to point out that fact. I am refusing to argue with the person who denies it ("The Expelled Exposed website also points out that the same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial, but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics.") but insist it is dishonest to suppress Darwin's own words in mid-paragraph. Shoemaker's Holiday seems to think I was quote-mining, yet he is the one who again deleted the full quote. "(cur) (prev) 23:51, 6 July 2009 Shoemaker's Holiday (talk | contribs) (109,940 bytes) (Again, quote mining, pointing up half of the next step of his argument,.) (undo)"

Wikipedia has been an audacious and wildly successful experiment in the democratic diffusion of knowledge. Or so I thought until today. Hopefully, what I'm encountering is a couple of editors who have overstepped their lines, and a third opinion will restore the full and fair quote.

I have no bias against either Darwin or Stein, against evolution or intelligent design. My goal is always to find the facts and follow them wherever they may lead. I'm no crank, either, as my editing history here can prove, excepting some pre-coffee matutinal crankiness!  :)

I do regret the "perfect Aryan" comment, not because it is wrong or off-track, but because it is somewhat provocative. Please forgive. Also, I forgot to sign my last post and am attempting to rectify that oversight.Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source quotes the version you want. I think that's the end of the story. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes footnote #76, which I did not supply, but only clicked on, unreliable? Here it is again: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=181 Yopienso (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested editorial help to resolve this dispute, hoping Wikipedia will prove to be a community that strives to present unbiased information rather than to serve as an organ of political correctness. Yopienso (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No source on the film includes the quote you wish to include. That means you're replacing the sourced debate with a synthesised original research commentary of your own creation, intended to attack Darwin. That will never fly here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dave and Shoemaker. In particular, "NOR policy means that we need a source for that case directly relating it to the article subject, and I've not seen one." Please read the sections in WP:NOT. It doesn't matter if something is being suppressed, or isn't, or is true, or not. I agree that a) the addition is worthy of being contested, b) that it is being reasonably contested by multiple editors, and c) that no reliable source for this directly related to Expelled has been presented even when given a reasonable time. This is the sort of long and very usually unproductive conversation that the NOR policy has been made to prevent. Please provide a source; until then, it may be best to find one of the millions of places where Wikipedia can be improved much more easily than here at this page.    M   19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Content Fork

I would note that User:EarlWhitehaven has created a WP:CFORK of this article at Expelled controversy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an intentional fork, without any effort to use summary style. The semi-informative diff of the current versions. Just merge it back in, I think.    M   07:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Evolutionary scientists"

Can we construct a better title for that section? Shermer isn't a scientist. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Opponents of intelligent design" which I think is accurate and an identity both Shermer and Dawkins would be comfortable with.  Skomorokh 

Structure and size

I've done some restructuring to get this article down to 7 top-level sections in the body of the article, but the table of contents is still rather tangled. At 107kb, thought might also be given to greater use of summary style.  Skomorokh  15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sternberg peer review controversy 1

I am again proposing that the section of the Sternberg section that states that he circumvented the peer review process be removed. Based on the quote from BSW president Dr. McDiarmid. The quote is contained in the Souder Staff report (link here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489 ) and reads as follows:

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.

Dave Souza claims that this quote cannot be used as reason to remove the section in the Sternberg section, claiming that the source is not reliable and that the report was never entered into the congressional record. But has failed to produce any evidence that the quote is false or a fabrication.

To be clear I am not using the findings of the report as a reference, merely the quote. The quote is not disputed at all that I could find, and it definitely casts doubt over the Sternberg section as it is currently written (ie he circumvented the standard peer review process).

Based on the facts, I believe it is appropriate to remove the section of the Sternberg article that falsely accuses him of circumventing the peer review process.

BTW, Dave, with all due respect, I know your thoughts on this (even though I will admit I feel that we are talking past each other on this issue), so please don't bother to respond to this post unless you can provide direct evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication. Mathezar (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Here we go: I tried to submit that congressional report over a year ago and it was refused on the basis that it came from a "fringe source." When I replied that I hardly thought the US Congress to be a fringe source I was informed that it was published by the Discovery Institute, deemed a fringe source by Wikipedia. So, here it is from Rep. Souder himself:

http://souder.house.gov/system/uploads/31/original/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf?1254246064

And we could call this the "cover sheet": http://souder.house.gov/pages/intelligent-design

However, I should say this is an indisputably political source, NOT a scientific one. (The irony of a political source criticizing politics in science keeps me from getting my knickers in too tight a knot here.) Rep. Souder admits--or declares, however you want to spin it--that he bases his investigations and statements on his religious beliefs. So, I do definitely believe his report should be included in this article which deals with a non-scientific movie demanding the freedom to question some tenets of Darwinian evolution, but would certainly not belong in a scientific discussion of evolution or human origins or the origin of life. My understanding is that this article should report reviews on the movie and briefly discuss controversies regarding it. It should not "deal" with it in the sense of promoting or insulting it or making a final judgment on its worth. Yopienso (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, Would you support my proposal to just remove the section of the Sternberg article that discusses the peer review process? Again, my goal is to make this article shorter and better, and not clog it up with a bunch of "he said, she said," citations. Mathezar (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've responded on your talk page. Yopienso (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May, 2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-06 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience". Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory". Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
    • Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
  3. ^ Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30–35.
  4. ^ Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319–323
  5. ^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
  6. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-22 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link); Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0195157427
  7. ^ "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism". He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Robert T. Pennock, p. 645–667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
  8. ^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16–17, 23–25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
  9. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
    • Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wise-p30 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference nagt-pdf-Ross was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
  13. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-22 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link); Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0195157427
  14. ^ "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Roger T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Roger T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
  15. ^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
  16. ^ [27]
  17. ^ [28]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/Archive_11&oldid=1190119632"