Jump to content

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

"Theistic" scientists?

MennoMan added the descriptor[1] "theistic" to Mathis' comment on scientists such as Collins. While Genie Scott's term "theistic evolution" has come to be accepted, it's far from perfect. "Theistic scientists" would be people who work on "theistic science". "Theist scientists" maybe (though that would come across as contrasting with deists), though even that is less than optimal. But "theistic scientists" is, IMO, misleading. Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. More to the point, the phrase is assigned to Walt Ruloff, and at least according to the source, he doesn't use that term "theistic" as a qualifier. It's misleading at best. I'm going to remove that. Dolewhite (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we use a term like, Scientists that believe in theism, or something like that. It doesn't read well, but we can re-word it. Saksjn (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the source? Did Walt qualify it as such? If not, then no, we should leave it be. Dolewhite (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe "religious scientists" or "Scientists who are religious" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How about simply "theist scientists" -- which implies that the theism applies to the scientist (as a person) not the science that they study. HrafnTalkStalk 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Hrafn. Saksjn (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever's closest to what Ruloff actually said. Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not "religious scientists." That would suggest those who practice the religion Religious Science. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! I'd never heard of them until you mentioned 'em. NCdave (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Limits

I am starting to wonder how many more interviews and reviews we can accommodate. Maybe just a list of a few more if there are too many? --Filll (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we start culling the less noteworthy ones (the World Magazine one comes to mind -- it's a fairly minor/extremist rag). The ones we keep should be noteworthy for generating further controversy (e.g. The Orlando Sentinel one), being in a major national paper, or being written by somebody prominent (either prominent scientist, movie critic or political commentator). HrafnTalkStalk 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure we have plenty both positive and negative. And some of the more negative ones are longer, so to balance those we need some more positive reviews, even if less notable otherwise.--Filll (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If they're longer then we simply need to summarise them more. The overall effect should be WP:DUE weight -- if every prominent source is saying bad things & only obscure ones are saying good, then the coverage should be weighted towards the bad. HrafnTalkStalk 14:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree - we'd get a false dichotomy otherwise. Anyway, why not quote Rush Limbaugh or the other big-name conservative/evangelicals on the film instead of scouring for obscure and less notable newspapers? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Every review by a marginally rational person is going to say the movie sucks and is nothing but propaganda, bad (mistaken) propaganda at that. The other review will be from the choir who will say it brought tears to their eyes. I think we should include only the most noteworthy reviews and try and keep some balance. Also can the FL action be rolled into it's own article or added to the Discovery Institute campaigns? We haven;t even added the rest of the people who appear in the film and this thing is going to be a huge article if we're nto careful. Angry Christian (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
World Magazine is most certainly not minor or extremist. It is a very well-respected national Christian newsmagazine, and far more notable than a local newspaper. NCdave (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Its own mission statement declares otherwise: "...to report and analyze the news on a weekly schedule in an interesting, accurate, and arresting fashion, and to combine reporting with practical commentary on current events and issues from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God". So they're inerrantists, i.e. fundies. Whatever they have to say would inevitably follow their declared agenda, and is therefore not very interesting. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a conservative Evangelical magazine. It's editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky (who is also the review's author) is associated with Christian reconstructionism and Dominionism, which I think justifies "extremist". See [[Marvin Olasky#World magazine for more details. It's article describes it as "the magazine started small, initially requesting donations in every issue to stay afloat. It has grown steadily ever since, and its publishers express hope of someday reaching the circulation level of the nation's top secular newsweeklies." -- which would seem to indicate that it has yet to achieve "national" stature. HrafnTalkStalk 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I just called World, and they said their paid circulation currently fluctuates between 123,000 and 125,000. That's twice what The New Republic has, and almost equal to National Review. But it is a tiny fraction of U.S. News & World Report's 2 million. NCdave (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, WP:RS#Extremist sources applies. HrafnTalkStalk 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What about RC Sproul? 700 Club? CBN? We have 9 reviews now (4 negative, 5 positive). Should we have 20 reviews? 50? At some point we get to a limit. Also we have a few interviews, but what if we have 5 times as many? 10? --Filll (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think prominence should be given to those who are experts on the medium (i.e. professional film critics) or content (i.e. scientists, philosophers, historians and sociologists of science). Outside those groups, I think they'd need national-level prominence to warrant any significant mention in the article. How many prominent experts (with expertise as defined above) do we currently have? HrafnTalkStalk 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA Inconsistencies

The Wikipedia entry for this documentary is inconsistent with other Wikipedia documentaries entered into this webstie. I spent some time comparing this entry with three other equally controversial documentaries entered here. They are as follows

1. An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore 2. Farenheit 911 - Michael Moore 3. Fitna - Geert Wilders

The following observations should be drawn from a review of the above referenced entries:

1. Neither Fitna, Moore, Gore, or any of their constituents/supporters referenced are ever stated to "claim" any of their premises. They either "present", "investegate, "focus", etc., but I did not see the action word "claim" used in any of the Wikipedia entries for these three documentaries. Bill Stein and his supporters/constituents however, are stated to "claim" their premises 16 times within this Wikipedia entry.

(When one is quoted as "claiming" something, it puts the burden of proof on the person making the statement in journalistic circles, and thats fine if you want to present it that way, but be consistent with this in regards to the other documentaries listed above)

2. There is a we/they theme in the writing of this entry. In the other three entries, the producers and supporters are not referenced as "they, their, them", etc. like in this entry.

3. This entry contains far more discussion on the topic of the movie than on the movie itself. This is another inconsistency from the other three entries listed above. In fact, this entry is about twice as long as any of the other three entries referenced. The result of discussing the topic far more than the movie itself.

The conclusion is this entry is far too editorialized and goes beyond what appears to be the established norm for entries about controversial documentaries within this site. I estimate three quarters of this entry should be cut and pasted to Creationism vs. Intelligent Design. Those that disagree with Mr. Stein have been given the upper hand on this entry. Should those that disagree with Gore, Moore, and Fitna also be given an upper hand in their entries? SargonXii (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"An inconvenient truth" has large sections of "background" information comparable to that on this article. Furthermore, the two films are not comparable, because Gore's film is widely regarded by scientists as broadly accurate and informative: whereas this one seems to be entirely devoid of accurate content, and the antics of the film's producers and promoters merely makes things worse: the "controversy" is in a whole different league. Why did you choose that example for comparison, rather than (for instance) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? That article contains only brief details of the book, and mostly discusses its reception and refutation.
And "the people that disgree", in this case, represent the views of the scientific community and the opinions of notable experts. Should they be "given the upper hand"? Yes, absolutely, as per WP:UNDUE. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth is discussed on this site in the context of the movie far more than its topic is. Expelled is not given the same presentation here so your suggestions are grossly inaccurate. There are many scientists who label An Inconvenient Truth a film devoid of accurate content. According to your standard, these scientists that question the validity of global warming should be the ones to be given the upper hand in presenting the entry on Wikipedia for An Inconvenient Truth. The voice of dissension should have a say of course, but should their viewpoint permeate and dominate the entry? In my opinion, the answer is no.

I chose the movies I chose because they were the only documentaries that came to mind. I have never heard of the movie you suggested but I will look into it, thanks.

The science community is divided over the reality, source, and rectification of "global warming". There is by no means a consensus even among scientists. The same science community is also divided over certain areas of evolutionary theory, particulary in regards to origins and change of species (macro). In some areas of evolutionary theory however, there is a consensus.

There are equally trained, equally intelligent, equally passioned scientists on both sides of the global warming and evolutionary theories. Each tends to write the other side off claiming alterior motives. The atheist wants to prove there is no intelligent designer, the deist wants to prove there is, and both use the scientific evidence available to support their causes. To suggest one is biased and one is not is like burying one's head in the sand and denying such a premise could exist. The same is taking shape for Global Warming it seems.


see The Burning Times for another example of an article on a "documentary" that completely flunks at its chosen topic. A documentary isn't an artistic work of fiction, it claims to have a grounding in fact. If it fails to have that in spite of the claim, the article will reflect that. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough assertion dab, I don't disagree with presenting both the positive and negative of a documentary film on a Wikipedia entry. This entry is dominated by negativity and none of us have even seen the movie. We are relying on the opinions of those that would find a way to be critical of the movie regardless of content and those that would find a way to promote the movie regardless of content. Until the movie comes out, do we really know anything other than what is stated by bias sources? SargonXii (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times do the sources use the word "claim"? Perhaps we overuse this word, but the problem is that this article is not particularly well written because no editor has seen the film yet, and there are few professional reviews to choose from. In addition, most of what we know about the film revolves around the associated controversies. Things are changing rapidly, so the article is in a state of flux, and no one feels like cleaning up the writing because it will be changed in a few hours again anyway. So what is the point? Do you want to spend 50 hours cleaning up this article and then have all that effort discarded within a day or two? I have done it twice and I am not anxious to do so again. You are free to waste 50 or more hours of your own time if you want. Feel free. But I guarantee most of it will be wasted.

When I gauged this article a few weeks ago, about 90 percent directly related to the film, not counting footnotes. The rest was there for context and background. Since then, the background has been cut back and more material directly about the film has been added.

This article is written according to the principles of Wikipedia, including NPOV and NOR and RS etc. If you do not like that, there are many other wikis which follow other principles. You are welcome to go there.--Filll (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Filll, basically you are telling me and anyone that disagrees with you, if we don't like it we can leave. The problem is this site is being relied upon by an unsuspecting public. You can rip to shreds anything you don't agree with here, and that is your right, but let the public know there is no intent or obligation to remain unbiased. When a source of information is presented from a biased source, and you know its biased, then you accept the information with a grain of salt. When a source of information is presented as if it were unbiased, then that is propaganda Filll.

SargonXii (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have rules here. You can either follow the rules, or try to force others to not follow the rules, and break the rules yourself. If you choose to try to force others to break the rules and break the rules yourself, then it is better that you leave. Is that so difficult to understand?--Filll (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you seem to have a great concern for following the "rules". In reading above, I noticed four rules for editing here. They are 1. Be polite, 2. Assume good faith 3. No personal attacks 4. Be welcoming I thought you might like to be reminded of these for future entries. Thanks for your concern of the rules and for following them. We all appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SargonXii You're welcome to help us improve the article Angry Christian (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you AC, I did suggest some changes below under a new topic heading, but it wasn't met with much support. I think I changed four words perhaps? How dare I. SargonXii (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles

Some people here have been insisting on using Marks honorific title in place of his job title/description. There's a difference between job descriptions/title and honorific titles I suggest people there learn. The reason I remove it is because the others that have honorific titles like Dawkins don't have them used at the article, giving Marks special treatment. If you're going to use honorific titles for one there you need to use them for all that have them in order to avoid favoring one side of the debate. Odd nature (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, at least on some counts (especially we should avoid all honorific titles for all these folks). Would you mind looking at his full Vita at Baylor's website, especially under the heading "Employment" it appears to me that this is in fact his job title and not an honorary designation. [2] Or am I mistaken? Angry Christian (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

His job description is professor of engineering and director. Please see Guettarda's comment about this up above as well. Odd nature (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not sure whether any of these titles are really all that meaningful to the average reader, but for comparison, the article calls Dawkins "a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer", while it calls Marks "the Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Engineering Graduate Director at Baylor University". Dawkins actually holds an endowed chair. Marks is a "distinguished professor", which is probably a lesser distinction. As for "of Electrical and Computer Engineering", that's just the name of his department. Being graduate director is a relatively minor administrative position, a step below "associate chair". Of course, capitalising terms like "Assistant Professor" and "Staff Scientist" seem a bit silly as well. Guettarda (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so this issue is not that someone cannot tell the difference between an honorific title and an employment title, nor is the issue someone has uded puffery to bolster one of the ID folks (for the record, I'd be the last guy to prop these nitwits up), the issue is both of you do not want Marks' job title in this article. Why not just come out and say that instead of insinuating I am up to no good or implying adding a title in an article is silly? I am also a reader that is exactly the kind of information I look for in an article. Why not just say "we don't like his job title and we'll revert you everytime you put it in the article" and be honest about it instead of suggesting I'm a IDiot? I'll just say I cannot begin to express how much I disagree with you both. But it's not worth my time to argue over it. Angry Christian (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've reverted the edit at all. But no, I don't think that formal job titles are useful - not for Marks, not for anyone else. Listing job titles does read like puffery. I'm not accusing you of being an IDist, I don't think' ' you're an IDist.
Listing Marks' full title is puffery. All job titles are puffery. Listing Marks' job title and not listing everyone else's is both puffery and inconsistent. The only real title that means anything is Dawkins' endowed chair. And that doesn't belong in the article either. Guettarda (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like everyone's title is listed, including Dawkins' endowed chair, so it seems like the inconsistency at the moment is in the omission of Marks' complete job title.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Funnier yet is if you look at Demsbki, Behe, PZ Meyers, heck pretty much any biography you see their here at Wikiland includes the job title. I suppose my biggest issue is I took the time to research the various Wiki policies on the subject, looked at various biographies here and took the time to try and figure out just what the hell Marks is at Baylor. No one who has said Marks job title should not be used has offered anything in the form of a policy. It's "silly" and "puffery" well fuck I didn't give him that title, take it up with Baylor for crying out loud. The fact the only objection or revert has to do with Marks is an obvious tip off. To make it even funnier I could care less about Robert Marks and his moronic "infomatics" shell game where he and Dembski dress up and play scientist on a baylor server. Baylor is pretty much a nutcase university anyhow. I mean the pre sident of Baylor thinks the world is 6,000 years old? How insane is that? Anyhow, I simply don't think that people will read Marks job title and conclude "darwinism" leads to nazism because that is exactly what this is about. Otherwise every single title would have been reverted years ago including PZ Myers bio, Dawkins bio, Kenneth Millers bio, Dembskis bio, Behes bio and on and on. Again, if I go to battle over an article it won't be Marks job title, it aint worth my time but this is obvious, wholesale bullshit. Let's be honest. Seriously. Angry Christian (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's "silly" and "puffery" well fuck I didn't give him that title, take it up with Baylor for crying out loud.

Umm...how is that possibly relevant? I said - all job titles are puffery - pretty much by definition. They are high sounding peacockery which serve in lieu of actually paying people more. So why should we be using them? We aren't here to serve as a PR unit for Baylor, or UM Morris, or Oxford. "Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering" isn't a job description, it's a minor honour bestowed on Marks by Baylor. It isn't a job title, it's a pat on the back.

Note the difference between Dawkins' job title:

Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford, and Professorial Fellow of New College

and the description in the article:

Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer. He holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

Compare that with

Robert Marks is the Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Engineering Graduate Director at Baylor University

Now, in my opinion, the whole bit about the Charles Simonyi Chair is unnecessary, but at least it's a real position. A "Distinguished Professor" isn't a position - the position is a "1.0 FTE tenure track position".

Otherwise every single title would have been reverted years ago including PZ Myers bio, Dawkins bio, Kenneth Millers bio, Dembskis bio, Behes bio and on and on

The point is that this isn't a bio. In a bio you do list honourifics. It's appropriate to document them. The point of these sections is to briefly introduce the people. It isn't a place to list titles and create proper nouns out of common nouns.

Let's be honest. Seriously.

What part of what I have said do you consider dishonest? If you want to call me dishonest, at least have the courtesy of actually addressing what I said. Please support your accusations or remove them. Guettarda (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda asked me to respond on my talk page so here goes...

Guettarda, you asked another question that I want to address first:

"I don't understand why his title matters - his or anyone else's."

As a reader I want to know what "poor" "persecuted Caroline Crocker is up to nowadays. Is she homeless and begging for spare change outside of 7-11 because the mean old darwinists threa her out on the street? No, she's the executive director of the DI inspired IDEA "group" that promotes ID in our higher learning centers. And according to her website for $5,000 she'll tell you and your freinds her tale of persecution (and how evolution causes nazism). Persecution pays ;-) I want to know what Richard "I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar" Sternberg is doing nowadays after his fisco at the Smithsonian. I was fascinated when I found out he is still a volunteer at the Smith and his title is research collaborator. I suspect other people find interest in those details too. I also want to know what PZ Myers title is, and the others. I'm curious and like details and if we have details for one person we should have them for all. I kept noticeing someone was reverting Marks's title over and over, didn't pay attention to who at first. But then I started seeing the baseless WP:Peacock accusation and started paying attention to who kept reverting it. Incidently, Odd Nature if you're going to accuse people of violating WP:Peacock would you mind reading the policy first? If you do so you'll be less likely to to look like a back woods fool in the future. As anyone can see, well anyone who has taken the time to read it, Marks title is in no way a violation of WP:Peacock.

I had gone to the help desk here to confirm using title was appropriate and they gave me feedback and also a link to a policy or two. I even added a link to his employment page to demonstrate this was not peacockery but legit. I had obviously asked for feedback and reasons why my Marks title kept getting deleted at least couple time here and no one ever responded until you did after it appeared Odd Nature and I might be headed for a revert hassle.

There is not a Wikipedia policy that discourages or forbids employment titles and I noticed no one reverted anyones title but Marks. And you and I both know if I started deleting people's titles on other pages I'd be treated as a vandal. Rightfully so.

The only reason Marks's title was deleted is because Odd Nature does not want the reader to see it. THAT is the dishonest piece. There is no Wiki policy to justify it. Odd Nature said complained that Marks' title might appear to "favoring one side of the deabte". Well some people are not trying to favor either side of the debate, some people are trying to write an informative and accurate article.

The real irony is as I have said I don't care about Robert Marks or his title. But I do have an interest in this article and I think the title of the cast of characters is noteworthy. Others expressed a similar take so it's not like wanting to know a controversial person's title is a fringe idea.

Hiding Marks's title while allowing the others is an obvious dishonest sham and I've been around long enough to know where it would go if I were to press the issue. I'm grouchy often, but not a dumb ass. I don't have time for accusations of violating 3Rs...Or fucking around with an RFC. I have a life, seriously. I wife, kids, home, hobbies, sitting around jacking with some RFC on my free time is not my idea of quality living.

So I want to be clear, Odd Nature's removal of Robert Marks' title is a dishonest sham that is grounded in his feeble fear of people being informed and has nothing to do with any Wikipedia policy. That is what I mean by let's be honest and not pussy foot around.

Finally, Guettarda, I do not consider you dishonest or a liar. In fact you're one of the people I respect around here, but even your behaviour in this particular matter has me scratching my head because you have not lifted a finger to remove all the titles used in the article for the others folks but you sat and did nothing as Odd Nature ONLY removed the one for Marks. This selective editing is highly suspect (aka a fucking sham). Again, I could care less about Marks, this is purely a principle thing.

Anyhow, that sums up where I'm coming from and yes this is my final answer. I have no interst in discussing any of this or looking edits or hearing any more arguments. I'm done with it :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Producer Mark Mathis

in the text, he is mentioned to be a (the?) producer of the film, but the film's info box does not mention him. Shouldn't we remove that inconsistency? Northfox (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, especially since he seems to be the only one (other than stein) who regularly gets mentioned in the papers in conjunction with the movie. I was thinking that he had someone remove his name from it for some reason -- he has no wiki article himself! (I don't know that he's all that notable anyways...) Elecmahm (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

according to [3] (and they should know), Mathis is an assistant producer. Correct job titles are important, so I took the liberty to change 'producer' to 'assistant producer' where it appeared in the article text.Northfox (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


I believe that until the movie comes out and IMDB gets properly updated, we might not have the complete list. For example, IMDB lists Ruloff as an author. Maybe I should add him to the list. Who knows?--Filll (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph: Suggested Slight Changes to Remove Editorial Bias in Introduction

I have written a slightly revised opening paragraph for this entry that removes some of the subtleties that sway the reader from an objective point of view...

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which suggests that some educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the movie investigates if what the film calls "Big Science" allows no dissent from the theory of evolution. The movie goes on to associate the theory to a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood. It is due to be released April 18, 2008.

The above suggested revisions to the opening paragraph takes some of the editorial edge off the existing opening paragraph with only miniscule changes. Feel free to use this revision.

SargonXii (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the film "investigates if what the film calls 'Big Science' allows no dissent from the theory of evolution"? Come on. That is a load of nonsense. And probably plagiarism. We are not here to promote this film you know.--Filll (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question Filll, yes, what you suggest is what I think. However, I will have to wait until the movie is released so I can view and then decide if the movie is a "load of nonsense" as you suggest. It could be, but until we all watch it, we should be reserving judgment. My above suggested changes are miniscule and bring the opening paragraph into a more objective point of view. As the opening paragraph is written now, it looks like something written by any left leaning establishment. SargonXii (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally liked SargonXii's version, with a few changes. How about "makes the case that" instead of "investigates if." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok, thank you for taking to time to provide some ideas for changes here on the talk page. I have some minor conerns about your suggestions. First he film does not "suggest" or "investigate" anything. They shout it as loud as they can and cry persecution. The write antagonistic articles on their blog portraying PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins as Big Science "Thought Police". They indulge in all sorts of nasty character assassinations, the movie does the same. Going from Dawkins to death camps to PZ Myers to death camps. That's propaganda to entice emotion and prejudice, not a documentary that "investigates". From everythning I have seen and read they don't investigate anyhthing, they make a one sided case against the scientific community and portray evolution as a cause for Nazism. Your suggestions would be awesome if we were talking about a documentary, but this is a propaganda piece that is composed of distortions and claims that are simply not true (demonstrably fale). That is what makes editing it so difficult, it's riddles with dishonesty. Maybe someone else has some ideas, I find the intro as it is to be acceptable. Angry Christian (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


While there are many who consider it to be a propaganda piece, there are many others who consider it a documentary. We must make sure we don't give undue weight to either viewpoint. Incidentally, I too think the opening is acceptable as is for now. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
While there are many who consider it to be a propaganda piece, there are many others who consider it a documentary. We must make sure we don't give undue weight to the either viewpoint. Incidentally, I too think the opening is acceptable as is for now. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
JBF, with all due respect we are not obligated to give equal weight to a fringe idea nor are we obligated to soften the harsh and antagonostic quality of this propaganda piece. Inconvenient Truth is controversial, this is an your face DARWIN CAUSED THE JEWS TO DIE HORRIBLE DEATHS! "documentary" But you and I agree the intro is not broken. Angry Christian (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a piece of vile disgusting hate mongering propaganda by evil people. That is what it really is. And full of lies. What if I made a "documentary" that made the same sort of commentary about fundamentalist Christians? "Christians are disgusting pigs that kill children and drink their blood. Christians are stupid and want to kill all Jews. Christians cause all wars and should be put to death for their crimes." Would that be a good "documentary"? Give me a break here.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fill, you assume I am a christian, and a fundamental one at that. May I remind you that Ben Stein is Jewish? Christianity, along with Judiasm and Islam have their roots in a Creator. I don't see any challenges to Judiasm or Islam in your previous paragraph, only Christianity. You seem to feel free to write hate filled statements towards christians, but would you dare to do the same towards the Jews and/or Muslims who carry a similar belief (I realize not all of them believe the same) in regards to our origins? My bigger concern though, is if someone with your apparent hatred towards one group of people should even be involved in editing here?SargonXii (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll clearly posited a hypothetical. I didn't take Filll's argument to convey any hate toward anyone. I'd say, "SargonXii", that you have validated his argument. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll is correct. Had they taken any group of people on other than "atheists" and "darwinists" it would be called hate speech. Interesting to note that the last creationist propagande piece that portrayed "Darwinism" as the cause for Nazism was slammed by the Anti-Defamation League for trivializing the Holocaust and blaming Darwin for it. Check it out ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler. Angry Christian (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest opinion AC. I assume you have seen the film since you are more sure than I as to whether the film "suggests" or "investigates" anything. I cannot vouch for the content of the film for I have not seen it. My suggested word use I feel does not promote a positive or negative viewpoint of the film, only an unbiased one.

Perhaps their website attacks others as you suggest, I will have to review. Even if what you propose is true, is that justification to return the attack via the Wikipedia website? Michael Moore visciously attacked President Bush over the events of 911, the presidents character was ripped apart, yet I don't see the gross negativity in the Wikipedia posting against Mr. Moore and his movie Farenheit 911 that I see here on Bill Steins production. A comparison of the two movies implies bias. And thats fine if its the case, but the readers need to know that.

It sounds as if Expelled is as much a documentary as An Inconvenient Truth or Farenheit 911 or the newly released Fitna. There are just as many who would suggest all three of these movies are simply propaganda pieces as well. Is this justification to present the movies in a negative light here on Wikipedia as well?

Don't forget that Mel Gibsons Passion of the Christ was called a movie that would increase Anti-semitism. Did it? Darwinian theory at its source suggests that some men are further along the evolutionary chain than others. Nazism thought the same thing. Whether Darwinism was the source of the Nazi belief I do not know, but their philosophies were the same at that point of our history. I didn't want to discuss the topic of the movie, but since you use one of their points as justification to present this movie in a more negative light, I felt the need to expand on your comments a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not whitewash the movie. And NPOV requires that we do not. That is all. We do not attack the film. We present positive and negative reviews. We let the producers have their say and present their ideas, in great detail, in the article. However, it is all lies and nonsense, but we let them spew their vile hatred. --Filll (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


It is a pure vile obscenity, mainly because in American culture Atheists and Scientists are somewhat powerless. But it is sick. Really sick. From the same people that brought you slavery. And the Inquisition. And the Crusades. And the Pogroms. And yes, the Holocaust (read On The Jews and Their Lies which was the real motivation behind Mein Kampf). And now want to bring back stoning. Essentially, a Christian Taliban. People who are currently behind torture. People who preach that homosexuals should be executed. Real nice. On and on and on and on. If Jesus was walking the earth today, they would be first in line to attack him. Horrible awful people.--Filll (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Off topic, Filll. This talk page is about improving the article, not to criticize the historic Christian church. I am amazed how you can equate the makers of the film with crimes committed centuries ago - and then even extrapolating to what will be their next actions.Northfox (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I don't think the filmmakers are blaming atheists for the Holocaust. They are simply talking about ideas that they believe led to the Holocaust. And please do not blame Christians for the Holocaust. That's kind of like blaming atheists for the Holocaust, is it not? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Obscenely wrong ideas. It really is shameful. You do not think that the SS officers were mostly good Christians (or presented themselves as such)? You do not think Martin Luther was not a good Christian (or presented himself as such)? I do not blame the Jews for the Holocaust. Or the Buddhists. Or Atheists. Or Hindus. Or Muslims. So... Look when someone produces a piece of vile nonsense like this, it is going to offend. So take a good look at it, because it is offensive.--Filll (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe the SS were good Christians. Whether they said they were such is a different matter. Even if they did, they certainly gave away that they weren't by their actions. I believe Luther was Christian. However, I also don't think he advocated the wholesale slaughter of Jews. The Expelled film does not say that atheists and evolutionists advocate the murder of Jews either. It does present the idea that the concepts of evolution led to the Holocaust (even though Darwin and the other early evolutionists did not necessarily desire it). The concept that the survival of the fittest is the law of human advancement naturally leads to the conclusion that one group of people could commit genocide against a group they feel is inferior. This idea is very wrong, as you and I agree. I believe the film points out this connection, though. I'm looking forward to seeing the film in a few weeks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but the SS were church-going. In a rapidly secularising society their embrace of the church and church weddings was seen as positive. Luther did call for the destruction of Jewish homes, synagogues and their religious books, and for the confiscation of their property their expulsion. He wrote "we are at fault in not slaying them" which condones and excuses their murder. All of our actions fall short of being "true" Christians. The SS were Christians. Gerhard :Kittel's work is still a standard reference in seminaries.

"The concept that the survival of the fittest is the law of human advancement naturally leads to the conclusion that one group of people could commit genocide against a group they feel is inferior". The concept of genocide is as old as humanity and is actually called for in the Bible. Killing the "inferior" isn't an idea that post-dates Darwin. People consciously practised that behaviour since at least the beginning of agriculture. If anything, you should draw the opposite conclusion from Darwin - that contrary to what Malthus said about being overrun by "inferiors", that nature would select what's "superior". Anyone who sees a justification for genocide in evolutionary biology is getting the fundamental ideas of evolutionary biology completely wrong. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an entire article on this topic - Nazism and religion. While Roman catholicism was the official religion of Nazi Germany, the Nazis embraced a highly distorted state-run version of Catholocism essentially purged of all elements that could divide loyalties from the party. Moreover, they tended to dabble in paganism and the occult, the SS in particular. Raul654 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was referred to as the Messiah by his followers. He was the epitome of the Antichrist in that he claimed the role of Messiah but acted in the opposite. Hitler embodied the opposite of the church Christ set up when he walked this earth. Satanists today quote scripture as part of their chants replacing Christ with their messiah, Satan. They enter churches to seek and destroy. The point of all this is anyone can claim to be a christian, anyone can enter through the doors of a church, even SS officers. Does this mean they are "christians?" It is what is in one's heart that will determine their allegiance and ultimately their eternal destiny. SargonXii (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Until I ran into this article, I have always been an ardent supporter of Wikipedia. It was not that long ago that Wikipedia was making negative headlines for allowing laymen to edit entries on specific subjects. To me that seemed to be a good concept to get away from the mainstream cookie cutter journalists that dominate our sources of information.

But this particular entry is written in the same way the standard mainstream media would write on it. It is full of subtle bias by word use and seems to generate a warning against the content of the film to the unsuspecting reader far more than presenting an overview of the film itself. And for those that suggest as I do, we are responded to here with the same hostility our adversaries purport exists in the movie. Even a simple suggestion to change the words "claim" to "suggests" or "investigates" is met with some hostility. Normally, it is only the trained journalistic mind that would respond so negatively to such minor changes.

Anyways, my only point in commenting here is to remove the subtle bias found in the opening paragraph of this entry. Wikipedia has no obligation to remain objective, that has been stated and I accept. The problem is the average reader will assume objectivity exists here and whether Wikipedia wants it or not, they now have a responsibility to behave as such because the internet world relies heavily on the information found on this site. We know Expelled is biased, its obvious, so we are able to take it with a grain of salt as we should. The general public does not know that Wikipedia is biased, and that to me is propaganda at its worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) SargonXii (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that bit of sophistry is not good enough to get us to change our LEAD which (1) is the product of consensus (2) is at least written in English, compared to your suggestion (3) follows LEAD and NPOV (4) is properly sourced.--Filll (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
SargonXii: to suggest that using adjectives such as "suggest" and ""investigate" to characterise Expelled is "objective" is ludicrous. They did not "investigate" anything, they have simply regurgitated claims that the DI and other creationists have been making for years (and which have long since been debunked as exaggerations, misrepresentations, or outright falsehoods), and likewise they don't "suggest" a link between evolution and the Holocaust, they proclaim it at every opportunity:

In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany

HrafnTalkStalk 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
so, shall we just redirect this article to reductio ad Hitlerum until there is actually anything to report? dab (𒁳) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is good to know there are so many experts here who have seen the film and took part in the production to know the "true" motive of the film. For those who are relying on the testimony of others, both of those who would have a natural bias to approve or disapprove the film, you should reserve your comments here until you/we have seen the film yourself. As it is now, this entry only serves to discourage the middle folks from viewing the film (middle = those that might be swayed by its point of view). Those on the left, pagans etc, will most likely hate this film and its premise because it goes against their worldview and those on the right, religious folks etc., will praise it for supporting the idea of a Creator. But the middle folks, they are the battle ground

Macro evolution is theory based on the principle that something can come from nothing. It's god is time and chance yet it is taught as fact. I would be more apt to believe there is a superior life form out there that planted us here than that we came from nothing. But the editors here disagree with me and it is reflected in the bias within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly displayed your faith based ignorance of evolution, do please study that subject with an open mind. Those who value verifiable truth, including most Christians, dislike the lies and misinformation clearly shown in the publicity for this film and in the accounts of its content. Of course all views published verifiably in a reliable source are welcome in this article – we don't practice the sort of censorship or exclusion of opponents that the promoters of this film think is appropriate for their preliminary screenings. .. dave souza, talk 12:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

People presented in the film

In the "People presented in the film" section, when listing the pro-intelligent design scientists, it attacks their creditability in several cases. For example, the article talks about the Sternberg peer review controversy, which, as I have just read, does have to deal with the movie. However, it is bias in the way it presents the facts-- in fact, it is clearly an attack (and has another point of view, backed by facts, not printed in the article). When listing the pro-evolution scientist, no such attack is found.

My suggestion is, in interest of neutrality, that the attacks on the pro-intelligent design scientists be removed. Or, if you feel they are necessary, you should also list controversies about Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and PZ Myers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.204.220 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A major part of the film is about the "controversies" involving the pro-ID people, describing the incidents they were involved in and claiming that the fact that several were not promoted subsequently was "persecution". The account in the film and as presented by its supporters is a primary source, and we have to base our description of the incidents on reliable third party sources to meet the requirements of verifiability and no original research policies, balancing the various viewpoints about the incidents in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. The film includes interviews with scientists and philosophers about their views on the relationship of science and religion, edited and set in a context to distort their statements in a way that supports the film's claim that "Big Science" is cruel to creationists. Nothing there about "controversies" about these people, if indeed there are any controversies about them. For us to cover any alleged controversies, we'd need a reliable third party source discussing the issues in relation to the film. Got such a source? ... dave souza, talk 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


I believe there are a few controversies of this type that these people have commented on. Either the ones presented in the film, which they said were complete trash. Or 3 or 4 instances of people who supported evolution, and were fired or persecuted by others who have an agenda to promote intelligent design. These sorts of controversies are unfortunately the complete opposite of what the producers of the film had in mind. Oops!--Filll (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship revealed, Big Science blamed for terrorism

One thing that can be said about the Expelled website, it's brought to light a shocking example of expulsion and censorship. Another post has revealed how Big Science created the conditions for what's probably the worst ever act of terrorism – "Blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11."comment 186 by Boris . . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're being sarcastic, however this page is for discussing improvements to the "Expelled" article, not for personal commentary on other matters. Thank you. -- HiEv 09:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's actually a third party commentary on Expelled by James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis, blogged on his website as "Exploring Our Matrix: Ironically NOT Expelled From Expelled". Retrieved 2008-04-03.. He's mentioned it again here, in a further post about a new Freedom Friday publicity campaign for the launch of Expelled announced by a promotional e-mail which apparently suggests renting a theater for a local showing. Much to his amusement. I've some doubts about the notability of all this, but others may wish to discuss on this talk page whether these points should appear in the article. .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is probably too obscure for this article, unless someone else picks up on it. However, it is interesting how this sort of thing resonates with people. It really makes you realize how Hitler worked his magic over people; he gave them simple answers to complicated questions, that they were already predisposed to believe. Economy bad? Jews fault. Jews bad. Christians good. Kill the Jews!

Holocaust bad? Darwin's fault. Let's get rid of evolution to get rid of everything bad like pornography and abortion and divorce and wars and unemployment and hangnails.

Muslims poor? Muslims thought to be violent? West's fault. Let's riot and kill to prove we are not violent!

Failing your courses? Studying is hard? It is because God has decided that studying and knowledge is bad. Brains bad. Stupid good. Yaaaaah!

Let's face it; the average person is completely stupid. And wants easy answers to problems. And is easily manipulated. --Filll (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Teen pregnancy rising? STDs rising? Public education suffering? Christianity's fault. Christianity bad!
Everyone wants simple answers for their problems. Dolewhite (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

STDs and teen pregnancy and bad public education are not blamed on Christianity by anyone notable are they? Any textbooks written for use in public schools that promote this? This just sounds just like more defensiveness; "oh us poor Christians the world is against us, we have to fight back" !! blah blah blah. What nonsense...Sign your kids up at Jesus Camp why don't you?--Filll (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wiki page on the subject and tell me what you think. As for Jesus Camp, I have no children, and I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist. I truly do believe with everything you had written above, but noticed a pointed bias to what you choose to notice. There's a great big culture war raging among two fringes of society, and most people in the middle--like me--don't care for the blame game. I do, however, have a great big stake in intellectual honesty. Dolewhite (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks for that. But as near as I can tell, it is basically irrelevant for this article.--Filll (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I'll try to stay on topic and limit my discourse to Muslims blaming the West and advice to send kids to Jesus Camp in the future. That should help this page remain on topic.
Cheers. Dolewhite (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm detecting a distinctly unproductive turn in this thread, and would recommend that we all back away slowly in accordance with the talk page guidelines. MastCell Talk 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to point the obvious, James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, is a Christian. Not all Christians share Stein's views, indeed it seems to be a minority that subscribe to what the Archbishop of Canterbury called a kind of "category mistake", ID. The fact that there's a Christian viewpoint that doesn't take the allegations in the film seriously could be worthy of note, but in my opinion it's borderline and the article's pretty large already. ... dave souza, talk 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fill, your "send your kids to Jesus camp" comments are unnecessary. You are showing an obvious bias against Christians and your comments show true hatred. I'm not going to lecture you on how hatred or bigotry is wrong, I'm just going to ask you to be careful what you say. I mean, saying that God hates knowledge, calm down man. The talk page is not a place to spew hatred. For the record, Stein is Jewish; and even though Christian and Jewish world views are rather similar, its worth noting. Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The film does not blame "big science" for terrorism. The commentary you quoted said that blaming darwinism for the holocaust is like blaming darwinism for 9/11. It has nothing to do with the film and is therefore irrelevant. Putting it in the article would further a bias that's already there. Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another 'Victim of Big Science'

Ben Stein Watch, Expelled Edition discusses another of Expelled's supposed 'victims': journalist Pamela Winnick. HrafnTalkStalk 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment there about how Winnick's purported objectivity was belied in the original description of her Phillips Foundation fellowship. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another legislative showing of Expelled

Ben Stein talks Intelligent Design at the Capitol

This time in Missouri in support of an "intellectual diversity" bill. HrafnTalkStalk 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of press coverage of Ben Stein's Missouri appearance. For example, look at this speech he gave before the movie: [4]. He claimed that the big fault of Darwinism is that bird beaks do not explain where gravity comes from. He also appeared at an amazing press conference afterwords [5].--Filll (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should put him in contact with our friend Nukeh, who is claiming here that us 'feelthy Darwinists' (am I spelling a bad Spanish accent correctly?) "would expunge the physics of time from education in order to promote Darwin." ;) HrafnTalkStalk

Recent edits

Regarding the recent edits between Dave Souza and Freedomfighter, [6], I think Freedomfighter's version might be better. Freedom thinks it should be "declared false," while Souza thinks it should be "explicitly refuted." The problem is that "explicitly refuted" suggests absolute authority. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "explicitly refuted" implies "absolute authority". It does imply that the topic was was broached and the claim made was found to be false. "declared false" is misleading because it does not convey the fact that evidence, or, rather, the lack of any presented by IDC advocates Behe and Minnich and explicit testimony from Behe that none such existed, was considered and weighed in this issue. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"Declared" implies a (relatively arbitrary) fiat decision. "Refuted" implies reasoned discourse, such as Jones' that ID's claims to a "positive case" were disproved by Minnich's and Behe's sworn admissions to the contrary. "Refuted" implies logic not "authority". HrafnTalkStalk 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


I prefer refuted to declared for several reasons. Declared sounds like it was capricious and just some sort of whim of some fallible court, and based on no evidence, or a clear misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence. "Declared" has the air of spurious authority, and sounds like the ruling was the transient fancy of someone mistakenly put on the bench, someone who did not recognize The TruthTM when he saw it, someone who is "legislating from the bench". It confers an air of righteousness to all those "Good Christians" who threatened to kill the judge and his family after the trial, since they are all such good people and follow the Word of God so closely.

Refuted is far closer to what really happened. The intelligent design people brought their most serious legal team to bear on the problem. Their heavy hitters. The Discovery Institute trotted out their best evidence and testimony. And guess what? This evidence and testimony was clearly complete crap, in the eyes of the court, and in the public media. Absolute nonsense. Ever hear the phrase "breathtaking inanity"? Well there is a reason the judge used that phrase. The good conservative republican regular church-going judge. The good Christian judge. He looked at the evidence. And realized it was just nonsense. So...refuted sounds a bit closer to what happened, instead of some ignorant atheistic left wing activist judge just deciding he hated Christians and goodness and truth and the family and family values and attacking the moral foundation of our country, and just making up some silly excuse for ruling the way he did.

In other words, I refute your arguments for using "declared" instead of "refuted".--Filll (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FF raised the question on my talk page, and my response was –
"Read Kitzmiller. It's an explicit point by point refutation of ID claims, not a vague declaration that their claims are "false". Note well that other editors disagree with your view, feel free to take it up on the article talk page, but you'll need consensus to make the change you propose."
dave souza, talk 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"MichaelWebber" has twice removed the "Expelled Exposed" site from the "External Links" section, leaving only links to "Expelled" promotional sites.

I think that there is a legitimate need for inclusion of the critical reviews. "Expelled Exposed" links all of those, and will keep the "External Links" section compact. Otherwise, there should be links included to a number of the published critical reviews.

Does "MichaelWebber" have some Wikipedia-relevant reason that "Expelled Exposed" should not be linked?--Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been "washing" some link at Ben Stein too. Angry Christian (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep the links, its only fair to have both pro- and con- links. Saksjn (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn is right, NPOV is reached by having all POV's represented. (Hypnosadist) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Four publicity/marketing firms!

[7] is a nice little article.--Filll (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shermer podcast on film

See here. He has a different view than others. Thinks it is well made film and will delight its target audience, and accomplish its goals, as long as they can get people in the seats. Unfortunately, just an audio file so I do not know if we can use it as easily, although I would use it as a source. Comments?--Filll (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there no reason we cannot cite an audio file. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Or just use the Shermer article in Scientific American Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin The fact Shermer is a former "born-again christian" who rejected evolution in favor of creationism makes his commentary very interesting. I don't have time to add much to the article right now but there's a ton of quality information. Angry Christian (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugh will be disappointed

In the context of claims that "Big Science" crushes dissent;

"In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.

Rarely do movie trailers provide an accurate picture of the full message a movie conveys . When "EXPELLED" arrives in theaters, our main concern will be whether it seeks to engage the scientific community in the scientific (as opposed to the political or legal) arena, or if it advocates attacking scientists' character. We would hope it's the former."[8]

It'll be interesting to read Hugh Ross's views when he gets a chance to see the film .. dave souza, talk 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Miller commentary

The following sentence was added, and then removed by me, and then re-added:

In a conversation with the editorial staff of Scientific American, Mathis questioned the intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic of prominent biologist Kenneth R. Miller because he accepts evolution.A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis, Scientific American. Audio recording: part 1 and part 2. Partial transcript.

I don't think this is needed here. 1. The article is already pretty long, so to include a comment that does not deal with the film, but rather critiques a living person only tangentially related to the film, I think does a disservice. We don't need this article to be a dumping ground. 2. The comment is better suited for Miller's article. 3. (For this article) Why do we care what Mathis thinks about Miller? Catholicism does not dismiss evolution out-of-hand like many evangelicals do, so Mathis may be a bit off-base.

I won't re-delete the sentence at the moment, but would hope others can see why this article is not the right place for this comment. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Hrafn re-worded the sentence to include relevance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It always seemed relevant to me, but is clearly so since Hrafn reworded it. Big improvement, and it took him only a few minutes of effort. I do wish you and some others here weren't to quick to delete content and would make an effort to fix content rather than just blow it away, particularly those bits that do not cast a sympathetic light on the film or ID, otherwise it might be mistaken for a campaign... FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
E kala mai, FeloniousMonk. Unlike you, I didn't see the relevance. However, it makes sense now that it has been reworded. As for fixing content... I have been desparately trying, but have been reverted multiple times on occasions of fixing typos, spellings, etc. by what might be mistaken as people trying to own the article. As for a "campaign", I do not know what you are referring to. Besides this Miller commentary, I haven't really removed much other than where there was redundancy. Maybe you're thinking of those "some others" you mentioned. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


I must admit that, although unsurprised by the sentiment (fundamentalist Creationists accusing TEs of being heretics is nothing new), I'm flabbergasted that Mathis was so naive as to say it in pro-Science company. What sort of bubble do these people live in that would consider such attacks to be acceptable in mixed company? HrafnTalkStalk 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive editing

Ali'i, this was your 3'rd rv of as many editors of this content in less than 30 minutes. Refusing to accept consensus and edit warring are by definition disruptive editing per WP:DE. Wikipedia has 2,331,217 other articles and I suggest you find one of them to edit quietly until you are able to play nicely here.

For the record Ali'i, a source other than the one provided there already isn't needed unless you are denying that the film uses digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells as its examples. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that is not the definition of disruptive editing, FeloniousMonk. Disruptive editing has little to do with refusing to accept consensus. It "concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." Plus, it is editing which also fails WP:V because it "fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research."
Edits which are not well-described by both of those tests are not disruptive. Ali'i's argument over the accuracy of a quote does not meet either of those tests. They certainly do not constitute "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies," and he did provide verifiable sourcing. Please be more careful with your accusations against fellow editors. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to help the article. We have to be accurate to the source. It's a quote. A quote. We can't just change people's word to have them saying something they don't say. It's a quote. Making it appear as if they are saying something they don't say is unheard of. Maybe I'm losing my mind here. They may indeed claim the unsourced claims (I have no idea), I only looked at the source provided, and they never said what you people are saying they said. Perhaps move that bit outside of the direct quotation? --Ali'i 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(N.B. Here is the cached page to check my quote: [9] Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
The trouble is that Google Cache is too transient to act as a source (it'll be replaced by what's currently in the page in a few days) -- and the page isn't in Wayback (I just checked). HrafnTalkStalk 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayback rarely has anything newer than 6mo old. It is part of their special deal with the Copyright Office. So the page might show up in Wayback in October or November, but we can't count on that. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring and ignoring consensus is not helping, it's disruption. If your changes do gain consensus and are rejected in the article the correct next move is to make your case on talk, not reverting. +
We have to be accurate to the source. It's a quote. A quote."
No, we have to consistent with the source. The film uses supposed digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells as the evidence that supports the given quote. Mentioning the evidence they present with the quote is completely consistent with the source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Felonius, this is a direct quote. I am not familiar enough with wikipedia policies to know which one to link you with, but I'm sure that there is one somewher that says changing a direct sourced quote is a very very bad thing to do, as it essentially puts words into other peoples mouths. You can not make up or change direct quotes from people Restepc (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, the film uses the examples Ali'i repeatedly removed as the evidence that supports the given quote. Mentioning the evidence they present with the quote is completely consistent with the source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with including the "such as the digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells" portion... just not within the quote. I tried a bit to re-include it outside the direct quotation. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's quoting who?

I did a Google search for the original 'digital code' version, as an explicit citation would be the simplest way of diffusing this. All I could come up with is this 2yo piece from the DI. If somebody can find where Expelled's website is found to be saying this, I'd appreciate it -- as it would provide another piece of stark evidence as to just how much the movie is parroting the DI line. HrafnTalkStalk 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See my note above. It's cached. --Ali'i 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks right. The citation link isn't much use as it's a changing front page. Why are we giving priority to a primary source, anyway? The definition by an independent secondary source would be more useful – the NYT article had "a creationist idea" or "a cousin of creationism", have we a better source pointing to the film promoting intelligent design? ... dave souza, talk 18:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Dave -- if it keeps changing & no archive is kept, then it is completely useless as a source for verification (which leaves both versions of the quote out). HrafnTalkStalk 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Perhaps not saying "the film producers state..." and just saying "Intelligent design is the belief... " (sourced, of course), we can avoid this whole issue. --Ali'i 19:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems to me to have arisen from bending over backwards to be sympathetic to the film. The problem with citing the film's promoters is that it's taking a primary source without the context of third party independent assessment, giving problems of original research and of presenting the fringe point of view unmoderated by the majority expert viewpoint. A month ago,[10] care was taken to show this context as shown by reliable third party sources –

The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, a form of creationism. The Discovery Institute which is at the center of promoting intelligent design, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach, and not creationism.

This used sources directly related to the film[11][12][13] which were backed up by other more detailed sources, but they date to a period before showings and more recent sources would be preferable, with statements reflecting the newer sources. .. 20:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it looks like I'm being reverted for no reason

Well, the stated reason is WP:NPOV (the neutral point of view policy), however, I cannot see how maintaining all the pieces while ensuring that direct quotes remain direct quotes is not neutral. The revert. Nothing was removed, just moved. The quote is intact, and everyone should have been happy. I'm lost. What does neutrality have to do with keeping quotes quotes? --Ali'i 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked for some additional eyes. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for more eyes. Hopefully someone can explain the neutrality violations better. --Ali'i 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, everyone sees your personal attack and you get blocked. You are whitewashing the Creationists POV. Sorry dude. And spare me any replies on my talk page. Keep it here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries about going to your talk page. How is it whitewashing to have a direct quote be what they actually said? I didn't remove anything... I just moved the middle portion to outside the quotation marks. Creationists Point of View is that quotes should be quotes? Huh. And simply stating that altering quotations to misrepresent people could be considered vandalism is not close to a personal attack. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? All I see is an editor asking for help on an atrociously POV article. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. But knowing your POV on this topic, I don't expect or demand much sympathy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That's actually not at all a personal attack. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see any personal attacks by Ali'i here. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a POV on the topic? That's news to me, considering I've yet to edit this article. What magical psychic and forensic powers, pray tell, enabled you to determine what my point of view is?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While the edit was not a very good one and should not have been put in a quote, let's assume good faith and simply revert it. Let's not add another personal attack accusation to a talk page that is already full of crap. Saksjn (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A lesson for the future

I think the lesson here is that if we see the Expelled website saying anything juicy, we've got to throw it to WebCite or something similar -- because it may not be there tomorrow. HrafnTalkStalk 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good policy everywhere, regardless of whether it is "juicy" or not. I couldn't get WebCite to grab the Google Cache page directly, so I saved a copy of the Google cached page which Ali'i cited onto my own web site, and then did a WebCite capture of that page, here. If a couple of folks here will look at it and verify that it is the same as the Google cached page, I think that establishes the needed verifiability, to prove that it is a bona fide copy of the Google cached page. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Altogether, it looks to me like an unreliable source under unreliable editorial control, daunting because it seems to be the website for the film itself but maybe that speaks to the film too? Moreover, I'd be wary of lending too much credibility in the narrative to the overwhelmingly unscientific outlook of the producers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Did we lose something? What got erased?--Filll (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside and only for a bit of context, I'm hearing lots of healthy skepticism from scientists these days about some of the fundamentals which have been assumed in biochemistry and sub-atomic structure but none of it stems from shallow notions such as intelligent design as put forth in films like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well evolutionary biology is and has been an area of active research. So of course things change and people are always looking to replace current theory with something better. That is just ths sign of an area that is actively being researched. Which the public is usually too stupid to understand.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While a well educated public is well capable of seeing the what's going on, unfortunately the film is part of a political push to "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom" aimed at promoting religious credulity rather than the proper scepticism which is thriving in science as it should. .. dave souza, talk 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Spot on what I was getting at, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled Exposed

The NCSE has now produced a resource setting out the claims made in the film, and giving a detailed response. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth "Expelled Exposed � The Truth behind the Fiction"]. Retrieved 2008-04-15. {{cite web}}: replacement character in |title= at position 18 (help) forms a sound basis for citing the scientific view. ... dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we really use this as an unbiased source though? I mean, it's very obvious where the writers of these articles stand. Saksjn (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not a reliable secondary source. Primary, self-published sources can be used to document where the publishing organization or individual itself stands, but are not reliable sources for criticism about other organizations or individuals. NCdave (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
why "unbiased"? Criticism isn't unbiased. We are neutral. They are critical. dab (𒁳) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure we could quote the article saying 'The NCSE says that' if we really needed to, but I'm equally sure that there must be a great many other sources out there that would show the scientific view of ID and it's supporting arguments Restepc (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
that's not the topic. This isn't about "the scientific view of ID", it's about the claim that ID supporters have not been given a fair hearing (to put it mildly; in fact, the claim is closer to "scientists are Nazis"). --dab (𒁳) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Now, now. The NPOV and NPOV requirements have been shown above for the benefit of anyone unaware of them. The NCSE is a reputable source for the majority view of science and science educators. That gives a good secondary context for the anti-science view of the film's promoters, which will be shown as appropriate. The resource also gives a secondary source for the claims made in the film, which can augment the sources we have already. Of course our academic freedom lovin' friends have been trying to hide the film and expel any independent reviewers, but we'll do what we can. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

God help us when NCDave quotes policy. Seriously, he's now suggesting that NPOV means ignoring criticism from Reliable sources? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So if lets say, Sean Hannity, for example, just for example, starts a website criticizing and "exposing" Barrack Obama, we should consider it a reliable source? I mean he is an expert on politics. This is just an example to make you think about what a reliable source is... I'm not actually suggesting it. Saksjn (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent paragraphs


The first three paragraphs have a lot of jaunts off into repetition land, and into random-information-ville. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you had the same perception as me. I'm sure someone won't like all of what I did, but I think it's a much better section, much more focused on the movie, and much more useful to the reader. I hope others will consider it or something similar. Mackan79 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A bit better, but still kind of poorly organised, and the scientific American quote is poorly worked in (And shouldn't we say that it's in a review of the film?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the quote was useful, to the extent it keeps a brief discussion of what this whole thing is all about. I think others are more intent on that than me, but I thought it seemed fine. As to it being in a review, that's what I added; did you mean to suggest that was unnecessary? Mackan79 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's useful, but think it could be integrated better. Sorry, though, I overdid it this weekend so might not be entirely coherent myself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I agree it wasn't perfect. You can see the older section linked below, which has better aspects as well. Either way, I think focusing on the film should be a higher priority. Mackan79 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see them being that incoherent. First keep in mind that in questions of science, and ID is alleged to be science, the view of the scientific community is the majority view and that of ID proponents is a tiny minority view in comparison. So devoting real estate to cover the view of the majority, the scientific community, is required by Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. As far as being coherent, the first paragraph sets the stage with the premise of the film, that intelligent design is allegedly a scientific theory. The second paragraph details the alleged treatment of those who promote intelligent design as science by the scientific community. And the third paragraph covers the actual level of acceptance of intelligent design by the scientific community and the level of support for the theory that ID is meant to challenge: evolution. This arrangement follows the typical 'what and who' formula followed by the customary paragraph on how it was received (by the scientific community). There's no particular problem with this, and any removal of these verifiable and notable views explicitly violates our core content policy and will not go unchallenged. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FM, the issue among other things is WP:SYN, stating "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The view of NPOV you are suggesting conflicts with this part of the WP:NOR policy, which suggests the view should be reconsidered. I think what a pretty steady stream of people here have been saying is that the balance in terms of NPOV should be support and criticism for the movie, or specific arguments in the movie, not broader issues that the movie is decided to relate to. The current organization is also strange, as Shoemaker pointed out. These are the things I'm looking to improve.[14] Mackan79 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Covering the majority view

Deleting the majority view is simply not going to fly, Mackan. Stop trying to whitewash the article. Odd nature (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that was the intent - that section is a confusing mismash of criticism, and needs to be teased out ijnto coherent paragraphs. A trim down, followed by a more structureds re-expasnsion might not be a bad idea, if done with reasonable rapidity. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You can see my comments in the section above, ON, about why I removed what I removed. I just looked back at older versions of the article and see the material made more sense previously such as here, but it's still much better to focus on the film than on intelligent design, which is fully discussed in that article. If there's any other way to improve this, please suggest. Mackan79 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's relevant to this article. I agree with odd nature restorating the section and would have done it myself had I seen it first. Futhermore, it seems clear to me that you've been working to remove this section, either piecemeal or in one swipe, all along in conflict to the clause of WP:NPOV which requires all notable and verifiable views be covered and despite your assurances to the contrary. Your stock has fallen in my eyes and I see I need to keep a closer eye on this situation. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Per above, the issue with saying it's relevant is that much of it violates WP:SYN. As far as my aims, I'd like to reduce some of this to material that directly addresses the movie, since we have other articles to discuss other topics. Of course, there is plenty of critical material on the movie as well. If you have a concern with these edits, please address them directly, but please also consider whether we could do so without negative statements about each other, as I don't think these will help improve the page. Mackan79 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's a SYN problem, though we can and should provide more explicit referencing to reviews and Expelled Exposed sites related to the film. What we actually have is a problem of piss-poor writing, causing the section to seem much more random and less connected to the claims in the film than it is. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Flattery will get you nowhere. How about proposed rewording covering the same point, as drafts on this talk page? .. dave souza, talk 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I basically agree; certainly I'm not saying the article shouldn't say anything on ID. However, when a paragraph relies entirely on sources not about the movie, then it's not being done in the right way. I think the context is actually useful for two reasons: the "majority opinion" as FM terms it, but also as background on what the movie is about. The older version I linked here handles it better, but I still think something that focuses more on the movie (while still informing about ID) should be the goal, as I attempted here. Mackan79 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This was my version:

I think a sentence could be added in the middle of the second paragraph about the predominant scientific view on this; if it were found in a review of the movie all the better. But, I thought this got the points across while staying more on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating that nifty {{cquote|...}} template, Mackan79. I like it! NCdave (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More constructive trimming

What is the purpose of having both a "Critical reaction" section and a "Reviews" section. Most of the material is simply summarized in "Critical reaction" and detailed more thoroughly in "Reviews". With a quick glance I see the repitition of Limbaugh, Bethell, Holocaust imagery being distasteful, the preaching to the choir bits. Can we try to eliminate the "Critical reaction" section by working whatever relevant references (that are not already there into the "Reviews" section? What do you you think? --Ali'i 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging the sections may be acceptable; simply deleting one or the other is surely not. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cancelings"

I removed the quotes, and they were later put back on. Putting quotes around them is very obvious bias. If we want to meet NPOV, we can't have the quotes. Saksjn (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was meant to indicate it was a quote? Anyway, I've tried something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It comes across as wikipedia taking the stance that the cancellations were not really cancellations, but ways to keep critics out, which has been suggested by several editors. Saksjn (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

good edit, it sounds better. Saksjn (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The "cancellations" are not "oddities", they are outright falsehoods. I have editing the section title to reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you say they are outright falsehoods without taking a POV. I could say evolution is crap, and list several sources saying so, but it wouldn't be fair would it? The same thing applies here too. Saksjn (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They were reported as falsehoods ("There you go. Lying. Plain and simple and there is no way they can spin that."), not oddities, anomalies, or whatever, so it should be entitled "Reports of false cancellation notices". HrafnTalkStalk 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Who reported it? I'm not trying to cause trouble; I just want to know so that we can word it right. Saksjn (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you actually read this article before editing it. To quote the relavant section "The Seed science blogger John M. Lynch (of "Stranger Fruit") has reported receiving an email (to him and several others) stating that the screening he was to attend had been moved one hour earlier.[143] He later received an email (to him and five others)[144] stating that the RSVP screening he was set to attend had been canceled." Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume that it wasn't canceled? Saksjn (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to read the article every time something changes. I've resorted to skimming. Saksjn (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear - So yesterday., when you removed the (accurate) quotation marks from that section header, you simply skipped over the next paragraph explaining why it was there (that they weren't actually canceled - it was a trick to prevent critics from seeing advanced screenings). Then when reverted you came here to the talk page to claim it is biased, you did so again(!) without reading the adjacent explanatory paragraph. Then, you changed the section header, again (!!) without reading it. Hrm, it's not difficult to see what the problem is. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I found it. Thanks! Saksjn (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Institute sarcastic slam of Shermer's review

[15]--Filll (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That review insists that this film documents firings of educators and scientists who expressed belief in ID or creation by a God - a clear violation of the right of freedom of speech. If it turns out to really be a creationism propoganda film supporting those who have tried to promote religious creation fables as science - then they deserved to be fired and this film deserves to be exposed as a fraud. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
For starters, Crocker was "teaching demonstrably false creationist material", in one example telling students that "macroevolution" was disproved as "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.” – No evolutionary biologist ever proposed that “dogs turn into cats in a laboratory”, and ironically, this would be disproof of evolution! Such rapid changes are exactly contrary to any expectation of evolutionary processes. Dogs and cats do share a common ancestor, but can no more turn into one another than you can transform into your cousins. If Crocker doesn’t understand that, she is stunningly ignorant of basic evolutionary theory, and she has no right to force her ignorance on students.[16] . . dave souza, talk 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind none of the "victims" in exposed were fired. That tidbit somehow was left out of the "movie". You don't have to be an investigative reporter to figure out most every single claim made in the movie is demonstrably false. I think the only honest claim made in the "movie" is that ID is a religious viewpoint. Angry Christian (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio Commercials

Has anyone else heard radio commercials for the film. In my town, three stations were running comercials for the film every commercial break. The station s were the local ABC news station, the local FOX news station, and ESPN radio. Saksjn (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, what the hell kind of advertising budget does this film have? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No clue, but it must be pretty high for them to be able to run adds during The Sean Hannity Show. Saksjn (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear one of the radio ads last week. They incorrectly identified Michael Medved as "Michael Medgood". Odd. Typical "big science is evil" type stuff (same we see on their website). Angry Christian (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

low importance ID cat.

I think with the headlines and the sails the movie has been getting we should update this to a medium importance article. I mean, this has more discussion right now than the ID page it self. Saksjn (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the importance was determined several months ago, back when the page was first created. I wouldn't object to upping it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
While it has been suggested that this will be another Waterloo for ID (since it shows the general public the deep dishonesty behind the ID movement), for the moment it's still pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Give it six months and then see whether it deserves an increase in importance. For the moment, it's still trivial. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins statements regarding design in nature

I've reverted some recent additions by Saksjn (diff). Essentially, it's a complete misrepresentation of what Dawkins says in the film, sourced to (among other) evangelical minister Gary Bauer, and Uncommon Descent (William Dembinski's web log). Dawkins described his comments in the film in his interview with PZ Meyers, saying that (essentially) he was asked what he thought about the possibility that life was designed intelligently. (The question itself pre-supposes that it's possible.) He answered by saying, essentially, that if we assume it's possible, panspermia is a more likely explanation than god did it, but that he doesn't consider either of them to be particularly likely. Raul654 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur, and would like to add that another source used by Saksjn was Joseph Farah, an evangelical minister who claims Stein as a "good friend". As these sources are highly partisan, not even remotely neutral, if they are to go into this long article at all they must be clearly identified, as in "Evangelicals claim Dawkin's version of the interview is incorrect"... blah, blah. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys even seen the film yet? Before you jump to conclusions, see what he says for your selves. Just because Dawkins said it went one way doesn't mean it's true. What was the other source you wanted removed, I allready removed the first one. I wish there was a youtube video or something with the interview so I could show you guys. Saksjn (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(In response to edit history comment) How do you reccomend I source it, casue it does need to be sourced. Saksjn (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Already done tole you. Read my comment above. And I suggest you discuss here about phrasing, support for adding it at all, etc., before simply re-adding a very partisan view of what transpired. I'm not even sure there is any support for inclusion of this, and if there is, then we must be careful how it is phrased so it is not misleading. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Once the film comes out on DVD and clips make it to youtube, can a clip of the entire interview be used as a source? How about a transcript of the movie? Saksjn (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, you really need to do some reading. The movie isn't offering any new material from Dawkins (aside from editting and removing context). Dawkins says IF there were a "design" it would be done by a high evolved intelligence. Thus, it wouldn't be a "design" by a God/Gods, but by a being that is the result of an evolutionary process elsewhere in the universe. If you are too lazy to read Dawkins' work where he discusses this (such as in The God Delusion) then listen to it here. Dawkins says there is no evidence for such a design, but uses that example to show that "design" wouldn't come from God/Gods IF it existed. Paper45tee (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the film, the film has a 20 or so minute interview between Dawkins and Stien, and in the interview he says what you have said above, but also says that there is evidence of design in nature. I don't know how to get oyu guys to get it unless you see the film because the main stream media won't cover it! Saksjn (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, find a source where Dawkins "says that there is evidence of design in nature." Because certainly Dawkins has NEVER said such a thing in the past. Paper45tee (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, but any source that does will be called unreliable by you guys. Saksjn (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Show it and we can discuss it. No need to be pessimistic about it appearing in the mainstream press. Here's"Gods and earthlings - Los Angeles Times". – by Richard Dawkins. Note that films get edited, and the point Dawkins was explaining may not be what's shown in the film. See also "'Lying for Jesus?' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net". where he suggests he set out the same argument in The God Delusion, anyone got a copy to check that point? .. dave souza, talk 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps that should be a clue for you Saksjn. If Dawkins had actually said something that remarkable, it would be reported by reliable sources. If you can't find a reliable source that says so...maybe it's because it's obvious that Dawkins didn't mean what Mathis and co. twist his words to make it look like he said? Think about it. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn, you can read Dawkins' response to Expelled where he discusses 'Directed Panspermia' and Stein's interview here. Saksjn, the WorldNetDaily is not a WP:RS in this case nor is Joseph Farah reliable. Farah, is the guy afterall who promoted Falwell's Vincent Foster conspiracies that Bill Clinton had him killed. With such information, that should be a clue that either you didn't pay close attention to the interview and/or your basing you opinion on unreliable sources. Paper45tee (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, I think Saksjn is reporting accurately the impression given by the film. Since the film tells obvious lies elswhere, it's quite probable that the editing has been done in a way that creates a false impression about what Dawkins says. A transcript would be very useful, but until the film's available in recorded form it's very hard to get an accurate transcript. .. dave souza, talk 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that's exactly why reliable sources are important. We've got a propaganda film that (surprise, surprise) twists Dawkins words to make it appear that he says the opposite of what he means. Which is why reliable sources matter... 24.231.182.13 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Saksjn brings up a good point. Many people will see the film and come to a mistaken conclusion regarding Dawkins views on ID (whatever) just the same as they will come away thinking Darwin lead to Hitler. Does the article address the films mischaracterization of Dawkins' views? Angry Christian (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too Long and Citations Questionable at Best

I noticed one of the most cited people in this article is a FOX-Cable-News-Online Article written by a Celebrity/Gossip "Reporter" named Roger Friedman. The article reads like (and may be) a Blog entry. The bulk of the cited article is comparing Mariah Carrey and Young Jeezy's latest albums. And the article is even listed under Celebrity Gossip. I'll be removing any entries that cite this soon, since Celebrity Gossip is not encyclopedic. Please find new sources within the next day or so, if you'd like the entries to remain.70.150.37.124 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I appreciate that not everyone views Fox News as reliable, but in our terms it's certainly an item by one of their reporters. Perhaps they think gossip is the appropriate level for the film? . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AAAS and Ham

"Exploring Our Matrix: AAAS Statement About Expelled". looks interesting, and a comment at "Expelled: The first numbers are in - The Panda's Thumb". mentions "Salvation Poem Cards Arrive at the Creation Museum at Around the World with AiG's Ken Ham". making an appeal on his blog today for Christians to go and see the film , along with a special offer of: incredibly low-priced value pack of Creator-affirming materials. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reduced Protection on this page, Ben Stein

Both pages have been unprotected today. I'd like some consensus on whether this is a smart idea. For myself, I think it's rotten timing: both are too active to sort out all the new IP user additions and questionable edits are getting lost in the shuffle. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur - I think it's a really bad idea. I've reprotected. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the both of you. Angry Christian (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you no sense of irony?

The fact that this article is closed to new edits pretty much proves the film's point, doesn't it.

No (Hypnosadist) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not the scientific community. There is nothing wrong with original research in the scientific community, but Wikipedia only reports from second or third party research. For science articles, the sources must be reliable and peer-reviewed. Although ID promoters have the funds to do research, they have yet to put forth the effort to implement any. The Discovery Institute has more lawyers than scientists, and no labs to speak of. Where is the evidence? Not even a valid workable hypothesis for ID has been proposed over the last eighty years: it's been shown to be a fruitless endeavor, so now the proponents are reduced to crying "Persecution!" and demanding affirmative action for their ideas in science departments. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There are many ironies about the movie (such as, intelligence being "expelled" from it), but wikipedia preventing the continued vandalism is not one. Paper45tee (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with hypnosadist to a degree. It's not trying to make sure users don't edit, just trying to keep the vandalism of both sides away. I think though, that how the article is written is ridiculous. I'm not an ID advocate/creationist/etc, nor am I an evolutionist, but I can see how this article is dodging NPOV severely. The people who believe in evolution are saying "no it's not" and those who don't say "yes it is." No one has been trying to come up with a compromise really, the ones who have get pricked and probed, and I would try but it would get shot down for sure, so there is no use trying. And also, this article is NOT a page for pro-evolution/anti-evolution or whatever. "Where is the evidence?" That is related to the Evolution and ID articles, NOT THIS ONE. I can't believe people are aruging about evolution/ID in this article, it's a movie, not the article of the two seperate theories. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"No one has been trying to come up with a compromise really," Of course not, no RS says ID is anything but a joke. The film claims to be a documentry yet is completely riddled with factual inaccuracies (thats the AGF version of that thought) about evolution. The innaccuracies of Sicko etc, are discussed in their articles but this film is so full of them it forces this article to be so long. (Hypnosadist) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Real scientist? What consitutes that? There are scientists of kinda, some of which do not believe in Evolution. That in itself is not NPOV because who's to say what a real scientist is? Again, I'm not talking about a compromise between the theories, but on the article. This page is not about the theories, but about the movie. There's no need to be intricate and incredibly detailed. This page tends to lean on the theories presented, not on the movie, more often than not. Innacuracies, sure, but detailing all of them is ridiculous. If we had to do that, then do you realise how long the Armageddon movie would be? It be larger than this one.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"do you realise how long the Armageddon movie would be?" If Armageddon Claimed to be a documentry then it should be as long as this if not more, but its a piece of fiction (just like this film). (Hypnosadist) 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
RS stands for reliable sources not "Real scientist?". (Hypnosadist) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Expelled as Fiction... Again, your opinion. I see it as such as well in some areas, but I am not going to put that into the article. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice you completely failed to address my point! (Hypnosadist) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The comments above are clearly from someone who does not know what WP:NPOV is, let alone science.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph improvements

I made some minor improvements to the introduction that have been reverted by [User:Thegreyanomaly].

Old version: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 film which claims that American educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the film claims that what it calls "Big Science" suppresses dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames evolution for a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood.

Improved version: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 film, which claims that American educators and scientists are being persecuted for their position that evidence of intelligent design exists in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the film claims that the "scientific establishment" suppresses dissent against the scientific theory of evolution. Furthermore, the film links evolutionary theory to a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood.

I am asking for input on why the "improved" version above may not an improvement or why the "old" version is not biased (e.g., belief, blame, etc as opposed to the words chosen in my version). Thank you. --Davidp (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science" is the phrase Stein uses and thus, it should remain. Stein "blames" the Holocaust on Darwin, not merely links to it. "Links" does not describe what the film does, on the other hand "blame" does. Paper45tee (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making a good faith effort to improve the article. For starters the film does not "link" evoltution to anything. It blames. It shows dead people, Nazis, the Berlin wall. it dishonestly quotemines Darwin. That is not "linking". It's propaganda. This is a vital distinction. Angry Christian (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the others; we must be reading this differently, but none of the changes look quite right to me. Mackan79 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Davidp, if the argument is that Darwinian evolution led, started humanity down the road, to the Holocaust then the word to use is blame.
Richard Weikart, a pro-ID professor who appears in the movie, asserts about Expelled that "six [Darwinian] ideas were promoted by many prominent Darwinian biologists and Darwinian-inspired social thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All six were enthusiastically embraced by Hitler and many other leading Nazis. Hitler thought that killing "inferior" humans would bring about evolutionary progress."[17]
Weikart does not "link," he "blames" and ignores the origins of Nazism in Catholic (Hitler was a Catholic) anti-semitism and Martin Luther's ideas (Luther wanted to kill the Jews). Expelled's claims are ahistorical rubbish. Paper45tee (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And speaking of irony, Hitler banned Darwin's books from German libraries, in fact they were to be burned with all the others. He also said atheists were enemies of Nazi Germany who should be dealt with accordingly. You have to wonder what history books Ben researched for the movie. Angry Christian (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Also it is ludicrous that Darwinism is linked in the movie to Stalinism, given that Stalin sent Dawrinists to prison camps and reeducation programs and championed Lysenko, who was opposed to Darwinian evolution.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I will concede that "Big Science" seems to be more appropriate than my edit. However, to use blame instead of link is disingenuous. If you view the entire film, it is made clear that Evolution is not responsible for eugenics or Naziism. The film is explicit on this point. It is a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) to infer blame when a basic complimentary link seems to exist. If I need to me more verbose on this, please let me know. --Davidp (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"Evolution is not responsible for eugenics or Naziism." Why mention Nazism at all if not to cast blame by association, the Nazi party never published research on evolution, the only reason this film is fronted by someone of Jewish origin is to push this Evolution => Holocaust lie. (Hypnosadist) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is the movie contradicts itself. It's says its not the only element, but then it leaves the viewer the impression. There are many logical fallacies in Expelled and some out right false claims too. Paper45tee (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Running quickly through some minutiae: (1) Word choice of position vs. believe - Belief and position are somewhat synonymous in this context, yet "belief" injects POV as a pejorative term, especially in this context. This is no less a position or belief than Panspermia, yet I suspect some here would have problems calling panspermia or other abiogenetic positions as "beliefs". (2) Dissent here seems to be dissent "against" evolution, not "from" it (nonetheless, change not re-inserted). (3) Blame is less accurate since the film does not hold the theory of evolution responsible for eugenics or the Third Reich. Yes, it is cited as necessary for it to have been successful. The perversions of the intellect that needed evolution were not caused by it. That would be stupid and the film did not make such a gratuitous assertion. I'd like someone to point it out and correct me if they did. This is not the kind of thing we need to feel; it needs to be fact-based. Thank you. --Davidp (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The "necessary but not sufficient" assertion of Berlinski is a standard mathematical term, but the fine points of the distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" are likely to be lost on a general audience.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Likely true, but we can't in general make conclusions in article space that don't have reliable sources backing them up. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Well, I was about to say that "links" could be seen as just as disingenuous, considering this is raised specifically as a criticism of evolution in a film criticizing evolution. But I suppose it's possible people would get the point either way. "Blames x for a range of things from a to z" sounds a little satirical, I'm just not sure that's our fault. Basically I don't have a strong opinion either way. Mackan79 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp, please read the review summaries at Rotten Tomatoes and tell me the viewer is not coming away with the impression Stein is blaming the Holocaust on Darwin/evolution. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with what reliable sources are saying about the film. Then read Ben's own quotes on the Expelled blog. Look at this article and you can see how Stein quote mines Darwin to portray his ideas as something sinister when in fact they are/were not. The evidence that Stein blames is overwhelming. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


- If I might say something a little more to the point: saying that it "links" evolutionary theory and a range of, etc, etc... does make it sound like there's strong rigourous evidence presented in the film to show that link. As far as I can tell from reviews (I live in Britain, and it seems unlikely the film will be released here) it is a purely emotional appeal, without any evidence behind it, and, particularly the Nazi sections have proven controversial. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp, In spite of the evidence that has been put in front of you, that you are clearly ignoring, and the consensus shown here you continue to push this mistken POV of yours. I believe if I revert you one more time I will be in violation of 3RR. That will not stop someone else from attempting to stop your POV pushing. Angry Christian (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Angry Christian, et al - I have now read reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and others. There is still zero evidence of blame as opposed to a basic connective link. All the film is saying is that the theory had to be there for perversions to feed upon it. I am a bit taken aback by the lack of evidence to support such lambasting of this movie. I saw the movie just today. I am an agnostic, evolution-believing libertarian type. The movie has flaws, but this wikipedia article is very poorly done and is chock full of POV. To be direct, the flaws in this movie are that it eschews the whole topic of what constitutes science. It elevates ID to science. This is not done explicitly, but through the supposition that it is on par with evolutionary theory. ID is a philosophical or metaphysical school of thought that seeks to explain what just might be inexplicable: the origin of life itself, as opposed to the origin of species or explaining variation in life forms, which is the domain of evolution obviously. However, for reasons either surrounding disciplinary integrity or perhaps dogma, the establishment seems to overextend in its resistance to the idea that life may be explained by an intelligent creator. This, in fact, does science a disservice. Anyway, I suggest all editors of this page view the film prior to generating narrative about it from third-party sources. To not do so seems rather vacuous and intellectually disingenuous. --Davidp (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I say try some more changes, or suggest them, and make the case. I think you're generally right about the article, I just don't happen to agree with these specific changes. On the "link" issue I'm a bit on the fence. In any case, I've made a number of suggestions for the article, but if you try a little more it could help things along. See also WP:BRD for guidance. Mackan79 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys... this page is not for an argument on the basis of your beliefs. This is a apge discussing the movie, not what you believe ordon't believe about the theories presented. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are also forgetting this, via WP:NPOV: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all" <=That discribes ID. (Hypnosadist) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There's an NPOV FAQ that's also a policy page. Have a read of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't believe that applies here. The point of those provisions is that ID should be ignored in the article on evolution, not that it should be ridiculed in an article about itself. And this still isn't even an article about ID. This doesn't change that I disagree with Davidp's above suggestions. Mackan79 (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If the reliable sources, in the mainstream and the most prominent set of views, are viewed as ridiculing the FRINGE position, then that is what gets quoted in the article. And if you actually count the pro and negative and neutral content in the ariticle, you will see that more than half is pro and neutral, which is more generous than we are required to be by NPOV.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of the views held. This is an article on a movie about ID and Evolution, and since ID is one of the views in conflict, it is not considered a "exteme minority view." Even in psuedoscience articles, both views should be shown in equal footing. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp what you don't seem to realize is we are bound to rely on reliable sources and not one another. Ben has not linked anything, he has blamed. I gave you numerous reviewers who say the same thing I am. Had you read all the reviews I provided you then you'd know the majority of professional film critics who've weighed in on the movie do not agree with your assessment. Your personal take on the movie is interesting but again, we can't use you as a source. Angry Christian (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's one such example: According to "Expelled," Darwinism responsible for everything from atheism to abortion" Well, according to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," it's Darwinism, described as a philosophy that posits the pointlessness of life and encourages the "de-privileging of human beings" — and as such is responsible for everything from atheism to abortion, euthanasia to the Holocaust. Are you suggesting we simply ignore reviews like this because they conflict with your POV, Davidp? I can get more examples but quite frankly I have better things to do. Angry Christian (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein tells us he is not saying that Darwinism leads to mass murder, but the connection he draws is unmistakable Angry Christian (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Angry Christian, what I think you are not grasping is that the actual film transcript is a reference for describing the film. Relying on film critics is POV. I am not suggesting you rely on my POV, I am suggesting you rely on empirical evidence rather than opinions. The note that "Stein tells us he is not saying that Darwinism leads to mass murder, but the connection he draws is unmistakable" actually supports my position that the film is not assigned blame. It is assigning a connection, a link, a pre-condition. I'd rather not get too pedantic here, but I imagine you are following the logic. If something in the argument in particular is specifically unclear to anyone, I can address that. --Davidp (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, but this violates the foundational principles on which Wikipedia operates. If you want this, go to another wiki like Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"Evolution is not responsible for eugenics or Naziism." Why mention Nazism at all if not to cast blame by association, the Nazi party never published research on evolution, the only reason this film is fronted by someone of Jewish origin is to push this Evolution => Holocaust lie. (Hypnosadist) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Seconding, this view. You guys really need to can your nonsense, Davidp & IronCrow. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that "seconding" an empty statement doesn't really mean anything. Really folks, let's sharpen our pencils! I'd love for someone to counter my arguments rather than make a gratuitous assertion. I have backed up my argument. Please do the same. This mob-rule thing is dumbing down the article. --Davidp (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
David you seem to have difficulty understanding what blame means so heres a link to wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blame . (Hypnosadist) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually as the main author of the article (the one with the most edits at least), I have my own impression of what is "dumbing down the article". But it differs from yours.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree with Davidp. Funny, Ben Stein has stated in interviews that he does not blame evolution, but believes it to have been needed. But this is the article on the film, not the theory, so... Regardless, if professional reviewers state that he blames it, why not Do something like this: "Some reviewers state that the film blames the theory of evolution as the cause of various atrocities (insert sources, can substitute atrocities). The film, however, does not state that the theory is to blame, instead, it claims/states/notes that the theory was a necessary part in the foundations/extension/operation of these events." I hope that doesn't sound biased... because the movie doesn't "state" or "claim" that evolution was the cause. But I can see how it can be seen as such when assuming that it does. I could show an interview linked on youtube, but odds are, it's not sopposed to be there. I think it was on Hannity and Colmes.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is typical for IDists to say one thing and do another, and then deny what they just did. Ben has been doing this all along. I think having a discussion on this during the hours where more editors are awake and stop re-inserting material that is heavily objected and has been reverted now by at least 3 editors until we have time to discuss it in more detail would be a good first step. Angry Christian (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • AC - I'm willing to let the article be until tomorrow. I look forward to actual substantive debate on the specific edits I'm making rather than reliance on film critics, other spurious interpretations, or blatant anti-ID POV. And I don't even think ID is science! I do worry about the ever eroding credibility of Wikipedia due to the fact that the "most emphatic mob", regardless of logic or lack thereof, wins by nature of the organic editing model. I will re-engage tomorrow. --Davidp (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We have to rely on film critics and reviewers. That is how Wikipedia operates. It is part of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:V etc. Please learn that or else feel free to leave. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone on Wikipedia lives in the same Time Zone... oh well, I'll do the same, though I wont really pay too much attention to this article because my expertise is more along the lines of history and music. But, I find Davidp's arugment more convincing though, because he's not stating that ID is better or worse, just stating that we should look at the film with a film article in mind, not something else. We shouldn't even be having this debate. I'm going to stop debating on what to do, because it just seems to me that it won't make a difference. Still, If anyone needs me, just post a comment on my discussion... also... Does anyone want to archive this discussion page? It's huge. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Sorry.--Filll (talk)
Ben Stein said: "Darwin had ideas which when implemented led to the Holocaust." That is blaming the Holocaust on science/evolution NOT just linking the two. Paper45tee (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The idea that a transcript of the film would reveal the truth of the critics' unerstanding is flawed – film is a visual medium, and messages have been conveyed by cutting between images since Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin. Reading and interpreting the transcript would be original research, and would give undue weight to the weasel phrases scattered through the words used. We must use reliable secondary sources for such interpretation, and the message from such sources is clear. A further piece of misdirection is the use of the term Darwinism with the meaning Social Darwinism which was coined in 1944 to criticise the excesses of both rampant capitalism and the Nazi enemy, and refers to Malthusian and Spencerian ideas that predate Darwin's publication of his theory. A common creationist ploy. .. dave souza, talk 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll pass on the "blame" debate but, Davidp, the text you were attempting to improve was explicit sourced, sourced to the movie's own website no less. Your change was actually moving away from the the movie's own description of itself. The source text read in part: fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” The movie's charge is that people are being persecuted for mere "belief". If that part comes across harsh, extreme, or unreasonable... well there's no fix for that. I agree with you that a fix needs to be done, but you aimed at the wrong target. I'm mulling over what I suspect the right fix may be, but to be honest I'm not sure I even want to suggest it. On one side there are frothing-at-the-mouth irrational lunatic "bad guys", and on the other side there are "good guys" who are so frustrated by the "bad guys" side that they will go triple-berserk frothing-at-the-mouth irrational lunatic at the slightest hint of what I have in mind. I need some sleep and some more thought, and maybe tomorrow I'll stick my head in the guillotine. Or maybe I'll go quietly and safely edit fluffy pink bunnies instead. chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an exceptional article by the Waco Tribune which has been covering ID controversise ever since William Demdski was hired at Baylor years ago Review: Baylor officials among those attacked in 'Expelled' and they say "Viewers also are treated to Stein’s argument that evolution leads to disbelief in God, the loss of ethical and moral standards, eugenics, Nazism and the Holocaust, Planned Parenthood and abortion, before returning to the issue of academic freedom and equating science’s resistance to ID as a Berlin Wall that needs tearing down." I also like this quote, "That’s the real issue of Expelled — atheist scientists versus God — even though it wholly undercuts statements by intelligent design researchers early in the film that ID has nothing to do with religion." Enjoy! Angry Christian (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"...and blames evolution for a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood."

This phrase from the first paragraph doesn't appear to be backed up by the sources provided. I cannot find any mention of Nazism (Hitler, yes, Nazism, no) or Planned Parenthood. 67.135.49.78 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WorldNetDaily, conservative Christians promoting Expelled, said: "Planned Parenthood is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism," said Mathis. "Sanger was an open proponent of eugenics, and Darwinism is an idea that naturally leads to eugenics, which they are denying," said Mathis. "But they are compatible."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61134] Mathis, refers to Expelled producer, Mark Mathis. Paper45tee (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
About the end of March, there was a major restructuring of this article which lost the source for the statement and the expanded clarification which this statement was briefly summarising. The source 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."[18] and I've modified the lead to reflect that more closely, leaving out the Berlin Wall which is covered by communism, and combining Fascism and the Holocaust as the Nazi Holocaust. Doubtless more sources can be found if desired. . . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dave souza, et al - You are using Colorado Confidential as a source. Are you suggesting that this is an impartial source? The film simply does not "blame" evolution for the movements you mention. It links them as necessary foundational thought for the next to follow. This is tantamount to blaming global warming theory for the modern green movement. You choose the word "blame" for a specific POV purpose. How could you possibly defend that? Can anyone avoid the red herrings and defend this with a little logic? Thank you. --Davidp (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of endlessly bitching about "blame" and "link" why don't we look for a better term that is less controversial here on the talk page? I'd go for "attemps to link" and I'm open to other suggestings but clearly many editors feel "link" is misleading and at least a few editors feel the same about "blame". Those are not the only terms we can use. So I propose we look for alternatives to both terms. Does that seem reasonable? Angry Christian (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it actually does. I did not realize you viewed "link" as being strong or factual. I am viewing link as rather weak. So, yes. I suggest we use "attempts to link". --Davidp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear, Davidp. My concern is by saying "links" suggests he accomplished this. The fact that most everything in the film is demonstrably false leads me to be sensitive about how we frame what Ben is doing. I would not have an issue saying "attempts to link" nor would I have an issue saying "Stein protrays evolutution as a neccessary component to blah blah" I am one of many, let's hear what others think Angry Christian (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the film uses techniques to create a much stronger impression than "link". Davidp clearly wants a weaker term than "blames", in my opinion that misrepresents the film and would have to show more context if used. He's not provided sources, what came to hand is shown below. .. dave souza, talk 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And, in my view, blame is excessively strong. Stein/the film definitely draws a line between the two, but assigning blame is not what the film accomplishes or even tries to do. The film states that evolutionary theory is a prerequisite for eugenics and the Nazi's implementation of it (master race, etc.). Without "Darwinism", it would have been fantasy for eugenics to cook that up out of thin air. There just really isn't blame there, though I understand this can be an emotional topic with implications. --Davidp (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you think the Spartans managed to introduce a form of eugenics, the Bible instruct massacres eliminating other religious groups, or Luther call for killing Jews? Think Darwin was a time traveller? .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, see Arthur de Gobineau for the origins of the "scientific" "master race" idea – note the publication date and remember that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859. ..dave souza, talk 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that Mackan changed it to "and connects the theory of evolution to the Nazi Holocaust, etc" which to me wrongly suggests that he succeeds in showing a real connection. I thought of making it "and portrays the theory of evolution as having causal connections to the Nazi Holocaust etc" but decided it was simpler and as accurate to have "and portrays the theory of evolution as having caused the Nazi Holocaust etc". .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-requisite was an imprecise word choice on my part. I think connecting or associating is reasonable. There are various school of thought that are energized or accelerated by virtue of the prevailing intellectual winds of the time. I believe this is what the movie was suggesting. However, it does not blame evolution for eugenics and Nazis and planned parenthood. That kind of inane, directly causal relationship is not set forth in the film. --Davidp (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is he doesn't blame evolution for all those things -- certainly he doesn't blame evolution for atheism. Does he say what the connection is between all these things? The only thing that seems certain is that he links/connects them. Otherwise you'd have to specify what the connection is between each. As to your point, I guess it's subjective, but I have a hard time imagining anyone will assume we think the connection is compelling. Are there other options? Mackan79 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Actually the film blames evolution for atheism, or strongly implies that evolution is to blame for atheism. This is well documented.--Filll (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? Saying Darwinism leads to atheism, or compels atheism, or that the two are intertwined, isn't the same as blaming one for the other. Obviously atheism existed before Darwin, for one thing. Not that the arguments have to make much sense, but from anything I've seen this would be a misrepresentation of what they are saying. Mackan79 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Mackan - I agree. That is my only point in this "blame" versus some other NPOV language. Emotion is clearly clouding the majority's judgement here. I am not suggesting we write a fluff piece on the film or say it's without logical fault. --Davidp (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative structure: background section

Hi, I just want to point out that there is an alternative structure that is more consistent with how we do documentaries, such as The Root of All Evil, while still respecting WP:DUE. The key idea is to introduce a "background" section right in the beginning, we have this in The God Delusion too, where the movie is set in historical context. The article could then proceed as follows:

  1. Background. The definition of ID is given, it is cited that it is junk science, and the history of the ID movements attempts to subvert science is described per NPOV and DUE. No need to try too hard to debunk, sometimes less is more, at least the court ruling should be quoted, so their finding, based on expert evidence by atheist and religious scientists, is prominently featured.
  2. Synopsis. And here, as much as possible, try to avoid judgments, such as "junk science" and "deceitful editing". Try to give an NPOV account of what is shown in the movie without caring about the truth of it all. Now, since it is a deceitful propaganda movie (all WP:RS say that), we can't say "In the interview, Dawkins' says X" but we can say "Dawkins is portrayed as saying X" without having to immediately expose the deceitful editing.
  3. Factual accuracy. An NPOV discussion of the factual accuracy, where all inaccuracies and deceitful editing are exposed. Here of course, NPOV and DUE allows you to completely trash the movie. You could of course include possible rebuttals as these are often interesting. I'm sure you know how to do this.
  4. Critical reception. An NPOV account of critical appraisals as a documentary movie. This is fine as is now, etc.

And so on... In this way, you can give a fair description of the movie, while still making sure the innocent reader is not immediately misled because the history of this movement and their deceitful tactics are explained. Best of luck, Merzul (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a helpful and positive suggestion. I'm not sure that The Root of All Evil? article has quite the structure you suggest, which is closer to the structure in The God Delusion. The Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution section could logically become a new introductory Background section. A present the Overview introduction shows a brief neutral synopsis, followed by examination of the main arguments made by the film. That could be made clearer by having a Synopsis main section, then introducing a new main heading such as Arguments put in the film. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I think it's wrong to describe the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial conclusion as "based on expert evidence by atheist and religious scientists" – the leading scientist giving evidence supporting the plaintiffs was Kenneth R. Miller, a noted Roman Catholic, and as far as I know there was no testimony from atheist scientists. The finding, however was also based on testimony from theologians, historians and philosophers. .. dave souza, talk 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Just want to point out that The God Delusion is a book, not a documentary. --RenniePet (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I see, so it's even more obvious that it's not some atheist conspiracy. You obviously know how to do this all, if you warm up to the idea that WP:DUE can be respected, even with a more charitable synopsis. Rennie, I'm suggesting that it is nicer when articles on non-fiction (is this non-fiction?) give summaries of the work before assessing its validity. If my tone indicates that I know what is the best solution and how things should be done around here, then I apologize. --Merzul (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how ID being "junk science" relates to the structure of the article. Sure, it is attested by all reliable sources, but what I ask you is to read this article with the eyes of a person who comes from a humanities background, e.g., a lawmaker or educator, undecided on the matter of ID. He needs to know what to think about the arguments in the movie. This person is not so much trained in evaluating empirical evidence, but instead in critically examining argumentation. They might ask questions like:

  • Has the author understood the position they are criticizing, or are they attacking a straw man?
  • Do they commit informal logical fallacies, appeals to authority, ad hominem arguments, and so on.

What conclusion do you think they would reach about this article?

I'm suggesting that giving some room to properly explaining the film without immediately rejecting its message could increase the readers confidence in the presentation of facts that follow and precede it. Does this sound reasonable to anyone, or am I just presenting more propaganda? ;) In any case, now I leave it up to you to decide, Merzul (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Section: Claims that film producers misled interviewees

There are two pieces of information that directly go to the untrustworthiness of the producers of "Expelled" that do not appear here. First, there is the verifiable early acquisition of the "expelledthemovie.com" domain, and that predates any of the invitations to interview sent out to the "atheist" contingent. Second, there are the interviews with Ben Stein that indicate that he was recruited with the "Expelled" concept, not the "Crossroads" concept, back in 2006, again predating any contact with the "atheist" contingent. See here and here. The claims mentioned in the section title come with evidence, but readers of Wikipedia at the moment would not know that. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Both important points that should be included, in my estimation.--Filll (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific reviews in the lede

Is it appropriate to have specific reviews in the lede? I know the WikiProject film style guidelines state to note the general reaction, but specific reviews? Also, it may be of interest to include another sentence at the end of the second lede paragraph saying something like:

A significantly smaller group of critics gave the film postive reviews, calling the film "funny", "powerful", and the "best thing that has been done on this issue". (with the appropriate refs, of course)?

I don't think this violates undue weight since it could be argued the undue weight is the current inclusion of specific reviews. I don't think this violates the neutral point of view since this is all verifiable, and not trying to say there is an equal balance of positive reviews. But to dismiss all the positive reviews seems slightly askew. And of course, that's why I came to the talk page first. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead states that the reviews were broadly negative. Now if you remove the specific reviews then you weaken that statement. But if they are in then they back the statement up. As for the positive reviews, I would say it depends on who is giving the review. If they are in quality newspapers then I think that one should also go in the lead section for balance. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


What I would do is state that most mainstream media reviews have been negative, with 5 to 10 examples cited (NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc). And I would state that most scientific reviews have been negative with a cite to a few examples. And I would state that most right wing and Christian media reviews have been positive. With a few examples cited. And you are done, in 1 or 2 sentences. --Filll (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinda goes without saying that a film like this would receive positive reviews from the right wing criistian media and negative reviews from the science media. Obviously worth including in the article but in the lead? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem particularly unusual. Let's look at a couple of other films that were received either very well, or very badly, by critics. Atonement (film) says in the lead, "The movie won an Oscar for the best Best Original Score at the 80th Academy Awards, and was nominated for six others, including Best Picture, Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay) and Best Supporting Actress. At the 61st British Academy Film Awards, it won the Best Film of the Year, and the Production Design award." Plan 9 from Outer Space says in the lead "By merit of its writing, unconvincing special effects, and multiple production errors visible in the final version of the film, Plan 9 from Outer Space is sometimes regarded as a leading candidate for the title of "worst movie ever made". It has also earned Edward D. Wood, Jr. a posthumous Golden Turkey Award as the worst director ever." Quite a lot of film articles mention Oscars or Emmys quite prominently. It seems fairly normal for a film that provokes strong opinions (good or bad) among critics. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Awards I believe Ben Stein won the Philip E Johnson award for the film. I think Philip E Johnson is the only other person to have ever won it. I know it's a total scratching each others backs crack up but we should probably include it somewhere. Angry Christian (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to awards won, I was talking about quoting specific reviews. I have to think about this some more. --Ali'i 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to side track your point :-) Angry Christian (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote about the Chicago Tribune review, "1 star (poor)". Someone else has removed the quotation marks, so it now says:

The Chicago Tribune rated the film one star (poor)

This sounds slightly strange, and can even be misinterpreted to be an indication that it was poor that the Chicago Tribune was so negative. An exact quote would be best, for example:

The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)"

--RenniePet (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The movie appears to have done well.

A number of independent sources have described the movie as doing well overall. See for example this. We should presumably note that in the article yes? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We should. But it did not do as well as predicted by Ruloff, and that should be mentioned too. And several sources pointed out that it did about 10 percent of the opening weekend business of Fahrenheit 911, which it was expected to eclipse by many fundamentalist and creationist sources. And that might be mentioned too.--Filll (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

XVIVO

This sources [19] suggests XVIVO is unfortunately backing down from their lawsuit threat, or at least asking for help to continue and also over some explaination of why XVIVO feel their copyright was violated. Also, this source[20] has a response to the backdown and is rather funny, it's commenting on the backdown by XVIVO and makes some rather dumb claim about how XVIVO is using 'CSI and the Explanatory Filter' to support their copyright claim so they're IDers even if they don't know it... Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to use this kind of copyright intimidation to suppress a film is rather pathetic. It is unethical and against the spirit of free culture. If you disagree with what the film is about, don't try to get it banned, but rather let people see it and present your case to the public. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean a communist culture? Because intellectual property rights are a basic of the US Constitution and most free countries. If you cannot own your own copyrights or intellectual property, then there would be no profit in creating new things. No one is banning the film. Maybe you should review the article and the references a bit more closely. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Not sure where you get the impression they're backing down, Nil. The report you linked was dated Friday, April 11, 2008. Since then the film's come out, apparently with a different cheapo style animation. After a press release from the film promoters announcing a Texas lawsuit without actually serving suit on XVIVO.[21] Typical of the DI and their cronies to say one thing and do the other, and it appears that it was the film promoters that backed down. .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!" & "Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free!"
Suggests to me that XVIVO are not planning to engage with the filmmakers unilaterally. It appears to me they are hoping Harvard, or someone else will come to their aid. If the GLADD lawsuit ever goes ahead, then I guess XVIVO will have no choice to pursue this of course. Unfortunate perhaps, but not surprising. This is also the intepretation from Demeski (as shown in the second source) although obviously not an unbiased source Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't ever call me a communist. I am a liberal/green who abhors any form of totalitarianism and censorship, including the use of copyright threat (The director of this movie clearly did not have intention to plagarize the clip, merely borrowed the idea). This reminds me of past years reading Larry Lessig's Free Culture and saw a story about how FOX company was suing a producer of a videotape that incidentally captured a copyrighted footage playin on a corner TV! We see copyrighted materials casually displayed everywhere on the web and other places (like if a film shows the cover of a book a character is reading, that cover is obviously copyrighted). But no book cover illustrators would ever sue over that kind of "copyright violation". In this instance, the biologist is surly trying to intimidate the filmmakers by using a tactic similar to the ones of RIAA: selective and vindictive prosecution and spamigation. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Try distributing the film without the permission of Rocky Mountain and see how far you get when they come after you and you scream 'copyright intimidation'. BTW, William Demeski, a strong support of the film strongly argues it was intentionally plagarised. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is contributing to the article..But I have been involved in several law suits in my day. They are extreemly time/resource consuming and very expensive. Like the cost of a lawsuite can be more than the total value of the business doing the suing. Rarely does it make any senseAngry Christian (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was that if XVIVO are backing away from a lawsuit then this should be in the article but it appears people don't agree with my interpretation of the source so I guess it's best to leave it out for now Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree that the article should show the outcome but I'd like some more confirmation that the "Toddler animations" effort has actually replaced the recoloured XVIVO ripoff in the film as shown. If you look at the Get Expelled - Cellular Animation Movie Clip uploaded by "getexpelled" to YouTube on April 15, 2008, that implies that it's what's in the film uploaded by a promoter of the film, but that's a bit too near OR for my liking. .. dave souza, talk 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of confusion about the capitalist free market system here. Wow.--Filll (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dissenminating a whole copyrighted film is vastly different from making a reference to a clip or a book cover. No one here is suggesting here we should be allowed to massively reproduce and hand out movies that are copyrighted. What I said is a casual and incidental flash of copyrighted material should not be gone after. Like if my videotape showed my girlfriend reading a textbook that has a famous picture on it, I would doubt the photographer of the picture would send me a cease and desist order. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the last thing I will say about this since it is getting too OT. You seem to have misunderstood the problem in question is that Expelled is accused of wholesale copying of a video produced by XVIVO for an entire scene in the movie. The XVIVO video isn't just a picture that occurs in the background. If your girlfriend publishes a book and uses the famous picture on the cover of her text book then she's gonna get in deep shit too... Or a better example try re-writing a book modifying the wording slightly, page by page and then publish the whole thing and see what the writer or publisher thinks when you say your book isn't a copyright violation. Or do your own rendition of Imagine or some other copyright song and sell it and see what happens when you don't get permission from Yoko Ono (or whoever). If you still don't understand the difference, perhaps try reading the article and associated sources? It often helps... Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ebert's input

The foremost revered film critic authority Roger Ebert, whom I deeply respect, has been as of now silent on this film, which seems out of his character. Does anyone know if he has spoken on it lately? Chimeric Glider (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The film only came out days ago and Ebert broke his hip - he may even still be in the hospital. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

footnote cleanup

at least two footnotes (about box office results) are duplicate. Can someone fix that, please? Northfox (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

rush limbaugh

I noticed the note about his review was removed from the intro. If negative reviews are mentioned in the intro, should at least one positive? Saksjn (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is regarding whether summary sections like the Intro need to be sourced if they refer to content further down in the article, but if the NY Times and Tribune quotes are noted, then yeah, I don't see why the Limbaugh one can't. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If a notable movie critic says it's good: why not? The lead currently only mentions "neutral" newpaper movie critics, saving both the religious and the scientific opinions till later. Limbaugh is hardly comparable in notability or objectivity to the Chicago Tribune and New York Times. Several people are arguing that the lead should be "about the film": are we really going to open the floodgates here to those with an agenda to push? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course Limbaugh is going to praise it along the lines of the Discovery Institute. I think it should have a positive review in the introduction, but one from a better source than Limbaugh. Paper45tee (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree to include Limbaugh would be out of place, unless perhaps there was clear evidence of some large schism between Christian sources and the media. I haven't really seen evidence of this; Limbaugh may have supported it, but I don't think he and others are making a big cause of it. Lacking that, I think Robert's caution makes sense. Mackan79 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify a little, I say this based on a lead of the current size. If more of the controversy were added then some support would be appropriate, but currently we're not really discussing controversies around the movie in the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, objectivity, yes... notability, no. Limbaugh has more listeners in a day than the Trib has readers (even for Sunday papers). And I think for the NY Times (perhaps excepting the Sunday paper). :-) But really, see also my original comments a couple of sections above "Specific reviews in lede". Although I am still thinking whether we need a specific quote. --Ali'i 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there might be an issue even if someone can find one positive review from a non-partisan source: the WP:UNDUE policy. If 99 non-partisan movie critics say it's bad and one says it's good, quoting both would imply a false degree of parity between the two views among movie critics. Not sure what the best solution to that is, as the movie-critic reviews seem pretty negative up to now: the whole balance of reviews would have to shift. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead currently only mentions "neutral" newpaper movie critics... Actually, it mentions "conservative and Christian media outlets". Limbaugh is a conservative media personality, which is why I figured it was not unreasonable to cite him. True, he's not a movie critic, but then neither are the scientists mentioned subsequently. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead currently does not specifically name or quote any scientist. Therefore it shouldn't name or quote Limbaugh either. Add Limbaugh, and we'd need to start adding scientists: and the result would be an inflated lead (again). --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, e kala mai, my apologies, for starting another new section (maybe up the archival rate to 5 days?), but I have a question about the external links. Currently, there are two links I am unsure should be there:

I get that this movie is about evolution, et al., but do not see how these fit in this section. They are not about the movie, and they are not in any kind of context. I would say that perhaps some of our more courageous editors could work them into the article as references, but I fear that would be a violation of the synthesis rule regarding no original research. At this point, I support the removal (or at least the commenting-out using the <!-- and --> tags) of these links. Any ideas? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they clearly do not belong in the article. Feel free to remove them. Nightscream (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed. Paper45tee (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Box office numbers

The weekend gross is $2,970,848 in this source here, which is lower than what the article says. Paper45tee (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All of these are estimates at this point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Satire and Techniques

the film is described as satirical, what type of Satire is used. except the descriptions by the opponents of the film, there is no description of the techniques used. Is it amateurish? Is it funny? Also, I repeat my claim that the position that opinion of the movie makers is being stated by the opponents of it, who are also the targets of it's criticism. It appears to me that the target audience of the movie, is normal people, which would explain it being in theaters, use of graphics, and unscientific nature. It isn't meant to prove anything, just get people to ask questions. Rds865 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr] –noun. 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
It definitely uses irony (ironic how supposed intellectuals are supposedly reject intellectual inquiry) and ridicule. I recall a bit of sarcasm as well but can't cite that at the moment. I'm not necessarily discussing the quality of the satire. --Davidp (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cause, vs. a a cause

I thought I read some where that Ben Stein said he doesn't believe Darwinism caused the Holocaust, but was a factor in it. It also seems to me that the argument is being made that Darwin would not have supported the holocaust. Well a good point, I am not sure if it is relevant, as even though Darwin himself may have been against Eugenics and Social Darwinism, they were based on his research. So the claim that Darwinism influenced Nazi's is not unfounded. Rds865 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But railroads and other features associated with the Industrial revolution were a cause of the Holocaust. And centuries of Christian-based discrimination against Jews was a cause of the Holocaust. And Jews living in Europe was a cause of the Holocaust. And the defeat of Germany in World War I was a cause of the Holocaust. And so on. All these were necessary but not sufficient. And many of them are far far more significant than a book about the origin of species by an antislavery advocate.--Filll (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ben Stein said: "Darwin had ideas which when implemented led to the Holocaust." Clearly he thinks Darwin's ideas "led to the Holocaust."Paper45tee (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"Stein insists that he isn't accusing today's Darwinists of Nazism. He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism."[22] L. Brent Bozell III, one of the few "good" reviews, from a conservative. Stein is misinformed or lying, all the ideas that the Nazis took from the science of evolution were around before Darwin, and indeed were popular in Germany where Goethe had such ideas, to name but one. .. dave souza, talk 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source about Nazi raceology? I think it may have been influenced by Social Darwinism, and Eugenics, but not based solely on that. Rds865 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Numerous sources. For starters try [23] and this series: [24], [25], [26]..... dave souza, talk 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's an interesting one – this shows Hitler getting his ideas of exterminating "disease" from the body of the Reich from Pasteur and Koch, borrowing non-evolutionary medical ideas with no reference to, guess who! . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed

The information is long and negative. The only thing that sticks out about the Expelled movie evaluation on this Wikipedia site is the negative attitude from beginning to end. I guess that is the right of those who give information into the site. At the bottom of the Expelled page is a reference to another movie called "Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial. Click on the Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial sight and you will find a glorification and praising of the movie. All I ask is that "FACTS" be given not a predisposition attitude towards the subject being identified and informed upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.12.218 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires verifiability. Go find reports or reviews by professional movie critics (not opinion pieces by conservative hacks) and provide the evidence here. .. dave souza, talk 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When all we had was a few interviews with the producers and some Christian articles about it, it was more positive. Nevertheless, even then, a few months ago, people complained that it was negative. Now the reviews are out, and many mainstream reviews are negative. Are we supposed to ignore those? Ignore the mainstream? That is against WP:NPOV. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone catch Ben Stein on Trinity Broadcasting Network today?

I watched most of it. I have been on the TBN website to see if it's available or if there's a transcipt and I can't even see where they show the interview was shown today. I did notice on the www.creationevidence.org site says Expelled "spells out the academic issues that Creation scientists are facing" Nice that people like Ben Stein and the other creationists are being open that ID is about god and creationism and don't use the common tricks to suggest otherwise that the DI does. Anyone, did anyone else see Ben on TBN today? Angry Christian (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found it, I must have seen a rerun from yesterday (21st). Look for Paul Crouch Jr Hosts Ben Stein here. It is an interview that also includes clips from the film. Angry Christian (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So what does this have to do with the article?--BirdKr (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein. The TBN episode that I linked to is an interview that is conducted with Ben Stein. The subject of the interview is the movie that Ben Stein stars in and is promoting which is also the subject of this article. Placing this link and info will help other editors who may not have known it existed to see and hear it and decide if they think any of the material should be included in the article. Make sense?. Angry Christian (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a long interview with Stein about the movie. Stein makes some incredible statements (1) one of the scientists expelled lost his life because he was expelled for believing in ID (2) science is all about killing people. Wow.--Filll (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it does. The section title and your initial first comment seemed to make this section as something of a forum than a notice that could be an interest to the article. --BirdKr (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh I get it. Yes the first comment by me was an inquiry to see if anyone else had seen it and also if they had located a copy to or transcript of, and also noted the queer information I saw at the creationist site. Since they have up until now always pretended ID weas not creationism it's fascinating to see them come clean now that this movie have been released. Angry Christian (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm watching this interleaved with Climbing Mount Improbable, and it is very instructive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
More apropos to the discussion about "atheistic science", at least in the interview, Stein makes the explicit claim (well, qualified with "it's just my opinion") that "science leads you to killing people"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make a comment about this TBN interview. This gives a good example of how demonstrably dishonest Ben Stein is which makes our job as Wiki editors very difficult. How do you write about someone who's lying to the audience and do it in a NPOV manner without perpetuating the dishonesty in the article. For example Ben claims believing in or even mentioning god will get a scientist in trouble (that is not a but a summary). Well if you listen to the Mathis article he says they ignored one of the most well known Christian biologists in North America like Ken Miller because it would "confuse the audience". So Ben is clearly lying. They ignored all thge evidence that did not support their conspiracy/persecution theory. Note the Templeton Foundation pretty much only funds religious related scientific research, and they used to fund some ID research until they realized there is no ID research and ID is a political movement and Ben Stein did not mention that organization in his film. I'm not even going into the alleged victims, I'm simply poiting out the lies told by Stein to this fundamentalist audience regarding what belief in god will do to your science carreer. My point in bringing this up is to give an example of the challenge we're up against trying to write an article about a film that is profoundly dishonest. This is not easy work. Angry Christian (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just watched it again, some of the things Stein said that I found noteworthy:

On his reasons for doing the film "I also started reading more about a subject that had long interested me the uh connection of Darwinism with Nazism and this fact that uh Nazism had rested in large part on the idea of Darwinism that there are superior and inferior races and the superior ones deserved to live and they should stamp out the inferior ones"

Yet few minutes later he goes on, "Darwin was a reasonable man, he was not a crazy person" This makes me wonder about Stein's grasp of what he's even saying. How can you say Darwin is "reasonable and not crazy when you just gave him credit for the belief "there are superior and inferior races and the superior ones deserved to live and they should stamp out the inferior ones"

Later, after showing a handful of ID "victims" f persecuted by science Ben says "It's not just the scientists who are in on it. The media is in on it, the courts, the educational system, everyone is after them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after these guys are asking some pretty dangerous questions. [the film then pans to Nazi concentration camps] Suggesting Darwinsim is not only improbable it might actually be dangerous."

Freaking weird. I understand why reviwers are saying he makes Michael Moore look fair and balanced. Angry Christian (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And oh, what does this have to do with the article? EVERYTHING, it is Ben Stein in Ben Stein's own words. I'm just too tired to include any myself at the moment. Angry Christian (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Couple of other things,

"Once this one's done we're going to work on other subjects" Expelled II? Stein says he thinks PZ Myers is an opponent of free speech PZ was tossed out of the screening because "he was not on the guest list". Here's one thing he gets right "Teach what the evidence take you to, the evidence does not take you to Darwinism-About the foundations of life, Darwin just had nothing to say about that" Yup, Darwin made no claims about the origin of life yet Ben acts as if he just discovered some secret kept amongst a cabal of evil conspirators. Angry Christian (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And Ben Stein's reason for doing the film most definetly belongs in the article (in my opinion), I have been wondering that and I'm sure it would be of interest to our readers. Not sure where to put it Angry Christian (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference FOX was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
    "Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't
    Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  3. ^ "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed". Retrieved 2008-04-03.[unreliable source?]
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference sciam-rennie was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference oreilly was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference idnotCreationism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference nyt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference pressrelease was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Timonen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ At the 2005 Kizmiller trial it was decided on the basis of expert testimony and the testimony of leading intelligent design proponents that An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism. The judgement concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
  11. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005). p. 64
  12. ^ In her article about the film for the New York Times, environmental journalist Cornelia Dean describes intelligent design as "an ideological cousin of creationism" and later as a "creationist idea".
  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 2007-08-06 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link).
  14. ^ "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Kitzmiller conclusion, page 43
  15. ^ ) and "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." Kitzmiller conclusion, page 137
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/Archive_4&oldid=1190118657"