Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Moore vs Stein

Compare the article on Michael Moore's Sicko to this one, and the POV in this article is clear. Every other sentence in this article is either a quote of somebody's negative reaction to the film or a strong implication that the film is invalid and or incorrect. From what I have seen, none of the articles on Moore's films is categorized under Propaganda, but this article is. NPOV my eye! Logophile (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not cookie-cutter. And Sicko is no more the archetype of a Wikipedia article than is this one. In addition, of course, Sicko, while it has its flaws, is nothing like this movie - Moore is a competent film maker. Moore's films are anything but boring. Moore gets at real, not imaginary controversies. And Moore's movies aren't universally panned. Comparing Expelled with Sicko isn't an "apples to apples" comparison - it's an "apples to unidentifiable-crud-in-the-tyre-ruts-in-the-orchard" comparison. Guettarda (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What about America: Freedom to Fascism, What the Bleep Do We Know?, or Priest. The last wasn't a documentary, and got moderately positive reviews, but caused controversy and had several noteworthy negative reviews. A difference is this film is recent and targets mainstream biology. Quality isn't the only issue here, maybe not even an issue. A poor quality propaganda film against Keynesian economics or organ donation would not get this kind of excessive negative attention. Especially if it was made before Wikipedia existed.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This kind of argument has been made several times earlier, and several times it has been explained that the level and variety of criticism of this movie are several times greater than of those other movies, so that's why attempting to compare them fails. Please see the Consistency with other articles, one last time section above for the most recent version of this discussion. -- Hi Ev 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons with other articles was shown to be unfounded. Logophile, if you still feel this article is biased, you can work with Mackan79 and Angry Christian and the others to tweak minor wording issues. But you have to admit that FeloniousMonk is most probably correct that this article may even be giving too much voice to pro-ID reviews: WP reflects the world, and that's that.

On the other hand, I hope it is at least clear to all participants, that this not what many people are disputing, rather, the question is whether Wikipedia can avoid giving the appearance of bias in its wording. There's a difference. --Merzul (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, as long as some people aren't aware of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:FRINGE they will expect equal (or better) representation in the article, instead of an amount of representation more in line with how it is represented in the real world. The best we can do is inform them that there is overwhelming criticism, show it to them, and hope they will understand the necessity. (Must... fight... urge... to soapbox!) -- Hi Ev 08:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with that is, who determines what the mainstream view of the film is? What we can find on the internet? Just by general consensus we know factually that over half the unites states subscribes to Christianity alone, but because we cant find their reviews on the internet mainstream criticism tells us the movie is bad? Thats where I see the validity in the posters comment. Joe3472 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's 70% and who gives a fuck? Jim62sch^dissera! 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, WP:UNDUE relates to expert opinion, not figures plucked out of the air or dodgy opinion polls on what % are Christians, what % subsribe to the intelligent design heresy and so forth. Rotten Tomatoes gives an overview of what film critics are saying, currently 91% think it's "rotten", of the three giving it a "fresh" two have considerable reservations, and 100% of their "top critics" consider it "rotten". RT give their "Consensus" as "A cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary. Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." That's just opinions of it as a movie. Scientific American, New Scientist and the NCSE give detailed analysis of it from an expert scientific / science educational viewpoint. Verification is needed of any other expert opinion you feel we should take into account. .. dave souza, talk 20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>It might be nice to have an uncritical article. However, with NPOV, you will not find that article here probably. However, you are welcome to consider Conservapedia and similar sites.--Filll (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias, a few observations, and inaccuracies?

Off topic for an article talkpage, that is meant to be for discussing the article, not the purported bias of a fact-based NPOV article. Move along there's nothing worth reading here. Read WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP. Further off-topic discussion of this topic will likewise be deleted.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't edit wiki much so excuse me if I am violating any rules or stepping out of bounds.

It seems that this article just has a generally bias view against the film and creation and intelligent design altogether. Every other statement is backed with a reference by a glaring blogpost/article/podcast from an evolutionist organization or atheist community website. Here are just a couple I found after only minutes of glancing.

1. For example under the Reaction section:

"In contrast, IMDB wrote that the film "flopped", and "failed to bring out church groups in big numbers"

with this link as a reference: http://us.imdb.com/news/sb/2008-04-21/

However upon reviewing the link and the content posted, I found out that IMDB has nothing to say about the film being a flop, and the link posted is the opinion of an independent critic in one of their studio breifing. This is misleading because IMDB represents a large number of well respected critics/movie viewers. in fact there was about a total of one sentence posted about the film in a general statement:

"while the Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which argued on behalf of "intelligent design" -- that is, the biblical view of creation -- failed to bring out church groups in big numbers and settled for just $3.1 million to wind up in ninth place"

As well as this disclaimer at the bottom:

"The Internet Movie Database takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the articles above. Studio Briefing is edited by Lew Irwin and articles are the copyright of StudioBriefing."

And

"The WENN items do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that WENN's reporting is completely factual. Please address any complaints regarding the content of WENN to imdb@wenn.com."

which I interpret as saying that what is posted is not the collective stance of IMDB on anything written and is instead the personal views of Lew Irwin/Studio Briefing/WENN.

"Two other newcomers flopped." (My emphasis added.)

~~For my sake you're welcome to change the attribution from IMDB to WENN or Lew Irwin.~~ --RenniePet (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the attribution. --RenniePet (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2. In the Christian media and Science media sections:

It looks like the Science media section is oversaturated with opinions from people who were in the film as well as numerous scientific organizations, while the Christian media section is undersaturated with views from only a few positive Christian organizations and not many of the neutral or pro-id organizations, scientists or interviewees in the film. Individual scientists are posted in the science media section, while scientists who were pro-id in the film's quotes/blog posts aren't even mentioned. If we need blogposts/podcasts/articles from pro-id or neutral organizations, I would be more than happy to provide links and references. While some of the scientists and interviewees who were neutral or pro-id in the film are not christian, there quotes/podcasts/blogposts should be included in this section because alot of them did post personal opinion and reviews about the film after it was released citing something positive.

3. The "Expelled Challenge"

I didn't see a single quote Expelled website, merely several links to the same page/pages. I see 2 references and quotes with criticisms from an independent reviewer. This section should be informational only, and if necessary have a section about criticism where we can include what some people think of the challenge and if there expirience participating in it was a positive one. If we decide to keep it as it is, at least throw in some quotes/references from schools/organizations who chose to complete the challenge or have something positive to say about it.

"Elsberry criticizes this as a call to "take children away from classrooms, fill their heads with obnoxiously delivered misinformation, and profit off of it."

Should be removed because the challenge offers several ways to participate in the viewing/fundraising for your school without coordinating a mandatory field trip for the school or group as seen in the faq here: http://www.getexpelled.com/challengefaq.php

And by this quote: "Absolutely! You can simply ask your school families to bring back the ticket stubs (similar to the way the General Mills “Box Tops for Education” program works). You can then turn those ticket stubs into Ground Force Network, PO Box 1055, Rockwall, TX 75087 and your school will receive credit for the number of ticket stubs you turn in!"

As well as: "Absolutely not! The more stubs you submit, the more of a donation you are eligible to receive, but any number of stubs can be submitted and if funds are available, all who register through the site could receive a donation."

Which means that as long as you submit 1 ticket stub in the name of your school you could receive a donation. This surely isn't some selfish money hoarding effort by the makers of the film.

Anyway, I found things like this within 3 minutes of viewing the article. This just begs the question how many more references/statements are like this that maintain a negative standpoint or are not verifiable? Thanks.76.205.142.34 (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Briefly: as far as number three goes, we're quoting Ellsbury. If you disagree with him fine but irrelevant. Jim62sch^dissera! 10:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you're welcome to contribute and right to bring up helpful detailed comments here, as you have done. The first point about IMDB is good, and the article has been changed to refer to the individual reviewer rather than IMDB as a whole. Your feeling about bias presumably arises because the vast majority of sources give this film very bad reviews, and credible scientific and science education sources present detailed refutations of claims made in the film. Indeed, at Funmurphys, Carl Drews who represents himself as an Anglican Christian blogger has seen the film and complains about the POV of this article – as being too kind to the film and understating how bad it is. Wikipedia is biased against pseudoscience, with relevant policies including NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" requiring us to give credence to the verified majority view and show how pseudoscientific ideas have been received by scientists. Creationism need not conflict with science, but where it does and claims scientific credibility that has to be shown in context. A problem with citing the Expelled website is that they keep changing it without access to archived versions, so we've had to find other sources citing it. We also have to take care to avoid WP:Original research in using such a primary source. .. dave souza, talk 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He is a guy criticizing a movie. Wikipedia isn't going to treat Highlander II: The Quickening the way an average person, like me, would. Nor should it. This doesn't mean that film is being treated "too positively", it just means different things are appropriate for a reviewer and a reference site. On the whole this film has been treated about as negatively as Wikipedia can possibly allow. Other films currently out with worse critical response include Prom Night, 88 Minutes, 10,000 B.C. (film), and Shutter. Among the List of films considered the worst there's relatively few that have this level of negative reaction in their article. There's also relatively few that have this long of an article. Ideally I think this should be a much smaller article that has a link at the end to Creation-evolution controversy and Intelligent Design. It's not really necessary to drill into people over and over that this film is bad. At present the excessive amount of quotes and reactions does that. The bare facts should speak for themselves on that and people should be allowed to reach their own conclusion.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's really no comparison. Did any of those other bad films:

directly copy other films and get issued a cease-and-desist for it?
deliberately mislead people about the nature of the film to trick them into taking part in those films?
get sued for using unlicensed music or get the rights to music under false pretenses?
claim to tell the truth about people, but make gross errors of fact about those people to prove a point?
film people and edit their words to take them out of context?
lay the blame of the Holocaust on a group of people unrelated to the event due to clearly stated religious motivations?
kick out someone from a pre-screening of the film who was actually in the film?
accuse a shadowy cabal of censorship and blackballing people simply for their beliefs?

This film has done all of those things, and I'm still leaving out a number of other criticism. The film isn't just "bad", it has a wide variety and number of valid criticisms even if you ignore whether it was entertaining or not. With all of these criticisms is it really any wonder why the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article is practically in a league of its own when it comes to the number of criticism of any film in Wikipedia? -- Hi Ev 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Many films have had legal problems. The Beach, Borat, The Lion King, etc. The Conqueror has been blamed for giving some of the actors cancer. (Granted it has a "neutrality" tag on it) The Birth of a Nation is blamed for the rise of the KKK in some places. Actual films by Nazis, even "The Eternal Jew" do not get enormous amounts of quotes and denunciation sections. So a film comparing biologists to Nazis is worse than an actual Nazi film which encouraged the Holocaust? Still the statement "is it really any wonder why the article is practically in a league of its own when it comes to the number of criticism of any film in Wikipedia?" makes some sense. I mean knowing what Wikipedia is and what demographic has disproportionate importance, no it's not any wonder at all.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Drews didn't say it's too kind, just that the "scholarly" approach implies more theory behind the film than there really is. This may be consistent with the fact that by providing our original analysis on the ID controversy we're actually doing a disservice. Of course general statements about "too harsh" or "too kind" are generally beside the point. Mackan79 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont so much mind the reviews, a community with little active neutral/religious parties is obviously not going to have a balanced stance on a film. And even though most of those reviews are a paragraph or less and written by what look like mostly children, those really aren't my problem. My issue is that Wikipedia is suppose to be looking upon everything with a neutral stance, so I ask, why when I click on a link to find more information about a fact, am I greeted with statements like "Intelligent Design is a wildfire that needs to be extinguished" I mean I understand a review that looks upon a film harshly, but for example heres another one I found that carries no merit:

Claims that film producers misled interviewees reference 77 is a link to this article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=3

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including Myers, Dawkins,[76] Shermer,[77] and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott

But the article that they use as a reference was not written by the interviewees, its just a list of reasons that only 3 really have any effect on the actual film. The other 2 are just observations/assumptions. If you linked directly to Dawkins/Shermer/Eugeneie's blog or podcast or even their official website it wouldn't be a problem. But thats a completely bias article that is being used as a real reference for a fact.

And again in

People presented in the film I don't understand why the scientists who were pro-id in the film or had a neutral stance are being explained off instead of being presented as they were in the film. For example, in Guillermo Gonzalez description it says: "After the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty),[59] he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure.[60] The Expelled roadshow portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the Discovery Institute campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review. However, Gonzales listed The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure review file. Dr. Gregory Tinkler of Iowa Citizens for Science stated that "Being a religious scientist is perfectly normal and acceptable, but scientists are supposed to be able to separate science from non-science, and good research from bad. Academic freedom protects a scientist's ability to do science, not to pass off a political or religious crusade as science."[61][62]"

Why in gods name would Wiki be telling me why he was disqualified for tenure on a general description of his role in the film? Or how he didnt meet the expectations of the school or staff. These things should not be listed here from a neutral standpoint. The entire article is full of things like these. Why when we go to Micheal Shermers profile/description, we get quotes from his personal blog and e-mail? What makes Shermer different from Gonzalez? Why is Shermer a bigger victim than Gonzalez? These are things that should not be included in the wiki.

And this:

"After the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty),[59]"

The reference for this once comes from a newspaper called the higher chronicle it seems, (which you need to pay to view, which is absolutely ridiculous if you are using it as a reference) and the link to the higher chronicle reveals no way to view the information: http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm

And these are just more than ive caught from skimming, the article is full of this. And for a wikipedia article I am extremely disappointed. I mean come on, how can it be this bad and not be completely re-written? 76.205.142.34 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately there is a lot you wrote that indicates a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what its principles are.

I dont so much mind the reviews, a community with little active neutral/religious parties is obviously not going to have a balanced stance on a film.

What ever that means.

And even though most of those reviews are a paragraph or less and written by what look like mostly children, those really aren't my problem.

Not at all unbiased, are we?

My issue is that Wikipedia is suppose to be looking upon everything with a neutral stance,

Who told you that? Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV which of course is NOT neutral. Get it?

so I ask, why when I click on a link to find more information about a fact, am I greeted with statements like "Intelligent Design is a wildfire that needs to be extinguished"

These are reviews. They are not Wikipedia. Or do you have trouble in telling the difference? Do you realize that the mainstream media by and large does not like this movie? You are free to go to Conservapedia for their version however.

I mean I understand a review that looks upon a film harshly, but for example heres another one I found that carries no merit: Claims that film producers misled interviewees reference 77 is a link to this article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=3

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including Myers, Dawkins,[76] Shermer,[77] and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott

But the article that they use as a reference was not written by the interviewees, its just a list of reasons that only 3 really have any effect on the actual film. The other 2 are just observations/assumptions. If you linked directly to Dawkins/Shermer/Eugeneie's blog or podcast or even their official website it wouldn't be a problem.

That is a Scientific American article. Wikipedia favors secondary and tertiary sources over blogs of Dawkins and Shermer and Scott, although they are used sometimes.

But thats a completely bias article that is being used as a real reference for a fact.

Sorry that is completely incoherent.

And again in People presented in the film I don't understand why the scientists who were pro-id in the film or had a neutral stance are being explained off instead of being presented as they were in the film.

By NPOV, we do not just present everything in an uncritical light. We present it according to the mainstream view. And the mainstream view here is mainstream science. So....

For example, in Guillermo Gonzalez description it says:

"After the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty),[59] he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure.[60] The Expelled roadshow portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the Discovery Institute campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review. However, Gonzales listed The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure review file. Dr. Gregory Tinkler of Iowa Citizens for Science stated that "Being a religious scientist is perfectly normal and acceptable, but scientists are supposed to be able to separate science from non-science, and good research from bad. Academic freedom protects a scientist's ability to do science, not to pass off a political or religious crusade as science."[61][62]"

Why in gods name would Wiki be telling me why he was disqualified for tenure on a general description of his role in the film? Or how he didnt meet the expectations of the school or staff. These things should not be listed here from a neutral standpoint. The entire article is full of things like these.

Huh? This again is completely incoherent. You were given background that did not come from the film. Again, Wikipedia is decidedly not neutral. Whoever told you it was?

Why when we go to Micheal Shermers profile/description, we get quotes from his personal blog and e-mail? What makes Shermer different from Gonzalez? Why is Shermer a bigger victim than Gonzalez? These are things that should not be included in the wiki.

Where is his email? Shermer's personal website is included, as it is for many celebrities. But so is Guillermo Gonzalez's website. And I am sure his email is there too. So what?

And this:

"After the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty),[59]"

The reference for this once comes from a newspaper called the higher chronicle it seems, (which you need to pay to view, which is absolutely ridiculous if you are using it as a reference) and the link to the higher chronicle reveals no way to view the information:

http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm

For readers who have access or who are willing to pay, they can go there. If you do not want to pay, you do not have to. After all, are you paying for Wikipedia?

And these are just more than ive caught from skimming, the article is full of this. And for a wikipedia article I am extremely disappointed. I mean come on, how can it be this bad and not be completely re-written? 76.205.142.34 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, you did not pay for this. And you misunderstand Wikipedia. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT NEUTRAL. Try to get that through your head ok?--Filll (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, 76.205.142.34, and thank you for joining this discussion. Your criticisms of this article are well-founded. I recommend that you take a moment to create a login ID, so that there is some continuity when you edit from varying IPs. Also, drop me an email for a few newcomer tips about pitfalls to avoid around here. Please mention in your email that you are "76.205.142.34". Regards, NCdave (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a "hard" reference for Gonzalez's publications. He's only had 12 since joining Iowa State in 2001, and is first author on only three. Some of those were probably actually done up before he went there and took some time to actually come out in print. For comparison, pre-tenure professors are typically expected to have 4-6 per year. And yes, you need a subscription to access the ISI database too; that's why they're more reliable references than Wikipedia, because people spend money on them to make sure they're right, and that needs to be paid for. KarlM (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will definitely consider making an account. Thanks :).

I looked at the link about NPOV you gave me and I am surprised. The article did not contain the words mainstream, science, or popular. This was also interesting:

"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.[1]"

So my point as it has been from the beginning was that its no secret that one side of the argument is getting more attention here. In my last post about why Micheal Shermers description gets personal quotes from his blog, and analysis from an independent reviewer, while people like Gonzalez and Michael Egnor gets a very quick description followed up by why they were in the film and how their standpoint isn't viewed as positive from the "mainstream" scientific community.

Not to mention the second reference in the first sentence of Gonzalez description is blocking me from viewing the content: http://sub3.isiknowledge.com/error/Error?Domain=isiknowledge.com&Params=%26Error%3DClient.NullSessionID&Error=IPError&Src=IP&PathInfo=%2F&RouterURL=http%3A%2F%2Fisiknowledge.com%2F&IP=76.205.142.34

Why are paid sources being listed as references? Shouldn't the information be a matter of public opinion if it truly represents the mainstream view? Thats like me telling everyone I have the magic bullet evidence that will disprove evolution, but its in a vault at the bank...and you need to subscribe to me to ever have a chance of viewing.....only 4.95 a month.

Im just going to ignore anything that would get me off on a rant and turn this into a forum, and post about what looks wrong and why.

"That is a Scientific American article. Wikipedia favors secondary and tertiary sources over blogs of Dawkins and Shermer and Scott, although they are used sometimes. Sorry that is completely incoherent."

It looks to me more like a blog stunt in an attempt to get diggs, it doesn't cite factual evidence, and does not cite sources.: http://digg.com/search?s=That+Ben+Stein+Doesn%27t+Want+You+to+Know&submit=Search&section=all&type=both&area=promoted&sort=score

"Huh? This again is completely incoherent. You were given background that did not come from the film. Again, Wikipedia is decidedly not neutral. Whoever told you it was?"

My point being, in the film Gonzalez description should not be damning. Tell us who he is, what he was doing in the film, and leave it at that. If I wanted resources about his tenure, I'll go to his personal website, or Ill google it.

"Where is his email? Shermer's personal website is included, as it is for many celebrities. But so is Guillermo Gonzalez's website. And I am sure his email is there too. So what?"

Shermer has personal quotes that describe his personal feeling on a particular events, even if you wanted to put that up it does not conform to even your specifications of NPOV. How can mainstream understanding be summed up from 2 quotes on Michaels personal blog? Even if that is allowed, why arent quotes from the other scientists who happened to be pro-id in the film not included?

Just to sum all of what im seeing, look at the references at the bottom of the page. Of 203 references, roughly 20 are from the Expelled official website, or a christian/neutral/pro-id organization. The rest are movie reviews, links to personal blogs of either dawkins, shermer, pz meyers, or Eugenie scott, science american, an atheistic community website/forum, the NCSE, independence reviewers, NCTA, and wow...I even found a couple to Expelled-Exposed.com. I mean thats the pits for me. It just seems overwhelming, that a standpoint that accurately represents the views in the movie has not been reached.76.205.142.34 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you want us to write an advert? Jim62sch^dissera! 09:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie review from a very noteworthy source

Lauri Lebo was a reporter who sat in on the entire Kitzmiller testimony and covered it for one of the local papers. She's one of the people interviewed in the NOVA special Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial and wrote the book The Devil In Dover. She has written a review Intelligent Design Propaganda Is Coming to a Theater Near You that's well worth reading.

By saying it is well worth reading I am saying it is well worth discussing what could/should be incorporated into the article (if anything at all). Lebo is a well known figure in the Kitmiller/ID history. That is not soapboxing as the anon-ip suggested. Angry Christian (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are the anti-Moore diatribes and the reviews of Fahrenheit_9/11? Why is one movie treated fairly, while this article exists only to dismantle the Party's perception's of Stein's thesis. This is article is an example of why people don't trust this website as a resource. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to go to Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it's quite rare for two articles to be written and watched over by the very same editors. Second, in no way is Wikipedia to be used as a reliable source (Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to use other Wikipedia articles as source either), so people who are "citing Wikipedia" as a rigorous proof/verification are making a mistake. Third, like Filll said, if you do not like the nature of Wikipedia and how it operates, go to Conservapedia where it writes hilarious articles and content that might be in line with your beliefs. --BirdKr (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So now we're essentially at "Love it or Leave it." I've tried that. Leaving it isn't going to do anything about Google preferencing it as a source of information on everything from Albania to Zanzibar or the media actually uses this place. This shouldn't be happening, but it is.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the article, and this talk page ever since watching the movie, and in my opinion there have been plenty of good faith efforts to improve the article. It is in such a state of flux that it will probably be a mess for a while. My last reading of the article did not give the same impression as my first reading a week ago - namely that the beginning of the article was nothing but an over-the-top rant. I think someone was trying to incorporate every outrageous negative comment they could find into one sentence.DrHenley (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it's quite rare for two articles to be written and watched over by the very same editors. OK. so figure out the probability and get back to us. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I said that in the wrong way. I meant to say one shouldn't assume the editors of one article are the same to another article. That said, you did entice my curiosity on the challenge to find the probability. Will you accept multiple variables? :D --BirdKr (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the variables are logically sound. Jim62sch^dissera! 09:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page templates

I've undone this edit by Hrafn, which changed the template on this talk page from {{Off topic warning}} to {{notaforum}}.

The instructions for the {{notaforum}} template say: "This template is only for talk pages that have received large amounts of chatter unrelated to the improvement of the article." This talk page does not qualify. It gets lots of chatter, but the chatter is almost all related to the article. So I've changed the template back. NCdave (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, nc, are you capable of stopping yourself from quote mining? The instructions say, 'This template is only for talk pages that have received large amounts of chatter unrelated to the improvement of the article or other such off topic spam." So it's perfectly suitable, and emphasises the point that chatter unrelated to 'improving the article will be removed, whether it's related to the subject of the article or not. Hope you don't find this too inconvenient. .. dave souza, talk 20:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Quote mining??" The only thing I left off was the part about "spam." You think there is spam on this Talk page? Seriously?

I left the "spam" clause out of the quote because I thought it obviously irrelevant. I linked to the whole thing, so that everyone could read it for themselves. Why don't you assume good faith instead of reflexively insulting me again, Dave?

This Talk page gets a lot of chatter, but the vast majority of it is related to the problems with the article. That means the {{notaforum}} tag does not belong on this Talk page. NCdave (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I've commented here multiple times about chatter being off-topic. Numerous people here have soapboxed their opinion about bias in Wikipedia in general, discussed what ID/creationism advocates other than the movie or it's creators have said about ID/creationism, commented on the validity or invalidity of evolution or ID/creationism, started sections merely to quote or link to various articles, etc... I really would like it if more people would focus on improving the article, and the {{notaforum}} tag may help. -- Hi Ev 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dave, most if not all topics on this article are solely dedicated to improving it. Joe3472 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most sections start out topic, but some (such as this one, this one, or this one) do not, plus some sections rapidly slide into various off-topic debates (like this one or this one). And those aren't all of the examples. Two sections above are now marked as being off-topic as well. Perhaps you've missed it, but if you look for it you can't say it's not happening. I don't see how the tag harms anything, and I think it would help remind us all to stay on topic here. -- Hi Ev 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

I guess I shouldn't have added the template without discussion, but this article is over 100 KB. Although I don't believe in ID I grant I've been on "the wrong side" of this debate. Still no matter what side I've been on this article is a behemoth. There are longer articles, like Manhattan, that don't have such a warning but others of about this length do. So there's not much of a guide on when it's appropriate. Take the fact I'm a jerk to one side, is there legitimate reasons to think this is too long?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that this talk page is around 428 KB so it might be time to consider another talk archive.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This article is waaaaaaaay too long. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the longest articles on the site. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When I last checked it was 132nd longest. It's longer than The Holocaust, but shorter than United States housing bubble. However it might be the longest article on a movie I've found. The longest movie-related article is List of Tamil-language films, but that's a list and not about a specific film. See Special:Longpages for where this fits. Although Intelligent design is also a very long article, but at least that's on the entire subject and not one example.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the featured articles in Special:Longpages Belgium, Ming Dynasty, Józef Piłsudski, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt. and Harry S. Truman are all a good deal shorter.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It was like in the early days of the Evolution article. People get heated up whenever evolution is questioned, and this movie has done the trick once again. :) --Jimbabwean (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is having a well-detailed, long article a bad thing? Paper45tee (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LENGTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is well written and very well referenced, but the length is excessive. Christmas is an international holiday observed by millions, with a rich and varied history that goes back thousands of years....and that article is half this size, but was once an FA. I'm sure some of the length could be trimmed without sacrificing quality. Doc Tropics 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The section General media seems to be lengthier than necessary, perhaps that would be a good place to start trimming? Doc Tropics 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good place to start. We should also work on some of the POv in the article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Split to a Media responce to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that way we keep all the sourced info and cut the length of this page. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with hypnosadist on this one, provided we also add content about the positive reviews the movie got. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off a Media responce to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article would allow for moving all 3 sections, General/Christian/Scientific. This article could provide a link and perhaps one brief example from each. I'm normally wary of splitting but it seems potentially useful in this case. Doc Tropics 04:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick look shows there are lots of opportunities to trim. The "Reaction" section is a good 5x longer than necessary. There's no need to include every comment ever made on the film -- limit it to notable and/or representative reviews. The legal stuff goes into way too much detail. And so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd favour that. One of the reasons that I started that lead-in paragraph to Reaction was so that we could dump the reviews in favour of a summary of the response, like we have on other movie articles. Sockatume (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the basis that WP:SUMMARY is used to split the detail into a sub-article, and the most significant points are integrated into other sections where they form appropriate references. The same could be done for the Screenings section, which is really about Pre-release screenings and should be retitled accordingly.. I'll just do that now. . dave souza, talk 09:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree however I want to caution that trying to fix the POV while you move stuff (as someone suggested) could result in the move/split/fork efforts coming to a grinding hault as new disputes could bloom from this two-pronged approach. I'd suggest the folks moving contect focus on the move and not the content. Look at the content after the move. Keep in mind I know nothing about moving/splitting/forking Angry Christian (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Split it up. Leave the core article to summarize the movie, and split off articles about areas of controversy that it has generated. Plazak (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage length, Miszabot?

There are sections above that under my understanding of the current bot configuration should have been archived. Also, sections are archived, but not removed from this page. --Merzul (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not planning to do anything drastic myself, but I've asked the operator, if maybe manual archiving could help the bot to operate properly again. --Merzul (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is 450 Kb long. So something is broken?--Filll (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Things get archived, but remain on this page, e.g., archive but still here. Don't know what is broken, could be too much traffic for the bot. Merzul (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

i.e., not e.g. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the already-archived sections (less one which just got an added comment).

—WWoods (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

amateurish "Lord Privy Seal" technique

First of all it comes from a poor source for film technique, second it is UK-centric. If a better source and description could be found for the film that would be nice. Rds865 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of The film opens with images of the Berlin Wall, and repeatedly uses what Richard Dawkins describes as the amateurish "Lord Privy Seal" technique of illustrating every point with images, including a guillotine, fist fights, and above all Nazi gas chambers and concentration camps[54], it should probably just say The film opens with images of the Berlin Wall, and repeatedly illustrates every point with images such as a guillotine, fist fights, and- above all- Nazi gas chambers and concentration camps.[54] Richard Dawkins has described this technique as "amateurish".[54] The rewording would be less Brit-centric and better grammatically. The Squicks (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an odd habit on Wikipedia to quote some obscure term Dawkins uses (in this case, a reference to a British filmmaking joke), then leave out his, or any other, explanation of the term's meaning. That just doesn't work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink it. From Lord Privy Seal:

The term "Lord Privy Seal" (as in "not bad, but it's a bit Lord Privy Seal") is used in the British television industry as shorthand for associating pictures too closely and literally with every element of the accompanying spoken script. The origin is a TV comedy sketch in The Frost Report taking the practice to an extreme, which backed a "news report" mention of the Lord Privy Seal with images, in quick succession, of a lord, an outdoor toilet, and a seal balancing a ball on its nose.

--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

YEs, because everyone will of course click on it and read past a couple irrelevant paragraphs until they find the one we intend buried at the bottom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I strongly object to taking it out. Its a useful metaphor. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's staying in, it needs to be explained. That's pretty much the long and short of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Its only in the third para of the linked article, you know, thats not too bad. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If there was some hint that it would be dealt with in the third paragraph, yes. But there isn't, and, frankly, you have a much higher opinion of the average person's tenacity in the face of what appears to be an article on a completely different topic if you think most of them will get that far. Particularly as, phrased another way, it's the last paragraph of the article. If you seriously expect people to use a wikilink for clarification, then Lord Privy Seal (filmmaking) had best be created and consist of the third paragraph alone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The same technique is noted (less colourfully) by various reviewers – Variety says "First-time director Nathan Frankowski strikes a relentlessly jokey tone throughout, using black-and-white film clips as comic punctuation (after news of a professor's axing, pic cuts to a shot of a guillotine). In addition to being just plain irritating, this jittery style seems to reinforce the perception of the pic's target audience as a bunch of intellectual lightweights.", the NYT says "Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor.". The Variety reference[V] could be used as follows –

The film opens with images of the Berlin Wall, and repeatedly illustrates every point with images such as a guillotine, fist fights, and- above all- Nazi gas chambers and concentration camps.[54][V] This jittery style[V] is called amateurish by Dawkins, who uses the British film industry term "Lord Privy Seal".[54]

dave souza, talk 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which doesn't address my criticism at all, indeed, makes it worse. "British film industry term" adds NOTHING to comprehension, but does belittle the reader for not knowing the term. The phrase 'who uses the term "Lord Privy Seal".' is a pretty awkward attempt to shoehorn the term in. The phrase 'who uses the British film industry term "Lord Privy Seal".' compounds the shoehorning. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shoemaker. Maybe it would be better to scrap the Dawkins quote entirely and use Variety's words instead, which would be much clearer to the reader. The Squicks (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "amateurish", this is a violation of the Avoid_weasel_words policy. It also violates NPOV, Richard Dawkins is not an expert on film or film techniques, so the comment should be erased altogether, but I'm too tired to get into that debate... right now.Supertheman (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of the views of top rated film critics, Dawkins' view is more expert than the film producers. It's clearly stated as his view, and the Lord Privy Seal#Television industry term term vividly sets out the basis for his view. I've added a subheading to that article to make the film reference easier to reach, if preferred the film reference can be split into a new article. .. dave souza, talk 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

if preferred the film reference can be split into a new article I think that it should, since the rest of the article is completely unrelated to the film technique.

On the basis of the views of top rated film critics, Dawkins' view is more expert than the film producers. I'm not following. Dawkins knows far more about evolution science (and science in general) than Ben Stein. But Dawkins knows little about filmaking processes. Having Dawkins judge specific camera angles, sound cues, etc on the film is like having Francis Collins judge the artistic merit of a painting of a DNA strand. Yes, their opinions are valid and quotable, but the opinion of a movie reviewer is more notable. The Squicks (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I'd rather include a quote from Variety. The Squicks (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this edit, it gives the Variety description, then Dawkins' opinion which presumably reflects the fact that he's worked on a number of professional documentary programmes. The Dawkins cite is also appropriate for listing a wider range of cutaway subjects, Variety concentrates on the guillotine. .. dave souza, talk 19:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

MSM and Opinions of Most Scientists as Reflected in Intro

The following sentence in the intro is problematic.

While a number of conservative and Christian media outlets have given the film favorable reviews, the general media response has been largely unfavorable, and the science community's response has been unanimously negative, asserting that the film is propaganda.

(1) It includes overly broad generalizations that are not cited to any objective source. (2) The reactions of mainstream media and science media should be separated into different sentences. (3) Just as one should avoid the term "always" in reference to the beliefs of people in groups, one should avoid the term "unanimous." I'd suggest the following.

While a number of conservative and Christian media outlets have given the film favorable reviews, reviews in the mainstream media have been largely unfavorable. The reactions of most scientists as reported both in mainstream media and science media appear to be mostly negative. Many have described the film is propaganda.

My suggested change reflects the same summary of the evidence (though I am still uncertain whether or not such a summary is appropriate, since it would seem to constitute drawing a conclusion which we shouldn't do), but it does so in a less exaggerated, and therefore more netural fashion.--GodBlessYou55 (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but there's been no evidence of any favourable mentions in scientific publications. A more appropriate statement could be "Approximately 90% of film reviews have been negative, though the film has been given favorable mantions by conservative Christian media and conservative commentators. Scientific publications have described it as misleading propaganda, and the National Center for Science Education has prepared a resource providing detailed examination of claims made in the film." Reviews would be cited to Rotten Tamatoes. .. dave souza, talk 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That comes down to wat you perceive as a scientific publication. From what I have seen around here, the NCSE's website Expelled exposed would fit into the category, but an review from AIG/CMI would not. Which I think comes all the way back to how we say that the mainstream response has been negative solely on internet based reviews. But I do agree the new change would fit better.Joe3472 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

we should not guess percentages. There is no way to get a unanimous vote on the scientific community. No film review can be scientific. Not everything a scientist says is scientific. Mainstream science is not a mainstream view of a movie. Reviews from movie reviewing sites are more notable. Only because this movie is about science and scientists is their opinion noted. Similar to how the opinion of historians and religious figures are important on movies about the Crusades. Rds865 (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

BeliefNet is not Christian Media

The article lists Beliefnet.com as a christian site, that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.158.163 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So they're not REAL Christians. aye, sure. WP:V? . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They're ecumenical and multi-faith. As is plainly obvious. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, right .... what does your post mean? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of it puzzles you? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say. Is beliefnet christian or not? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Multifaith ɔ Christian. Sorry, I thought that was clear. (Where the hell is the superset symbol?) In fact, its more than that: see here. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The anon poster is correct, it is not a Christian site, it is a multi faith site covering many religions. The reviewer mentioned works for many secular publications as well. It should go under the general media section or a new section for religious but not necessarily Christian reviews. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So it should go under reviews by adherents to mythology? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Find out the affiliation of the reviewer. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You made the point, you do it. You asserted, you prove. It's that simple. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Which, I suppose means, "I haven't a clue what I'm on about". Really, you disagreed with Dave, you asked me to figure out the reviewer's mythology -- you do it. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To get this back on topic and away from arguing over who is misunderstanding who, I think that the review clearly should be moved out of the Christian media section, beliefnet is not a Christian site. I don't know if Nell Minow is Christian (I assume she is), but the review she wrote does not once mention the word Christianity and does not appear in any sort of Christian context so classifying it as Christian media is clearly wrong. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would filing it under "reviews revealed to spiritual media" be an acceptable compromise? You could consider renaming the section from "Christian media" to "Religious media". Merzul (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. "Religious media" is definitly better. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Jim62sch^dissera! 09:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Implemented. Apart from anything else, main figures in this film are Jewish and presumably we don't want to exclude their take. .. dave souza, talk 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point about BeliefNet? We're talking about a film created by a Jew vis-à-vis a topic equally embraced by Muslim fundamentalists.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't we list it under "other religious media?" Saksjn (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

rename of section 1.3

I propose that we change the name "Portrayal of science as atheistic" to "Portrayal of evolution and the scientific establishment as atheistic" because science itself is not atheistic (and not just because it is in the Bible), but the current establishment and evolution is. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 12:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

~~You've been drinking the kool-aid,~~ see the discussion above. Science is secular, the ID wrongly equates that to atheism. Astronomy, evolution and crystallography (all derided in the film) are secular science subjects which IDists want to reject on religious grounds. ... dave souza, talk 12:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC) struck as requested dave souza, talk 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your word usage is unfortunate. I don't agree evolution is atheistic. Even if you think evolution is un-Christian there are several other theistic religions out there. That said I agree the quotes indicate the film is like other defenses of pseudoscience in that it's not opposed to science so much as a real or perceived "establishment." I think that renaming to clarify that is a good idea.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"You've been drinking the kool-aid" Actually, I'm more of a Coca Cola type person :). Also, if that's "too specific", then why not try something like "Portrayal of the scientific establishment as atheistic" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 12:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"You've been drinking the kool-aid" - What does that mean? --RenniePet (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Drinking the Kool-Aid". Turns out it wasn't the Jonestown Massacre after all. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It originates as a reference to the Jonestown suicide. Kool-aid has insisted that poisoned Flavor Aid was used, the matter is in some dispute and I've heard good arguments for thinking they used both brands, but anyway pop-culture associates it with Kool-Aid. Essentially it's come to mean someone who comes to believe in ridiculous things that might be harmful. I don't think I heard it much as a kid, but I think if I did I think it originally was exclusively a reference to joining a cult. Interestingly "drinking the Kool-Aid" or "Kool-Aid drinkers" is a phrase often used by Bill O'Reilly.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. --RenniePet (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether Jonestown origination or prior, it is uncivil and Dave souza should strike that portion of his comment. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the Jonestown mass suicide was religiously motivated.--Filll (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Atheists have higher suicide rates though. And really who cares? I was just explaining the use of a phrase.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect, at least in part.[1].--Filll (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring flaws with that study, that's dealing with youth suicide alone. Suicide among the middle-aged to old is high in atheistic societies like Scandinavia and the more atheistic nations of Eastern Europe. (Although admittedly less so France) In addition this is only speaking of national rates not comparing atheist to religious people's suicides. Suicide among the religious could also be much lower in France than the US because of better healthcare or social networking. I decided to put this in after all, but hopefully this and the other thing is it for me. I mean this talk:page is like 300KB+--T. Anthony (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Showing my age, I associate it with The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (not religiously motivated, arguably new age!), and current usage of being convinced by fringe beliefs. Like the Cult of Mac ;) And the basic idea of ID that the Creator has left detectable empirical "fingerprints" in nature that can prove (or disprove) the existence of God has been very much a tiny fringe idea in science since Francis Bacon and Newton, though evidently more common in the general public. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You give them an inch, and they want a mile. Look, the very ideas that science is founded on; naturalism, materialism, natural selection, stochasticity etc are anathema to the intelligent design movement and to creationism in general and viewed as atheistic. Not just the scientists themselves or their organizations or the science establishment, but the ideas of science are viewed as atheistic. The film focuses on how several people learned the precepts of evolution, and lost their religious faith because it is so dangerous. So frankly, the previous title is shorter and more apt.--Filll (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They key word here, to me, is "Portrayal". How does the film describe things? Example; In Animal farm animals are portrayed with human qualities. Therefore a heading "Portrayal of Pigs as Men in Animal Farm" is correct. To challenge the heading because pigs do not, in fact, have human qualities is academic. It is the portrayal that counts. To turn to this issue however I am unsure how "Science" can be "atheistic". Theism is (a priori) a belief system, and atheism is without belief. I cannot see how "Science" can have a belief - scinece is a construct not a free mind. Here, we are describing how the work portrays Science and possibly more accurately (on review of references) the scientific community (both experts and lay persons - in that one could say anyone who accepts mainstream science is part of that community - although this is not per se a relevant argument). I would suggest "Portrayal of the main stream scientific community [and its work] as atheistic" would be more accurate - although cumbersome particularly if the "and its work" is included. Pedro : Chat 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll you really are too much. First you insist you understand policy better than people who have created hundreds of articles before you ever arrived. Now you basically act like your opposition are some kind of terrorists or conspiracy that will "take a mile" at the slightest budge and that you have the only valid definition of science. Natural selection has been shown because of science, but to say science is founded on it is completely backward. Science is a systematic study of natural phenomenon through a method of testing and research. It predates many of the things you mention. True it works on "methodological naturalism", but that's not the same as "Naturalism" even if it redirects to it. To say science is founded on "naturalism, materialism" is to say science essentially is atheist or at least non-theist. Which means so far you're the only here to say that.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well T. Anthony, do you think you know Wikipedia policy better than me? If so, let's see some evidence. Why dont you take the AGF Challenge then and show me how much you know?

And I was referring to people who are editing against consensus and lobbying to turn this article into a clone of that found on Conservapedia or a religious tract. Thanks for your kind words, however.

And your argument appears to be as full of holes as piece of Swiss cheese, and makes essentially zero sense. Thanks for your contribution however.--Filll (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have explained it better, but I thought I was clear. Your statement that science is founded on "natural selection" makes no real sense. It would require science to be "founded on" the things it discovered. It would also require "science" to be dependent on something specific to biology, which doesn't seem very logical. How is "natural selection" important to say Walter Baade discovering asteroids? It's like saying science is "founded on special relativity" or "The United States is founded on the state of California." The statements are inherently nonsensical. The statement that it's "founded on naturalism and materialism" either means it is atheist or that you don't quite understand what those two words mean. The challenge you suggest is apparently by you. Although I might take it it would only tell me how well I do according to a test of your devising. Perhaps I've been too harsh, but I do find your reactions excessive and difficult to understand. To me this is a documentary about some silly theory and a year from now no one will care. You seem to see it as something grander than that and feel almost threatened by any attempt to display more than one view. (Or to just make it like any other article on a critically panned film)--T. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously I was speaking loosely. Not all of science is based on natural selection, but it is an important idea in a very important part of science. And all of science since the scientific revolution has embraced materialism and methodological naturalism (as I understand the words; no real scientist worries about philosophical nonsense from the soft-headed). And since it does assume materialist and methodological naturalism, science is atheistic, as you just agreed and I and others have been arguing for days here.

There are no right and wrong answers to the AGF Challenge. You can compare your answers with other responses of course. The challenge is not all created by me; others helped.

Your criticisms ring hollow to me. I have had to fight hard to keep the pro-film material in the article. When I was finished rewriting the article in Decemeber, it was over 90 percent profilm; of course people that wanted a religious tract instead still complained it was too negative even then. And now 90 per cent of the reviews are negative, and we have several editors here who do not want to write the article that way. Not particularly realistic, frankly. And how is the article not about more than one view? This is just nonsense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is still an exaggeration. I could not find a point where this article was as positive as you claim. There was a period of maybe 2 months where it was around 70% positive, but the earliest substantive version was mostly just about controversy. I'd say there's possibly 47KB, at minimum, that's just negative quotes and extraneous ways to bash it. NPOV in this case means the negative view should be the most discussed, but it doesn't mean the job of Wikipedia is to debunk this film. The weight should be on the critical side, but total judgments are not per se a good idea. Hence films made by Ed Wood or even under Nazi film policy are not treated this way. It is enough to say that the majority view is negative and why. It is not necessary to "expose it" or attempt to throttle it. Doing so assumes the reader is probably stupid and needs to be told what to think, which goes against how I've understood NPOV when I worked on these articles. (Although Wikipedia does indeed seem to indicate NPOV is "different" for pseudoscience and that we really should be telling people what to think there. I find this disquieting, not because I like pseudoscience but because it seems like opening a door to render NPOV meaningless) Anyway the overkill, plus other aspects, does lean toward a "People should think Right and will show them how." I still think this goes against the spirit of NPOV even if NPOV does have a "pseudoscience is different" exemption.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Look, the very ideas that science is founded on; naturalism, materialism, natural selection, stochasticity etc are anathema to the intelligent design movement and to creationism in general and viewed as atheistic." Did you know that back in the days of Johannes Kepler you had to be a theologian to be a scientist? Anyway, I think I like Pedro's suggestion. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So was Galileo a theologian? Newton? René Descartes? All the scientists in the Islamic world who were the best on earth for centuries? What about the Greek scientists such as Aristotle? This is just silly.

The Scientific Revolution got rid of the supernatural as a cause in science. And Intelligent design and creationism want to force it back, so we can return to the pre-Scientific revolution condition.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Galileo was a member of the clergy. Newton was a Christian, too. As for Aristotle, he was a philosopher, and most (if not all) of his theories were proved wrong. "Notice that the Jonestown mass suicide was religiously motivated.--Filll (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)" So your problem is with religion itself? Anyway, can we please keep this on topic. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Galileo was never in the clergy, you're thinking of Copernicus. Newton and Descartes were theologians of a sort.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Newton was a Christian Alchemist. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Newton was sort of Unitarian, and like Bacon before him believed that God's works should be studied empirically, using testable explanations and not letting the Bible dictate the answers. See the first page of On the Origin of Species for quotes about that issue. .. dave souza, talk 21:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am pretty sure that Galileo was trained in a monastery for grade school, but then went to medical school. Of course Galileo and Newton were Christians and Newton spent a huge amount of time and energy trying to determine how true the scriptures are, and not making much progress unfortunately, although philosophers were impressed with that work. I have no problem with religion. I am a Sunday School teacher in fact. Religion is not science, however. And those who want to make statements in that direction are looking for trouble.--Filll (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh that's neat. What denomination?--T. Anthony (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It isnt particularly relevant, but you can see a discussion of my beliefs on my user page.--Filll (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with RC's suggested change, of course. The defenses of simply saying "science" are all original research, but more importantly plainly inaccurate. It appears in this discussion dave souza and Fill want to retain "science," although they still haven't provided a reliable source for this. RC, T. Anthony, Pedro, and myself appear to support the suggested change to "Portrayal of evolution and the scientific establishment as atheistic," if not another version. I wonder if we can focus on resolving this. Mackan79 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems too wordy to me, but I don't have a good suggestion yet.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re "mainstream science," this is at least arguably accurate, but I think you'll agree it's still a bit silly. This is not unlike writing about a Michael Moore film, "Portrayal of tax relief as unnecessary." I understand it's a compromise, but I wonder if people can't appreciate what's meant by "portrayal" and why writing it this way doesn't serve us. Mackan79 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That was more of a stop-gap or a test. I wanted to see if even adding that modifier was allowed and it was. There's some hope. Although my main objection on POV is still that the article is "overkill" and an excessively long amount of time is spent detailing why it's lying/bad/icky. I don't think this is necessarily a good film and I don't believe in ID. I also think science DOES have to look for natural causes. I believe in supernatural events. but studying or making sense of those is the job of religion. And generalized spirituality I guess. I just think there should be an "enough point" where you stop piling on a cruddy film. This doesn't do that and, in a perverse way, I think that might give it more sympathy than it probably deserves--T. Anthony (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of "enough" I think I'm at that stage. Hopefully I'll bow out for a bit as this talk-page is already ginormous beyond belief.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As one more reminder before I leave for a bit myself, the most direct RS we have on this is still Expelled Exposed, which states, "Expelled’s main theme is that intelligent design is under systematic attack by 'Big Science' – the scientific establishment – which refuses to recognize its scientific validity because of a previous commitment to atheism and materialism." The main theme, as it states is about "Big Science," its term for a scientific establishment. This leads to my preferences:

evolution: accurate, and the real underlying issue that these guys don't like and think is atheistic.
"Big Science": accurate and sourced, uses their terminology but in quotes, while the term is explained in both the lead and in the section immediately below. Exactly as compelling or ridiculous as the rest of the movie, depending on one's perspective, and exactly as reliable as the NCSE which states it this way.
scientific establishment: accurate from their perspective, but assumes a "scientific establishment" without quoting the term. I'm no sure this is a neutral description.
mainstream science: arguably accurate from critics' perspective, but sabotages the argument with terminology of the viewpoint it is attempting to criticize. The opposite problem of "scientific establishment."
science: a step further than "mainstream science," to the point of inaccuracy.

A combination has also been offered; I thought this was good in avoiding the "wedge" concern, but I see T. Anthony thought it was too wordy. Or perhaps there's a better option we haven't thought of. Mackan79 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution" is inaccurate, as these guys also object to "unguided" astronomy, thus Gonzales appears as a martyr. "Big Science" and scientific establishment both convey "little guy aginst the establishment" which is their framing. The whole ID issue, and this film, is about legitimising supernatural explanations as science, despite them being inherently untestable. Both the NCSE page and the Scientific American critiques make that very point, and having noted the "Big Science" catchphrase then talk in terms of science and scientists. .. dave souza, talk 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Modern science"? It's not ideal, but less wordy than "Science as we know it today".--Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. How about, "Expelled portrays science and knowlege as evil heathenistic atheism and would like to replace both with theological dogmatic bullshit but is afraid to say that as it might be misconscrewed as medievalistic bullshit so they parse both as "big science""? Jim62sch^dissera! 17:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not finding the specific interviews in which the film makes the atheism connection, but I believe the association is specifically with proponents of evolution and atheism. I don't know if they say Gonzalez lost his job because of atheism. In any case, the idea that "Big Science" is improper framing is absurd when we put the words in quotes, and compared to the alternative framing that you are suggesting. This is their argument that we're presenting; if not, then we should not pretend that this is what they "portray." "Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted" is of course also their framing, as is "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution." I'm assuming nobody thinks we should change these as well. Either way, if you don't want to frame it in this way, please make some effort to find a version that is accurate and sourced. Mackan79 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As the text of the article now stands, it says: The film alleges that scientists and the scientific enterprise (which it calls "Big Science") are dogmatically committed to atheism and a previous commitment to materialism in the scientific establishment as the cause of this "persecution". So we have the film using the standard ID equation "materialism = atheism". There are two possible explanations - either Mathis, Stein, Ruloff, etc. looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion as Johnson, or they borrowed the idea from Johnson (the alternative, the Johnson borrowed from the Expelled folks isn't plausible, since Darwin on Trial was written over a decade ago...so long as we remain committed to "atheistic" thinking of the sort that the IDists want out of science).

So - do we have common descent or convergence? Since using the term "materialism" to describe "methodological naturalism" is unusual (except, of course, when your objective is to deceptively conflate it with philosophical naturalism), and knowing that Expelled is linked to the ID universe, it seems highly unlikely that the Expelled folks came up with the term on their own. Mathis has admitted that he doesn't know anything about science. Stein has shown that he is in the same position. So, absent a clarification from Mathis, Stein, Ruloff or one of the others, it's parsimonious to assume that they are using the same jargon that Johnson, Wells, Dembski, and the rest of the IDists use. Thus, we have a very good reason to assume that they are talking about "science". We have no sources that support an alternate explanation. Until someone can provide a source that points towards an alternative explanation, using any qualifiers to describe "science" in this context is original research. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put. However, while your lucid and thoughtful explantion should end any debate, I doubt that it will: some folks will still swear that they sky is green. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I don't know if you saw what Expelled Exposed said about this as quoted above, but it specifically says that "Big Science" refers to the "scientific establishment," and that the "main theme" of the movie is that this group rejects the "scientific validity" of ID due to a commitment to atheism.[2] I am assuming that the difference between the "scientific establishment" and "science" is self-explanatory. If you are concerned with original research, as is indeed my concern, I hope you will address this specifically. Mackan79 (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This section that we are talking about references the Science & Religion page of ExpelledExposed, not the Intelligent Design page. In the latter place, ExpelledExposed says that the movie claims that the scientific establishment refuses to accept the validity of ID because of its commitment to atheism and materialism. The former page, which is what this section is about, covers the way that science is portrayed in the movie. Specifically, ExpelledExposed says Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism. These are separate issue - one is the way that the movie portrays science (i.e., as atheistic) and the other is the reason they give for why the scientific establishment rejects ID (i.e., because they are atheists, which would, of course, be a given, since the movie has already claimed that science is atheistic). Look at the article and the sources again - you are reading these things out of context. Guettarda (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the discrepancy between these sections, but it doesn't appear to me you're attempting to reconcile these statements. If you will allow me to attempt to break this down, I have 1. My thesis: The film argues that science should consider religious explanations for natural phenomena, but that a "scientific establishment" dominated by atheists prevents this. 2. Your thesis: The film argues that science is atheistic and should be discarded. Is this correct? I appreciate if you'll work through this to resolve the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The film isn't arguing that science should be "discarded", it's arguing that science is atheistic and should be changed to be theistic, in other words adopt theistic realism which presupposes the real exisitence of a God who leaves empirical evidence of His existence. As amply shown at Kitzmiller v. Dover, this is a demand to change the "ground rules" of science and abandon the scientific method of seeking natural explanations for natural events. .. dave souza, talk 08:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A. In certain situations the sky can be green. B. We have got to stay on topic if we wan't to accomplish anything. All I'm asking for is that we rename section 1.3 to "Portrayal of the main stream scientific community [and its work] as atheistic" or something along those line as that is a bit long. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this topic seems to be way, way to long for something as simple as this. As well, the movie does not call science atheistic.Joe3472 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, edits have to be based on verifiable sources, not unsourced opinions. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"the dark specter of secular, atheistic Big Science"^[3] Is that a reliable source? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As the same critic continues that article, "(one of the flimsiest straw men to whom I´ve ever been introduced)". It's a not very notable film critic's opinion, and valid for that but not the best source for expert opinion on ID and what the film's up to. SA and NCSE are better for that. .. dave souza, talk 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

SA and NCSE? You mean one of the two largest evolutionary atheist organizations out there? The same SA and NCSE with a self admitted bias about creation, id, and religion? Oh alright...that makes much more sense. Joe3472 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean, secular organisations which include many prominent Christians. Less of the propaganda, please. .. dave souza, talk 09:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those arganizations have a bias against teaching ID/creation as science, they could care less who belives in it. Angry Christian (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Science is secular, it does (should not) take sides in religion. That means it should not support one religion, which unfortunately it does. (Atheism is considered a religion by the US Government). Saksjn (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I think it is better than it was, but I am worried about Jim62's ideas. The ID movement is not if favor of dogma. The wikipedia article on ID, has sources that explain the position of ID as wanting to expand science to mean the best answer, based on all knowledge. There is a reason why they refer to the "Big Science" scientists as Darwinists, because that is the issue. It may not stand up to examination but thats what they believe. Rds865 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Throughout the movie, Ben Stein claims that "Big Science" represses intelligent design to advance an atheistic agenda"^[4] Note, it doesn't say science; it says "Big Science" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this section isn't about the repression of ID, it's about the portrayal of the scientific enterprise. "Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism". That's one of the statements around which the section under question is constructed. The section isn't about the rejection of ID. Statements about the rejection of ID have no bearing on the title of this section. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand where your coming from, the new title would better represent the films meaning. Joe3472 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, again. As I've posted from the same site: "Expelled’s main theme is that intelligent design is under systematic attack by “Big Science” – the scientific establishment – which refuses to recognize its scientific validity because of a previous commitment to atheism and materialism." Re Guettarda, I'm not sure why you think these are separate issues, as everything I have read about the movie suggests these are the same, and exactly why the argument about atheism is presented (note, for instance, the title of the film). I ask above whether you believe the film is really saying that science should be discarded, and hope you'll clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> To clarify again, the film isn't arguing that science should be "discarded", it's arguing that science is atheistic and should be changed to be theistic, in other words adopt theistic realism which presupposes the real existence of a God who leaves empirical evidence of His existence, thus presenting unknowns as proof of God. As amply shown at Kitzmiller v. Dover, this is a demand to change the "ground rules" of science and abandon the scientific method of seeking natural explanations for natural events. The NYT review states "Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis,... “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness.... This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method."[5] I've split this over-long discussion section with a new heading which you may find prefereable, but in my opinion Portrayal of science as atheistic conveys the same more neutrally and concisely. .. dave souza, talk 09:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And, even more pertinently, the Waco Tribune-Herald review said "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."[6] . . dave souza, talk 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, can you show me where they want to change science? Stein's statement, the most direct comment we have on this, is that he believes certain people want to keep "science" in a box. The claim that he wants to "change" science seems to be original research, in conflict with Stein's statement, and based on an assumption that Stein agrees "science" as a concept excludes religious explanations. Are you saying this is something Stein acknowledges? If not, this is why I'm saying we shouldn't use "portray" for something others are concluding about his argument but he disagrees with. Mackan79 (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism". That's not WP:OR, it's verified from a reliable source giving a statement by experts commenting directly on the film. Per NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" that's the appropriate context, not extreme minority framing that everyone but them is "Big Science". An alternative paraphrase conveying the same will of course be welcome. Note that per NPOV: Making necessary assumptions there should be no need to in detail that intelligent design is not science, but further evidence regarding their consistent theme of redefining science so that it includes astrology.. dave souza, talk 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If we took this to the reliable sources noticeboard, I would be pretty surprised if people agreed that Expelled Exposed is a reliable source for claims in the movie. To be honest, though, I'm not sure what you mean by "paraphrase." My contention is that they don't like the people who disagree with them (mostly because they believe in evolution) and say the problem is atheism; your contention is that they don't like science and so have decided to apply the name to something else and I guess hope others don't notice. The point is I don't think you're distinguishing between what you think they're doing and what they think they're doing, which is obviously going to present a problem when trying to write for the enemy. As such I'm not sure which idea you're open to paraphrasing; do you have any other examples? Mackan79 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan - these are separate issues because the section we were discussing is about the portrayal of {science, evolution, Big Science, mainstream science, modern science} as atheistic. The page you were referencing talked about whomever it was that was oppressing the poor IDists. That's not what the section of the article (section 1.3) is about. And the issue here was what we should call that section of the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The issue isn't the content; the issue is the title of the section. Now, can we all agree on a title so that we can get back to editing? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, can we agree on Portrayal of science as atheistic, or do you want to propose further options of phrasing concisely conveying the same? .. dave souza, talk 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you're opposed to "Big Science", when each other section of the overview directly adopts their concepts and framing. It seems odd that on this one we would reframe it into something supported only on a critical site that seems to contradict itself on this issue. Especially when we've been talking about this "Big Science" concept since the first paragraph of the article and explain it immediately below, we use the word "portray," etc., this would seem like a much better supported option. Mackan79 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See comment above. ... dave souza, talk 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I addressed your request for a praphrase above, but I am still curious why you've chosen "Big Science" as the one aspect of their framing that can't be allowed. It's very clear to me that concerns about undue weight can't be a reason to reframe a film's argument in an article about the film, but I'm particularly unclear why it's being done just on this one section heading, despite the large number of people who have objected to it as inaccurate. Mackan79 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The film portrays all science conforming to the scientific method as atheistic in failing to give credence to Goddidit, at the same time as characterising it as "Big Science" to create the impression that the "little guys" who happen to have multimillion dollar dominionist backing and the support of the religious right, according to them including the President, are being oppressed. Note that one source (forgotten which at the moment) described PZ Myers as representing "Big Science". An assistant professor. By that standard professors Behe and Minnich are big big science. .. dave souza, talk 22:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, it appears what you're saying is that because we can't give them "equal validity," and because you think their argument is inconsistent, you're going to ignore their argument and instead say they argue what you think they want but won't say. Or what others are said to think they want but won't say. Is it not clear why I disagree with this? Mackan79 (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think we should use "Portrayal of 'Big Science' as atheistic" and let the reader decide what Ben Stein meant by "Big Science" Sound OK? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, for the many reasons above. Considering again that we let them frame their other arguments (it's hard to discuss an argument otherwise), considering the term is explained above and below, and considering we rebut the argument, it's hard for me to understand why we would reframe this one. We also don't include anything where they criticize the study of science as such. All in all this would seem much more accurate, and consistent with the rest of the overview. Mackan79 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

controversial film vs. Documentary film

This is a documentary. Yes it is controversial, but so is An Inconvenient Truth and it words it this way. So think it should be changed to Documentary film instead of controversial film. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with using both words, controversial and documentary in the first sentence. That's what the cited source does (The St. Petersburg Times). -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial is not a film genre. Documentary, is. It's a documentary film - documentaries can be polemic. See Roger & Me, et al. It's even in Category:Documentary films. I really don't know how anyone can justify not calling it a documentary film in the first line. I've put up a compromise version. FCYTravis (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While "controversial" is a very accurate description, "documentary" is not. The film pretends to be a documentary, but in reality is blatant propoganda. Or would you also call The Birth of a Nation a documentary? Doc Tropics 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Does simply calling something a "documentary" imply that the conclusions it presents are correct? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Birth of a Nation was a scripted fictional film. I'm sure global warming deniers think that An Inconvenient Truth is blatant propaganda, too - but it's also a documentary film. We don't categorize things based on what their detractors think it is. Expelled is a member of the genre of documentary films. That doesn't mean it's true, that doesn't mean it isn't a polemic. That just means it's a producer's attempt to represent reality - but, of course, through the lens and manipulations of the producer, reality is seen differently by different people. FCYTravis (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Another set of examples: Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers. An amazing film that everyone in the U.S. should see. Why We Fight, another great film. Both are polemics. Both are no doubt roundly condemned as left-wing propaganda. But that doesn't mean they're not documentaries. FCYTravis (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those. I'll look to see whether one or both of them is right for the propaganda category.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gents, because something might be a piece of shit documentary does not mean it is no longer a documentary. When in doubt look at the links in the dang article. IMDB classifies it as a documentary, Rotten Tomatoes classifies it as educations/general interest, Metacritic classifies it as a documentary, Box Office Mojo classifies it as a documentary, and All Movie puts it in the documentary classification. I need not explain why "controversial" should be used, if you don't aleady get that please take some time to familiarize yourself with the subject matter. Again, because the movie sucks does not mean it's not considered a documentary by film critics/experts. Documentary should be included and it should be a member of that cat. Finanly, an awful lot of arguing and resource wasting is going on over trivial stuff that the article validates. Comes guys, use your heads and stop arguing and start following the reliable sources. Thank you. Angry Christian (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That was well said. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets do it Joe3472 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care too much one way or another, except that I think calling this film a "documentary" legitimizes it excessively. What I do remember is that this was discussed here vehemently three-four days ago, and somebody pointed to the Fahrenheit 9/11 article, and pointed out that it did not say "documentary" in the lead, and claimed that was the result of a long-fought battle on that article's talk page. That was accepted as a precedent. Now (one hour ago) FCYTravis has changed the Fahrenheit 9/11 article so it does say "documentary" in the lead. So who knows. --RenniePet (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We're reflecting what sources say, just as we do all over Wikipedia. "Documentary" is the name of the film genre to which this one belongs. If we call something a "documentary film", and then immediately, in the same breath, note that it is controversial, how is that an endorsement of the film's contents? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's no big deal to me. It mostly irritates me that this has already been discussed ~~(I wasn't even a participant)~~ and consensus was reached, then suddenly it is in flux again because new people start editing. But that's Wikipedia.

Anyway, I've found the discussion I was refering to - it's section no. 5 on this talk page. "The Fahrenheit 9/11 intro does not use the term 'documentary' to describe the movie..." and "The comparison with Fahrenheit 9/11 stands as a reasonable compromise..." (My claim that someone talked about a "long-fought battle" was a false memory :-) --RenniePet (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not are job to validate or disprove the movie. So saying that it validates the movie by calling it a documentary is a poor argument and should not be used on wikipedia. I still think we should go with "controversial documentary." Saksjn (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An inconvenient truth is not a documentary, but a presentation. The interviews really did happen. propaganda does not imply falseness, and documentary does not imply the conclusion is true. There are many documentaries on the JFK assassination, they use true facts to draw a false conclusion. Rds865 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And the interviews in this film, really did happen. Even if the way they were acquired is controversial, they still took place. Saksjn (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

America: Freedom to Fascism is another example (which is already in the propaganda cat) Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

the science community's response has been unanimously negative, asserting that the film is creationist propaganda.

Do we have a source for this statement. I think that the word almost should be inserted between unanumously and negative. Also, does all this review info really belong in the lead? Saksjn (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Surley somebody in the scientific community somewhere has a possitive response to the movie. New Order (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many reviews that I could find in between the negative ones on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Meta, and several other review sites. But its that comes down to what you perceive as a scientific opinion. From what I have seen around here, the NCSE's website Expelled exposed would fit into the category, but a review from AIG/CMI would not. Which I think comes all the way back to how we say that the mainstream response has been negative solely on internet based reviews. If we were to make a change though, I suppose "the science community's response has been largely negative, according to scientific organizations such as the NCSE and Scientific American" would be better.Joe3472 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Unanimously" is a tricky word. "Overwhelming" would do. "Largely" implies most reviews have been negative with some others being positive, when we haven't been able to find any positive views from mainstream scientific organizations. My suggestion is to leave out the adjective altogether, and say "the scientific community's response has been negative." Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a complete lack of scientists who are neutral and positive toward ID/creationism. NCSE makes it a habit to state that most evolutionary scientists are religious in some way. Not to mention recent consensus shows that around half of america is christian. I just find it kind of pointless to try to find positive reviews from a group of people who clearly are not interested in being challenged or considering that their world view is not perfect. So I make it clear that I disagree with the statement "the science community's response has been unanimously negative, asserting that the film is creationist propaganda."Joe3472 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that most of the scientific community has not seen the movie. Perhaps they could care less. Of course a good point is brought up, most Americans accept both the Bible and the theory of evolution. The conflict seems to between a small minority. The argument of scientists is not that there is no creator, but that natural science can not be applied to him. Rds865 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I like overwhelmingly, lets go with that. It communicates the negative response but doesn't make it final. Saksjn (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I prefer largely > unanimously > overwhelmingly.

Dictionary says:

Overwhelmingly - incapable of being resisted

Unanimously - Unanimity is complete agreement by everyone.

Largely - in large part; mainly or chiefly

Largely clearly represents a more accurate view of how the the movie is currently being perceived by mainstream media.Joe3472 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is tweaking the facts. Currently, we have no single source in any science media that is positive. Until we have one, we go with what we know now. "Overwhelming", meaning "so great as to render resistance or opposition useless" is too much of an attempt to teach the controversy about a hypothetical minority view that is overwhelmed (read expelled) by Big Science. I'm exaggerating here naturally, but unanimous is the truth, and Raymond Arith's proposal is the best compromise. Merzul (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For a couple of days I have been hearing alot of people saying the response from science is unanimously negative, but I disagree. Now when I look for reviews, I try to steer wide clear of bible thumping church organizations who's reviews just scream of naive religious following, however Within 5 minutes I found these by googling "expelled review":

1. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5626 2. https://www.icr.org/article/3766/ 3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-review 4. http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-review.html 5. http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html 6. http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/21/vox-nova-at-the-movies-expelled/ 7. http://www.dailynews.com/columnists/ci_8988473?source=email 8. http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/04/why-the-darwin-hitler-link-is-so-sensitive/ 9. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/04/18/ben_stein_vs_sputtering_atheists 10. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=44147 11. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzA4N2ZmZjAzYzhhNTU5MGEyOGJlN2FmMWIxMmE5M2I 12. http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/04/18/ben-stein-exposes-richard-dawkins/ 13. http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872 14. http://www.discovery.org/a/4522 15. http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8687.article 16. http://www.discovery.org/a/4579 17. http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583 18. http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13903 19. http://stillsearching.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/no-discussion-allowed/

Obviously everyone will chime in how AIG/CMI/ICR and the others I listed are not looked upon by the science community as being legitimate, but it just goes to show that organizations that practice science for creation/ID are out there, and have given the film positive reviews. I cant imagine how many I would find from creation scientist blogs/organizations that aren't as widely known as AIG/CMI/ICR if I actually sat down and tried to document them all. Joe3472 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Info

I can't link to it now because of filters but yahoo movies had it listed as #10 on the highest grossing movies a couple days ago. I do think this is important to communicate. Regardless of the critical response to it... the film MADE MONEY. Saksjn (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the budget information will slowly accumulate. I would wait until it is out of most theatres and these numbers are not changing rapidly before I was too excited about linking to any articles on this. Also, any budget figures are probably biased and incorrect because of all the rebate programs and promotional expenses etc.--Filll (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We already mention money in the box office section. It appears to have done well for a documentary, but not as well as the producers were claiming it would do Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A few notes of caution as far as the movie making money, the film does not get to keep 100% of the tickets sold, there is a split with the theater. Secondly, according to the film makers it cost them 3.5M or so to produce it, they could have spent 2 or 3 times that amount promoting it. So we need to be cautions before we start claiming the movie has made money. As of yet we have absolutely no evidence that it has or hasn't. My personal belief is they will in fact make money but not until it's been out on DVD a good while. This weekends numbers will be telling. Angry Christian (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I get the strong impression that the purpose of this movie was not to make money, but as a political vehicle or weapon. While "An Inconvenient Truth" really did change society, it looks like this attempt was clumsy enough that it did not achieve that goal, and might have even hurt the cause in the long run. I just looked at figures on one site showing the current gross as just over 5 million dollars. The prediction by Ruloff before it opened was someplace north of 15 million dollars in the first weekend alone, and many sources predicted it would do better than Fahrenheit 911 which had about 28 million in its first weekend. So in spite of all the rebates and frantic promotion, it looks like this movie was a tremendous bust, compared to the buildup and expectations.--Filll (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, placing at # 10 is pretty good. Saksjn (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You betcha it is, and having the widest amount of theaters is notable too. I think both of these tidbits are in the article, yes? Angry Christian (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

online, unsourced polls

I just deleted the info about viewers reactions and the online poll. If we cite a poll it needs to be a legitimate one and not something online where numbers can easily be jacked with. The poll I just removed is one I have voted at least 4 times on and I have not even seen it. Shows you how silly these online polls are. Angry Christian (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Boxofficemojo is the "poll" I was talking about. I could email a few friends and we could skew the numbers any way we want. THAT is why polls like this are not only unreliable, they're dumb. You cannot tell if the people voting even saw the film (as in my case) Angry Christian (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

True. However, is Rotten Tomatoes practically any different? I admit I don't know much about it. It is widely cited on WP though. -R. fiend (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between an online poll and a compilation of the reviews of major published sources.--Filll (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is Rotten Tomatoes only reviews by professional critics? I thought it was open to comments by the hoi polloi. I admit I know little about it, and only briefly looked at it once or twice, but that was the impression I got. I guess I'll go read the WP article on it. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a professional review aggregator. RT even has a selection of "Top critics", where Expelled has 0% although there is just 5 reviews there. The general "T-Meter" of 9% is a very reliable indication of popular media reception. Merzul (talk) 19:26, 28 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)

I believe the phrase referred to at the beginning of this section and contained in the 2nd paragraph of the article, "a number of conservative and Christian media outlets have given the film favorable reviews", should be a bit more restrictive, something on the order of "a number of conservative and some Christian media" or "conservative Christian media …". By far, Christians as a majority have not embraced this movie.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a change to embrace other religions (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects all have those who believe in creationism) and intimated that the belief is not all-emcompassing.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with the quotes

Can someone please go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/official_denial_unofficial_end.php and tell me whether the word god is capitalized three times in the quote from Stein? We are using this as a source, and it is being changed to not match what our source has. If a different transcript needs to be used, then do that, but for now, the quote that we have is "God" thrice and not "god" twice with one "gd" in there.

Can we please all agree to let quotes we get from our sources actually read as they read on the reference? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see that this could go either way. Are we quoting Myers, or Stein? Myers used a "G", but Stein used the phrase "a god", where a "g" is appropriate (as a generic term for a deity, rather than the name of "God"). So, Myers technically made an error when recording what Stein said. The reference supporting the article is Myers, but the quote is presented in the article as a quote from Stein (which, ultimately, it was). When quoting Stein, albeit indirectly, should we introduce Myers' error? Maybe not. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we similarly obligated to use the same font as Myers did, or the same style of quotation marks, or... etc. Again: This is a transcription of some spoken language. There's only any reason to follow the source material to the extent that it accurately represents what was spoken. That's the only reason the citation is there. Capitalisation is an orthographic feature inserted by Myers and is utterly irrelevant to the content of the conversation in question. Ilkali (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue it any longer since it is fairly pointless (yes, I completely understand "a god" is indeed grammatically correct... duh, I'm not arguing that), but if the capitalization is "utterly irrelevant", then why not just stick to what we have in the sourced material? Moving on... --Ali'i 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My words: "Capitalisation is [...] utterly irrelevant to the content of the conversation in question". The reason we don't stick to what's in the sourced material is that it is in conflict with Wikipedia's orthographic standards. Ilkali (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought God was capitalized when talking about a monotheistic God, however, you are saying it is only capitalized when used as a proper noun, similar to dad. I am not disputing this. I changed god to God once, because I thought it was put there because some believe capitalizing God makes you a theist. I believe god with the vowels removed is meant to be the name of God, as to keep it sacred, not necessary if it is not a proper noun. Therefore Gd or G-d should always be capitalized. Rds865 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"I always thought God was capitalized when talking about a monotheistic God". A lot of people capitalise it out of the same tortuous reasoning as for pronouns, I think, but Wikipedia doesn't follow either standard. Ditto for removal of vowels. 'gd' was a typo. Ilkali (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. Pronouns referring to God are capatalized out of respect, and is generally only done by those who follow Him. The word God when referring to the monotheistic god is capitalized because it's a proper noun in that sense. It's for the same reason we capitalize Allah. Notice the capitalization I gave two sentences back - the first is the name of the monotheistic god, the second is a generic word referring to all deities. Wikipedia doesn't capitalize the pronouns (because Wikipedia is not Christian) but it does capitalize the proper noun. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt check the Wiki Manual of Style - [7] I've linked to the piece that addresses using the term god. Angry Christian (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so when discussing a god, in wikipedia the use is lowercase, but referring to a specific figure, even one that the speaker does not believe in one writes God. An atheist could say both, "I don't believe in God", or "I don't believe in a god". Belief of the speaker does not seem to matter, rather the figure being described. The capitalization of Him, is not always done by followers, but is never done, unless in quoting, in wikipedia. Rds865 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, in school you learn that names like God, Allah, Buddah, etc. are captilized. Saksjn (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most god-awful discussions I've ever seen. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(laughing)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Source of the editorial bias/slant

If you look at the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes you'll note 26 out of 29 are "rotten" (bad). Two of the three "fresh" (good) reviews have critical commentary as well. Only Christianity Today had nothing very negative to say about the film. Here are the critical comments from two of the positive reviews:

"On the surface, Ben Stein seems to be pushing for open debate and discussion rather than the scientific community bullying anyone who offers disparate ideas, but he doesn't exactly go about this in the best way, especially when the film shows Darwin's influence on the Nazi ideals and comparing Darwinists to communists, both extremely flawed and overly flip arguments that hurt the film more than it helps. Stein's intentions are also somewhat deceptive, because while he never outright says "intelligent design should be taught in the classrooms," the film's marketing campaign seems to say otherwise, something that's difficult to ignore when attempting to analyze the film on its own merits."[8]

"Ben Stein is about as fair and balanced as any of the new breed of documentarians, so the standard warning applies: Viewers beware."[9]

Even if the three positive reviews had nothing critical at all, 27 negative reviews out of 30 is something like 90% of the mainstream media that have reviewed the movie thinks it is a dog, and most of those imply it's a rotting, stinking dog. The editors here are not responsible for the film sucking nor are they responsible for the overwhelming majority of mainstream film reviwers (90%) concluding the film is awful. Unless we are going to ignore the overwhelming majority viewpoint(s) within mainstream media, the article is going to reflect this slant. Please do not blame your fellow editors for Ben Stein making such a travesty of a "documentary" nor should anyone expect a Wikipedia editor to soften the critical reaction that the film has endeared. The science community and mainstream media think this is an awful movie. For the most part the only positive reviews come from the far religious right. This is not the fault of your fellow Wiki editors. The fact that many of your fellow Wiki editors agree with the science and mainstream media's take on it does not make them guilty of anything nor does does that fact suggest they are POV pushers. Something to consider. Angry Christian (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All true. In my view, it's actually very specific things that are giving people a negative impression. Some of these have improved, but a few remain. As some people have said, though, it's not a matter of removing large swaths of the article, but mainly addressing a few wording issues, possibly a better organization in the "Promotion of ID" overview section, and cutting some of the material from non-film-related sources. Much of this reflects wider disagreements about policy, but probably some focused efforts could basically resolve these things anyway. Mackan79 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you Mack, my comments do not address the internal sqabbles and instead are concerned with the "this article is biased/slanted" complaints for which we cannot help unless we ignore all Wiki policies. I laugh at the people who come here thinking they're going to find a glowing movie review. As Rotten Tomatoes shows glowly reviews within the mainstream media do not exist . You'd have to go to creationists venues (or pals thereof) to find much of anything positive about this movie and blaiming Wikipedia editors for this is profoundly naive. I'm not suggesting the article does not have flaws, just the bias/slant compaints are nonsense in view of the evidence. Angry Christian (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we just report what's going on. Unfortunately, there are times when reality sucks. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, but likely not in the way you think: It gives far too much weight to the views and claims of ID proponents which are, after all, a tiny minority view in the realm they stake their claim, science. Of course ID proponents and Expelled fans who come here would like to see even more weight given to their views, but we're under no obligation through WP policy to give it to them and in fact just the opposite. Take it from one who's dealt with that crowd for years here at Wikipedia there's little hope of reaching a compromise with that that passes muster with WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But, aren't we being unkind to creationists? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If creationists comprise only 0.1% of scientists, Wikipedia can't in fairness grant only 0.1% of the space to ID proponents, particularly when discussing such a germane topic within the context of the movie. This subject is not unbalanced like, say, the Fair Tax topic, which leaves the feeling that "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." in its steamroll-the-opposition slant.

My take is that the article is remarkably well-balanced. That perception is shored up by both proponents and opponents equally expressing a bit of unhappiness. No matter who I think is right or wrong, both sides should be congratulated.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(NB: Rotten Tomatoes: negative 30 out of 33 at present. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Portrayal of x as atheistic

Continuing the discussion here, I see the "portrays science as atheistic" version has been returned to the article. I've tried to explain why this is incorrect based on any of the sources presented, all of which specifically criticize "Big science" or the "scientific elite" or the "scientific establishment" as atheistic, not science itself. I recently saw Birdkr even quoted this from Expelledexposed: "Expelled’s main theme is that intelligent design is under systematic attack by “Big Science” – the scientific establishment – which refuses to recognize its scientific validity because of a previous commitment to atheism and materialism" (emphasis added). Filll above says "The film might not 'say' it. It might imply it because it is a visual medium and a lot of the communication is not just verbal." In his last replacement, FeloneousMonk says to read Wedge strategy, a fair criticism of the movie certainly, but also an implicit acknowledgment that the film does not actually portray "science" as atheistic. The point being: if we think this is part of their wedge strategy, then we should remove the header, not remake their argument. I don't think it's a wedge strategy and even if it were I don't think it would work, but I'm wondering if there is support for this idea of getting rid of it and moving the material above. Mackan79 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By it's own terms, in the words of it's founder, and in the ruling of the Dover trial, ID views science as an inherently atheistic enterprise by dint of ruling out supernatural explanations. This is no more difficult than understanding theistic realism vs. naturalism, and needs to be reflected in the article for it not to give ID views undue weight. FeloniousMonk (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Mackan, if I said "Big Republicanism sucks", I assume I wouldn't be tarring and feathering the Republican Party, right? Just the "big" parts of it. Right?. Well? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what is "Big Science"? Oh, wait a minutes, it's Microevolution is proven but big Macroevolution is a lie. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah ... if you're a creationist who doesn't understand evolution. If you understand evolution, you realise that the micro and macro distinctions are creationist bullflop. See, it's easy ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think what Mack is proposing here is unreasonable and I don't think it warrants sarcasm. *I* know very well this is all a part of the Wedge Strategy, you know it as well. But we have yet to make that connection using reliable sources. I don't hear Mack or others saying the film is not opposed to all science or considers all science atheistic, what I hear them saying is we have not provided clear reliable sources that show this. I am all for sarcasm but in this case you have a well intentioned editor who is raising issues based on Wikipedia policy and not quoting Dembski or somesuch nonsense. I happen to agree that we have not done due diligence in this matter but I'm not willing to wrestle over the issue. Again, I have been following the ID cult for years now, I know exactly what's going on but we have yet to demonstrate that without indulging in original research and making connections for which we lack reliable sources. And now we're belittling a well intentioned editor because he is raising an issue based on policy. This pisses me the fuck off. Angry Christian (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"But we have yet to make that connection using reliable sources..." is inaccurate and misses the point. Read Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions, we are not required to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate with sources here when it is already coved at Intelligent design, Teach the Controversy and Wedge strategy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FM: That's still a criticism of their view, however, not what they are portraying. We say they portray science in this way, which isn't accurate. The second article quotes Johnson:

Asserting that Darwinism is "based on awful science, just terrible," Johnson said the theory has "divided the people of God" and that means "the way is open for the agnostics to say, `We need to put all of this aside."'

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

Is the guy anti-science? Sure. But to say he's blaming Darwin for Nazism, and then that he's portraying science as atheistic, is only accurate if we assume the view they're trying to criticize is correct. The thing is, obviously portraying evolution as behind the Holocaust is part of their strategy as well, but we still admit this is their argument. This is why I think "evolution" is the most correct here, and doesn't actually do their argument any favors. Indeed, when we point out that religious people support evolution below, it's of course their actual argument we're responding to as well, not the idea that all science is atheistic. It's ultimately a better and clearer discussion of their claims. Mackan79 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, which part of "Big Science" is problematic? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To Stein? It's the people he doesn't like, because they support evolution. He calls them "Big science" as a form of populism, presumably; this is why I'd simply say "evolution." Is he right that people will reject evolution if they consider that it's incompatible with their religion? For the opposite reason as Johnson, I admit I'd personally rather have people consider the question. Mackan79 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So evolution = science in toto?Jim62sch^dissera! 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No... I'm saying their argument about evolution does not apply to science generally. They believe evolution and atheism go together, which is why they don't like evolution. They also don't like the people who defend evolution, such as Dawkins et al. They especially don't like that these people ridicule them for their arguments. This leads to their rhetoric, which is to refer to their oppressors as the scientific elite, the scientific establishment, "Big science," to paint themselves as anti-establishment, rebellious, etc. The last part is rhetoric, but the connection between evolution and atheism they really believe, which is the whole reason for all of this. The idea that science itself is atheistic, on the other hand, they don't believe, and don't argue, which is why I don't think we should present it as their argument. Mackan79 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that cosmology, with the general and special theories of relativity, the big bang, string theory, et cetera, meets the same criteria? What about the bio-chem that proves that organic matter can arise spontaneously from inorganic matter. Or geology, which points to no global flood. Or astrophysics -- you know, all that shit about Joshua making the sun stand still? What part of science doesn't violate the bible? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think using "Big Science" would be an exceptional solution, Jim. Angry Christian (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't. We've got 3 exceptional, unimpeachable sources -ID's own manifesto, its founder's own words, and the Dover ruling- all saying the same thing, that ID proponents see science as an atheistic enterprise. We're not about to gloss over that. FeloniousMonk (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the Dover transcript mention Expelled, FM? Does the Wedge Strategy mention Ben Stein? I've been following these guys for years and I must have overlooked that part. If you could provide a page number we'll add it as a cite and end of discussion. Thanks in advamce. Angry Christian (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dover ruling is about ID and its founders, and Expelled promotes ID and using its founder's claims while discounting the Dover ruling. Both Dover and Expelled are about the same thing, ID and it's claim against science, so favoring the latter while ignoring the former violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV and so will never fly. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like really ... no, seriously, explain why it's an exception. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim I said exceptional, like that's a great idea. Seriously. Angry Christian (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Jim, I've suggested before that we use "Big Science" and eliminate all this edit war over nothing. Yet we have folks who want to paitn it with a bigger brush that the cites support, thus here we are. I totally support using the term "Big Science" Angry Christian (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AC, my bad. Sorry. I picked the wrong meaning. Argh. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, no worries at all, it is so easy on this talk page to misunderstand one another. I do it all the time :-) Now...I think if we use "Big Science" then the article is not only more accurate, but we end this edit war. I don't see any downside to using "Big Science" Is using "Big Science" something you will support? Angry Christian (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the merits of and problems with both terms. I would prefer it stay as "science", but ... does Stein actually define "Big Science"? I don't recall. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Science is the term they use in their radio advertising, Google adsense advertising, website, and they use it in the film. Angry Christian (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, absent a specific definition, "big science" = "science" as it is currently studied, understood, and learned? Jim62sch^dissera! 00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big science" is still weasely and inaccurate, according to theistic realism and the wedge strategy ID proponents reject any notion of science that does not allow for supernatural explanations, which methodlogical naturalism does not. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Science can be sourced, FM. Your sources are Wikipedia articles which policy does not allow us to use. Angry Christian (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We need a definition then. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big x" is a populist political phrase at least in the U.S., see Big oil or Big tobacco. The point is to be anti-elitist. The question with any of these is whether they're so powerful we need to undo their framing, but in any case, it's one of the reasons I think "evolution" is best, since that is their real argument that evolution and atheism go hand in hand. I don't think it's an argument people need to sidestep any more than the one about Nazism. Mackan79 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism. ... The Claim: Scientists are atheists, as proven by leading spokespeople for science... Science has a commitment to atheism. “There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God” (Ben Stein, Expelled).... Expelled seeks to conflate adherence to scientific method with materialist atheism, the philosophical view that only material causes operate in the universe: dark comments linking “material mechanisms” and evolution abound in Expelled...[10] dave souza, talk 00:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the NCSE quotes linked by Dave would be good material to include in the article, but the title of the section is the issue. Unless we can put a cite in the section title itself:

Portrayal Of Science as Atheistic[11]

That looks odd to me but what do other people think? Angry Christian (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, Big Science is the term they use for who they want to portray as the enemy of free speech, ID, blah blah. The problem we have editors who want to define this by saying it means ALL science without providing anyone we can site. As I said, we have very good editors who have been insisting we follow Wiki policy and they keep getting reverted, bullied, ridiculed. I'd like to assume FM is familiar with the subject matter but Big Science is not a weasle term, it's the term the movie uses. Another solution would be to read the section in question and see if we can come up with a completely different title that abides by policy, is accurate and something we can get consensus on. Can you read that section and see if you can think of something better than what we have? I've got kids to bathe right now but I'll do the same later this evening. Cheers for now! Angry Christian (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line, for starters the edit I just made looks foolish. I';ll revert if someone doesn't beat me to it. No where does the film or Stein say dentistry is atheistic, archeology is atheistic, blah blah. People objecting to the title being "Portraying science as atheistist" have good ground to stand on. This has been the source of needless arguing, ridiculing of good well intentioned editors, and it's pointless. I glanced at what we've written so far and I'll spend more time reading it later tonight. I think we're missing the point and we should probably look at how we can frame what is being said in the movie in a way that does not cause needless arguing. Angry Christian (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to a question at the top of this thread: "Big Science" is a satirical term the movie came up with for the mainstream scientific views regarding evolution and the origin of life. Also, somebody said micro and macro evolution was made up by creationist. Huh? So, are they supposed to be the same or something? As far as I know there is a big difference. Saksjn (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science" is a satirical term the movie came up with for the mainstream scientific views regarding evolution and the origin of life. - would you care to provide a source for this claim? Raul654 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, Big Science was actually coined around the 1940s - 1950s in which reflected academic and scientific institutions having high levels of cooperation with each other to achieve numerous and stunning results aided by huge support by local and federal governments and agencies. It is definitely not a satirical term. Also, I found http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=34145C53-079F-CA62-1A6616EAA8567357 to be a better source in claiming the portrayal of science as atheistic --BirdKr (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Microevolution and macroevolution are real biological terms, but when creationists use them they mean something different from their scientific usage. It's similar to what happens when creationists talk about the second law of thermodynamics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was the point. Realistically and simply speaking, macroevolution is the agglomeration of microevolution -- all the little steps that lead to the evolution of new species. Evolution is a very slow process, measured in geological, not human, time and various mutations that provide an advantage accumulate over that time, eventually resulting in a new species. The nonsense in the movie about a dog becoming a cat (which is how creationists misuse the term macroevolution) is just plain silly and completely wrong.

As a side note, it's funny how creationists have a cow over abiogenesis, but atheogenesis is cool. Jim62sch^dissera! 09:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is (more of less) what I was talking about when I reverted the change to "Big Science" - it's a term that has an established meaning. It doesn't further our goal of writing clear, NPOV articles if we allow a neologism into the article, especially when the term has an established meaning. It doesn't help people who aren't familiar with the neologism (i.e., everyone who hasn't seen the film) and it's confusing to anyone who is familiar with the actual meaning of the word. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, on this page they say "All over the world, Big Science is on the march, making sure that Neo-Darwinian Materialist Theory is protected, and that any challenges and challengers are dealt with...properly.

" on this page they portray PZ as a part of "Big Science" thought police (warning that page has some truly some stupid shit on it), there are other examples. And then we see where the media has picked up on it like here where they title the article "Ben Stein targets big science, evolution". Simply Google "Big Science" or "Ben Stein big science" and you'll see examples. When we look at their own words and their observers it's pretty clear the subject of their scorn is narrower than science in general. People keep rightfully pointing this out. People who cannot support the claim that Stein and CO are after ALL science have yet to provide a convincing case yet they seem to be able to control the content of the article and with a lot of hand waving of policies that don't support their own claims. Angry Christian (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to throw this around, how about "Portrayal of scientific and academic institutions as atheistic"? I don't like the idea of using "Portrayal of Big Science as atheistic" since "Big Science" is just a slang/colloquial phrase. On reflection however, I wouldn't mind using "Big Science" either, but I think we'll have to aware that many readers don't know what "Big Science" is other than it being "the man" of science holding a big hammer --BirdKr (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Are people considering "evolution"? This has all the benefits and drawbacks of being their real gripe, as opposed to the rhetoric about "Big Science," elitists, etc. As I said above, I'm pretty sure the "Big Science" phrase is an attempt to appropriate the Big oil or Big tobacco concepts of big bad monopolizers squelching the little guy. I admit I'm not familiar with any history of this phrase. In any case, I think anything about the scientific establishment is accurate, but since the point of the film is to attack evolution, I think it makes more sense to use that. Mackan79 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more than just evolution. It's also abiogenesis and the "Big Bang" Theory: any theory of origins that doesn't leave a space for God.

How about the "scientific community"? Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more than evolutionary biology, but it all seems to surround the general theory of a Big Bang evolving naturally into modern life. "Scientific community" still seems a little like reframing their argument (that's not exactly what they're trying to portray), though I admit it's better than just "science." I just think the movie is really about evolution as a comprehensive theory of history being atheistic compared to ID. Mackan79 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Portraying science as atheistic has been a plank of the ID movement. As I mentioned before, Pennock dealt with this extensively a decade ago. Their attack on evolution is an attack on the scientific method. It's just easier to gain traction with their target audience if they attack evolution instead of science.

This doesn't require any novel insight or original research. This is a fundamental property of ID, and the reason why they seek to redefine science (as, for example, they did in Kansas). Guettarda (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't what they are trying to do or what they believe they're doing, though, is what I'm trying to say. Scientists recognize it as a broadly anti-science position, but their problem is solely where science conflicts with their religious views. So we can say looking in that they prioritize religion over science, and certainly they spin circles trying to reconcile it, but they're not portraying science as atheistic. This isn't what they believe or what they want us to conclude. I think your point about their position in reality can be true while this point also remains clear. Mackan79 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what ID is all about - ID seeks to displace the scientific method because it is atheistic. Expelled is a product of the same ID movement. So if they use the same language to describe the same issue, isn't it parsimonious to conclude that they are saying the same thing? We can't invent a novel motivation for the producers of Expelled, not when what they are saying appears to be identical to what the rest of the ID movement is saying. Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we need to do a better job of reading and presenting their argument. They do not believe or ever say that science is atheistic. They say that certain scientists are, scientists who they clearly don't like. To say they portray science as atheistic is to mock Stein's statement that some people want to keep science is an atheistic box. There is no reason to do this; we should simply present it and respond to it in an encyclopedic fashion. To misrepresent it muddles and distorts the entire discussion unnecessarily. Mackan79 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The movie does not portray scientific institutions or academia as a whole as atheistic, but portrays certain elements in scientific institutions and academia as promoting and protecting atheism in an unscientific manner. Atheism is a religion, not a science. This is only one tiny segment of the scientific world we are talking about. The rest of the scientific world is not involved at all in questions of the origin of life. But whenever those questions do arise, the rules are changed to prevent "heretical" ideas from getting any traction.

There is a process in place for vetting scientific ideas. Even if it is subverted by individual researcher or reviewers, it has a way of correcting itself in the long run. But it is being systematically subverted at the highest levels whenever issues of the origin of life are involved. If everyone simply stuck to the process, and let ideas live or die based on their merit, there would be no purpose or audience for this movie! DrHenley (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First, atheism is not a religion anymore than bald is a hair color. And second, since Iders only have a problem with origin of life theories, that would mean there is no problem with the "Big Bang" theory. Is that correct? Finally, believe it or not, science is is willing to let bad ideas die based upon their merit, but sometimes their proponents won't let go of the corpse.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Atheism is a-THEISM. The vast majority of scietists study things in the here and now that can actually be tested. They are mostly mundane things that nobody but people in their field get excited about, so you don't hear about them in the news. They like to get into knock-down drag-out fights over things like whether a microheterogeneity model of enzyme deactivation kinetics is appropriate for an enzyme known to have a two stage series deactivation...DrHenley (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Atheism is a-THEISM." Only in the original Greek sense, where the prefix "a" means "without" or "not", as in "atypical" or "asymmetrical". Still, this is kind of off-topic. -- Hi Ev 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to ID dogma, all science is atheistic because it does not allow for supernatural causation. Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"We've got 3 exceptional, unimpeachable sources -ID's own manifesto, its founder's own words, and the Dover ruling..."; "...According to ID dogma, all science is atheistic..." The article is not about the Discovery Institute or its founder, the Wedge Document, the Dover trial, ID dogma. It's about the movie. If the movie describes science as atheistic, then the section title is valid. If it doesn't describe science thus, then it's an unsourced interpretation by editors, and a violation of NPOV. What the Discovery Institute or Dover v Kitzmiller says is irrelevant to this point. Those are valid sources to an article on creationism/ID. They are not valid sources to an article on this specific movie. I have read some here say that the film actually says this. Is this true? And if so, does it do so with any sort of explicitness, or is it a matter of interpretation? Nightscream (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you not read the footnote for that? Currently #45[12] where we find the following:

"Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism."
Under "The Claim" - "Scientists are atheists" ... "The movie sets up an unnecessary dichotomy between science and religion by pretending that a selected group of atheist scientists represent all scientists."

That is science = atheism is in the movie, correctly sourced. Are we done with that issue now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This says the claim is that "scientists" are atheists, which is of course also from a critical site. The same site says they believe "Big Science" is ignoring the "scientific validity" of ID. Regardless of what the site says, it's obviously incorrect to say they "portray" science as atheistic; this is the critical view, not their view. We all know it isn't what they believe or want us to believe or say at any point. "Evolution" on the other hand is clearly accurate, which is why I suggest it, but if people don't like that then I regret it can't be left until we find another option that correctly represents their argument. Mackan79 (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very minor variant on a fundamental ID argument. We have a reliable source which supports this reading. We have no reliable source that disagrees with this understanding. The alternative reading suggest that Mathis, etc., have come up with an entirely new idea here and that, somehow, despite the absence of sources, that it's OK to derive this new understanding of the topic from the film itself.

So you have a source for your argument? Do you have a source that says that we should discount the NCSE source and what has been, up until now, a standard argument in ID? And that we should do so in the absence of reliable source? If so - why? Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a reliable, though critical, source saying they make this claim of "scientists." It doesn't and couldn't say they make this claim of all scientists, though the statement would be an improvement since it's at least unclear which scientists they mean. But I just noted above the same source saying they believe "Big Science" ignores the "scientific validity" of ID. So how do we reconcile this? We also have Stein himself saying some wrongly want to keep science in an atheistic box. I'm saying you can't reconcile these statements and come up with a claim that science is atheistic; this view is in fact exactly what Stein criticizes in his own words. Mackan79 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As one thing: I wouldn't object to including the point about it being a wedge strategy, assuming we don't go into a paragraph on that topic. In fact, I think that's exactly the right way to address the issue, is it not? My theory is people considering the real issues is much better than being fed conclusions that won't seem quite right. Mackan79 (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just added a section on the NPOV noticeboard regarding this, see here. I also just realized AC's section below was a response, so I'll have to check that out. As forewarning, I didn't try to characterize both sides (I saw this was taking too long), so others can feel free. Maybe we'll get helpful comments either way. Mackan79 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the source in question is not the movie. I'm talking about what the movie says. Not what one of its critics says. If one of its critics says that the movie portrays science as such, that's fine, but that's material that belongs in the section, and properly attributed as a criticism. It does not belong in the title of the section, because section titles should be neutral. By titling the section "Portrayal of science as atheistic", it gives the impression to the reader that the article itself/Wikipedia is presenting that criticism as a factual conclusion. Notice how the section about the misleading of interviewees has the word "Accusation" in the title. It doesn't merely say "Misleading of interviewees". Again, if the movie itself explicitly states or even indicates that science is atheistic, that's fine. If not, then it's an interpretation, and doesn't belong in a section title. Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I could be very wrong but I don't think slapping a tag on the article is going to bring about the change you're looking for. The end result will probably be your tag will get reverted. If you feel that we can't resove by discussing it here then I would suggest you go through ordinary dispute resolutions instead. I've made specific suggestions below and let's see if that encourages a productive discussion. I'm in no rush. Angry Christian (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and decided to forget about the tag already actually. The NPOV board where I posted is for substantive discussion of NPOV issues such as the one here, not to discuss the tag. People used to rely more heavily on the WP:RfC process, but possibly this is a better way to get a discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented in more detail below, but basically the film misleadingly portrays all science as both "big science" and as atheistic. Hence the repeated references to ID proponents being "expelled" for their religious views, when in fact they've failed to get promotion because they've diverted themselves away from scientifically productive work. Both the NCSE and Scientific American make the point that "science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity"[13] and Stein's demand that non-empirical "factors" are allowed as an explanation goes against all science. .. dave souza, talk 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you not see the difference between their own view and the conclusions others draw about it? In any case, please show how they portray "all science" as atheistic. I believe this is simply incorrect. Mackan79 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, look below and you'll see Dave has left a well crafted response. Respectfully, let's be patient and give other people time to weigh in. Your disagreement is noted. I've left messages on several people's talk page and invited them to comment. I'm suggesting until then let's listen to the responses from Dave and others, then respond. There is no rush. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My Epiphany and Request

Guys this all came together for me last night and to me this is very simple issue. And before I start my speech I want to be very clear that I do not disagree with FeloniousMonk's assessment of the ID movement. Not one bit, I recognize Stein is now in company of HIV-Deniers, Global-Warming Deniers, etc. I recognize this is bigger than just evolution. And I sincerely apologize to FeloniousMonk for coming at him in this discussion. FM is a subjet matter expert on ID and I have no doubt he and I would have a great time drinking beers and talking about the subject. He linked to very informative and related articles and if you have not already read them you'd be wise to do so.

For that matter I have read all of Guettarda's comments, yet another subject matter expert on all things ID and I am in agreement with him about the broader ID picture. My isssue remains the title is not supported by the body of work and here's why:

I participate on a few science related forums and I often use the term "anti-science" when I am describing IDers. If someone were to ask "do you honestly thing IDers are opposed to every single branch of science?" I'd say of course not. It is easier to write "anti-science" than "they object to any branch of science that conflicts with the bible". The NCSE link dave souza provided has a few examples where they in fact describe the film as being anti-science. If you have not read that link he gave you'd be wise to do so. I have been reading the NCSE for years now and I have nothing but respect for their work. I don't feel they provide enough evidence in that link for us to conclude Expelled portrays all of science as being atheistic. I also suspect they, like myself, simply made a broad statement that was linguistically more elegant that writing "they portray any branch of science that conflicts with the bible as being atheistic" I believe this for two reasons - The movie itself ONLY portrays a sub-set of science as being atheistic. The other reason is I know how credible the NCSE is and how much emphasis and value they place on evidence and clearly the evidence they show (brief quotes from the movie) does not prove Expelled is portraying all science...I am going to write them an email and ask them to clarify their comments after I finish this. I'll publish those results here (and yes I know we cannot add OR to the article, that's not what I'm suggesting). [edit/update] I just read the NCSE's page again (for what must be the 10th time) and I am convinced if we were to say "The NCSE says Expelled portrays ALL science as atheistic" we'd be taking their comments out of context and for that reason I decided not to write them. Anyone else is free to do so but I'm convinced that is not the point they are making. Cheers -AC]

There are a couple of examples where someone from Expelled makes an all inclusive statement "science" without clarifying who exactly they meant. It would be very easy to quote these guys out of context. I say this because the movie itself has a very narrow focus of who they are portraying as atheistic. This leads me to believe we are jumping the gun by making such an all inclusive statement.

My favorite Wikipedia puppy, KillerChihuahua, pointed out these statements:

"Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism

Under "The Claim" - "Scientists are atheists" ... "The movie sets up an unnecessary dichotomy between science and religion by pretending that a selected group of atheist scientists represent all scientists"

In spite of the claims being made, the movie itself does not portray all' science as atheistic, the movie itself targets a defined sub-set of the scientific community. That KC source does not provide any evidence that Expelled is portraying ALL science as atheistic. So to use that source or the CNSE quotes as the basis for the title is to use hearsay.

When I look at all the evidence that has been presented I am still convinced the body of the "Portrayal of science.." does not support the title it has been given. Several very good editors have come to the same conclusion and it stands to reason many of our readers will see the same disconnect. That sort of thing erodes credibility. In view of this I am requesting the following:

1) I am asking the subject matter experts to recognize we have a legitimate dispute exists (not tag worthy, we're still discussing it) over the title and work with us to find a solution.

2) FeloniousMonk, I have seen many of your edits and I've seen you take complex and controversial issues and artfully summarize and simplify them in a very neutral and NPOV way. You have an exception grasp on ID and the English language. I know you're a busy guy but I am humbly asking you to roll up your sleaves and help us find something to use as a title that is clearly supported by the body of work.

3) I'm requesting everyone step back and look at this issue from the perspective of an editor, and not a partisan. Treat this as a subject-predicate issue (whatever). We have a title that is not in agreement with the body of work, that should not be a problem so big we can't resolve it. I have no doubt if we were in FM's back yard (drinking his beer ;-) ) we'd find a solution in 15 minutes.

4) My final suggestion is let's be cautious instead of aggressive. That will not hurt the article (nor does it suggest FM, et al are wrong). This is an article about a propaganda film that makes unsupported conspiratorial claims. In view of this I think we'd be wise to take a conservative approach when it comes to making making broad, all-inclusive claims. Extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence. Saying they portray all science is an extraordinary claim. When/if new evidence is presented we can always broaden/modify the title.

Finally (whew), I apologize for anything that seemed snotty that I wrote earlier. I was having a knee jerk reaction as I felt I was about to watch a well intentioned editor (who has been working hard to improve the article) be subjected to stuff he did not deseve. Regardless of my reasons, it was/is inexcusable and I won't do it again. Thank you very much for reading this novella. Angry Christian (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a thoughtful essay on your points. While I appreciate your reasoning, fundamentally intelligent design is about redefining the "ground rules" of science to accept supernatural explanations, and from the outset has depicted science that doesn't follow their revised rules as atheistic. In 1990 Johnson wrote "Victory in the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the party with the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot lose. The... Natural Academy of Sciences [says] Creation-Science is not science.. because it fails to display the most basic characteristic of science: reliance upon naturalistic explanations. Instead, proponents of "creation- science" hold that the creation of the universe, the earth, living things, and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding..... By skilful manipulation of categories and definitions, the Darwinists have established philosophical naturalism as educational orthodoxy in a nation in which the overwhelming majority of people express some form of theistic belief inconsistent with naturalism."[14] Note that philosophical naturalism is the same as atheism. This film rehearses an argument that Johnson put in 1990, even before he became the "father of intelligent design". The argument put by the NAS then is the same one put by Scientific American against this film's claim "5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism. Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference."[15] The term "big science" is rhetorical, a framing device to depict ID pseudoscience as "little science" against the big guys. There's no such thing. As Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance points out, a mechanic finding a fault in an engine applies the scientific method. He or she hypothesises a natural cause, tries experiments to see if it works, then tries another hypothesis. Under ID's Theistic realism the mechanic would have to also hypothesise that a god or a demon was stopping the engine from running, and the aim of the wedge strategy is to spread that understanding throughout society and science as a whole. Under NPOV: Giving "equal validity" we have to take care to avoid giving credence to their misdirection. ..dave souza, talk 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all fair analysis Dave, the only point I'm insisting on is that this is not how they see their argument. In this section header we are saying what they "portray," not providing the underlying reality of their position. Much of this discussion seems to be an elaborate variation on the No true Scotsman fallacy; they're presenting an argument about science, but we're relaying it in a way that presumes it to be false. No matter how strong the argument that their view of science violates the basic principles of science, we can't presume that in the actual presentation of their argument without making a joke out of ourselves. In any case, all of this has only to do with why no reliable sources say this is their position. We can talk about it endlessly, but it seems very unlikely that this will change. Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I too appreciate the thoughtful essay -- we rarely see those in Wikiworld. ;) However, I'm inclined to agree with Dave that IDers and Ben Stein, et alia, do seek to change the fundamental ground-rules of science to the point where even silliness like astrology could be considered a science. Having said that though, perhaps there is some middle ground we could adopt -- it would have to be pithy as most people hate long titles -- so, let's hear some ideas. The one you previously had was okay, I suppose, but potentially misleading and probably not fully encompassing the scope of the derision poured on science by Stein and company. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I watched the movie, I did not in any way think that I was being protrayed as an atheist for being a scientist! The beginning of the movie was making the case that the ground rules WERE changed in certain cases. DrHenley (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

...Well, no, that's part of the deliberate (and documented) deception created by the ID movement: and the movie is a part of that deception. There's a superficial level (presented to the general puplic and government) in which ID is "pro-science", a "scientific theory" that should be taught in schools. Underneath that is the religious agenda: it's all about pushing creationism (mainly into kids). Under that is why they're pushing it: to promote their religion. And underneath that is... well, a sort of ideological mush, apparently. Their religion is "true science" to them, but is fundamentally alien to the scientific method, and hence actual science (note that this isn't my "atheistic" opinion, it's also shared by religious scientists opposed to ID). --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright Robert, but will you acknowledge that the film portrays evolution as atheistic, or its proponents as atheistic? The problem with the current statement is that it's still closer to "Portrayal of themselves as scientifically incompetent" than it is to their actual argument. Mackan79 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you're right, but the intellect is repelled by such ignorance as is portayed by the cretinists. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, the article is about the film, not the Wedge Strategy, the Discovery Institute, or Creationism in general. We're not talking about portrayals made by the latter three, no matter how connected they are to the film or its makers. We are talking about portrayals made in the film itself. Basing a section title on evaluations of portrayals made by the Discovery Institute etc. involves a synthesis--original research, in other words. The question is: does the film portray science as being inherently or wholly atheistic? If yes, then the current title is fine. If no, then it is not.

The film presents and sympathizes with several scientists who are ID supporters. So clearly, the film does not portray all scientists or the whole scientific enterprise as atheistic. Furthermore, the comment from Stein that "[t]here are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God" shows that the film-makers believe science can take a form that is not methodologicaly materialistic or atheistic. Their stated quarrel is not with science as a whole, but with what they consider to be an atheistic scientific elite, represented by the atheist scientists they selected to interview. Titling the section "Portrayal of science as atheistic" is not consistent with the portrayal actually made in the film. It is skewed, non-neutral, inaccurate, misleading, etc. It creates a caricature of a film that needs no caricaturization.

Does anyone here doubt that the film portrays a segment of science (evolutionary theory) and scientists (what it calls "Big Science") as atheistic? As far as I can tell, everyone contributing to this discussion, no matter what their personal point of view, would agree that these are portrayed as atheistic. On the other hand, a significant proportion of people in this discussion take issue with the characterization of the film as portraying all science as atheistic. So why insist on the current title when an alternative title would be accurate and unobjectionable to all involved? More importantly, why insist on the current title, when it is plainly inaccurate? The film-makers do a fine enough job of creating a strawman of ther own position. They need no help from us.

It has been objected that "Big Science" is a neologism, and we shouldn't adopt such vocabulary in this article. I agree. That's why I had previously retitled the section putting that phrase in quotation marks. It's a way of saying "these are their words, not ours." This is a way of legitimately using the terminology in a very limited way, without actually adopting it. It's also been pointed out that the term has a previous, different meaning from that used in the film. Even so, this needn't stop us from reporting on how the term is used in the film, or using it in a section title, provided we set it apart using quotation marks. "Big Science" is their stated target, and we can clarify what is meant by that within the section. Also, evolutionary theory/Darwinism is another of their stated targets--not chemistry, or physics, or toxicology, neurology or materials science, or any number of other disciplines within science.

What should the section be titled? I'm open to a number of possibilities, provided they are true to what is actually portrayed in the film. The "x" in "Portrayal of x as atheistic" could be "'Big Science,'" "the scientific elite," "the scientific establishment," "evolution," "evolutionary theory," "Darwinism," or some combination of these. Nick Graves (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Science will have two or more very different meanings depending on who you talk to. For scientists, government officials, and people within academic institutions, etc., "Big Science" is a phrase that reflects huge projects, collaboration, and funding in the field of science. Examples would be the atomic bomb or the Large Hadron Collider project. To the creationists/ID or at least from this movie, the phrase is used in a negative connotation as if to portray science as spoiled adamant elitist giant like "Big oil".

The scientific elite would imply only few within the scientific community are atheistic which the movie does not try to portray.

Scientific establishment is probably the best choice out of all those possibilities, although whether or not it's the right choice will most likely ensue yet another long discussion to as whether the movie is going science itself by evolution and the scientific process or just the people within the disciplines.

Evolution, evolutionary theory, and Darwinism. First, I believe the latter is used more for philosophy and politics than as a scientific term. All 3 are part of the portrayal of "x as atheistic", but these three (or two) aren't the only aspects that are portrayed as atheistic.

--BirdKr (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Another couple of options would be the scientific method and non-creationist science, but there should be no illusion that "it's just some other bit of science" that the film disparages and depicts as atheistic by use of film techniques as much as by its words. Here's an extract from a blog entry I came across -

The second idea discussed was when one chemist who mentioned the possibility that a possible precursor of life might have been self-reproducing chemicals in a crystalline matrix (I may have the details slightly wrong. It was only mentioned briefly). Now here's the fun part: the movie switches to a black-and-white clip (they like to do this a lot) of a stereotypical fortune-teller looking at a crystal ball. Stein voices over "Aliens? Crystals? I thought this was science!" (this may be a slight paraphrase). Now, I'm genuinely puzzled as to what he thinks is not scientific about crystals. The best explanation I can come up with is that he associates them with New Age nonsense and does not understand that crystals are in fact chemically and geologically interesting objects. The level of anti-intellectualism in Stein's statement is appalling. And frankly, I'm a bit shocked that apparently no one who saw early versions bothered trying to tell Stein that there wasn't anything unscientific about studying crystals.[16]

In a similar display of rejecting science, the "Real Detroit Weekly" includes a discussion with Mathis who makes pronouncements about speciation, and when they're questioned says “Whoa! Wait a minute! Please send me whatever material you have that demonstrates that we can observe speciation because I have not seen anything. I’ve never heard anyone even claim that!”, then when sent peer-reviewed research responds, “This isn’t an important argument for me.”([17] at the foot of the page). An argument from ignorance is the opposite of science. .. dave souza, talk 09:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, given that they do not and apparently cannot understand the science, all they are left with are arguments from ignorance: arguments that unfortunately appeal to the ignorant masses, thus thety are described by the vulgus as wisdom. That's the beauty of religion, astrology, ID and other mythologies: infinite regress is much more soothing than intellectual progress. Jim62sch^dissera! 09:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful here about original research and that blog isn't exactly a reliable source (although I'd like it to be...) JoshuaZ (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok gang, it's been 24 hours or so since I wrote my essay, I read everyone's comments as they came in but I wanted to sit and listen to everyone who replied before I started yapping. First of all thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply and also to those of you who offered suggestions. Part of my frustration has been I did not (and do not) have a better suggestion for the tile and could not get my arms around the content itself. Since this discussion started there have been numerous edits to that section and they have all been for the better. I really really like the current lead sentence in the section and feels it qualifies the title very nicely. My reasons for objecting to the title has not changes, but the content has changed and in view of the current version on the content I am in support of the title as it was or as it stands and this moment. Based on a conversation below others might not agree with me but I'm comfortable with the title as it was or now is. Angry Christian (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the section 'should be titled "portrayal of science as atheistic". I am not especially attached to that wording. But I am opposed to replacing it with a less accurate section title.

It's well established that the ID movement rejects science because it is "atheistic". Fundamental to the existence of ID is a willingness to accept "non-materialistic" causation. ID proponents have conflated methodological naturalism with philosophical materialism to portray the former as "atheism". Expelled appears to be portraying whatever it is they are attacking as atheistic. This is standard ID methodology. So the question is: what are they talking about? A few suggestions have been made:

Evolution
"Big Science"
Mainstream science
Science

It's obvious that they are talking about more than evolution or even biology - at a minimum they are talking about cosmology and the origin of life. "Big science" isn't an acceptable alternative, because (a) it's an undefined neologism, and (b) there's a more established meaning for the term. We need to be clear and avoid jargon and neologisms. That leaves us with "(mainstream) science".

"Mainstream" science assumes that there is some sort of non-mainstream science to which their definition does not apply. But are they really saying that fringe science is less atheistic than mainstream science? If we are to make the distinction between "fringe" and "mainstream", we need to be able to support that distinction. So it would need solid references. More to the point, I don't think that they are making that distinction. What they are attacking is science, broadly. True, they are not portraying it as such. True, they may not even realise that they are portraying it as such (Mathis has admitted that he doesn't know much about science, and Stein really doesn't appear to be much more than a "pretty face" in this endeavour). But that doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to portray this as accurately as we can. "Writing for the enemy" is important, but so is accuracy. While we could replace "science" with {every aspect of science that Expelled complains about}, we would not be producing readable prose. More importantly, it would be impossible to produce a reliable list, not without transcripts of the movie.

"Science" is the best term that anyone has come up with. The others are less accurate. I would be thrilled if someone could come up with a better title for the section. But so far, simply "science" is the most accurate. Guettarda (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got home from seeing the film a little while ago, during which I took three pages of notes on a mini notepad. The film does not portray "all science" as atheistic. This is an interpretation by editors. What it does is accuse evolutionists, or proponents of natural selection (though it refers to them constantly as "Darwinists") as wanting to keep science "unrelated to religion" (a phrase one bearded fellow uses in a rant toward the end of the film, before the final scene of Stein speaking to the paid audience, but after (IIRC) the sit-down Dawkins interview (which is a separate one at a well-lit, small round table, from the darkened one earlier in the film). In fact, during the film Eugenie Scott asserts that one of creationism/ID's dark secrets that they don't want anyone to know about is that Christians and Protestants are "Ok with evolution". The film focuses on evolution, not "all science". I can't even recall the phrase "Big Science" being used. The most accurate word to use is "evolution", not "science".

KillerChihuahua quotes this source thus: "Expelled caricatures scientists and the scientific enterprise as dogmatically committed to atheism." and "Under "The Claim" - 'Scientists are atheists' ... 'The movie sets up an unnecessary dichotomy between science and religion by pretending that a selected group of atheist scientists represent all scientists.' That is science = atheism is in the movie, correctly sourced."

Well, no, it's not in the movie, as I don't recall any mention in the film of all scientists being atheists. How can it, given that there are interviews with scientists who are clearly not atheists? This source is someone offering their interpretation of the film's content. That's valid for including as an accusation in the text, but not as a section title, since titling the section thus would give the appearance to the reader that Wikipedia is endorsing that interpretation.Nightscream (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Of course, your own notes and observations constitute WP:OR and therefore not citable or usable directly. Also, the article really is about more than just the film; the promotion, the interviews, the publicity, the controversies etc. And even if "Big Science" is only used in some of their promotional material like the website, it is still significant. And even if only some reviewers obtained this impression that they are targeting all science from the assorted statements of the producers and Stein and the interviews and the promotional material, then it is still significant. Of course, we might need to clarify exactly who said what when and where, but even if the film itself does not make this claim, it is still quite relevant for this article, I would claim.--Filll (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, I think you misunderstand me. First of all, I took notes in order to better engage in discussion on this Talk Page regarding assertions about the film's content. Not as original research. One doesn't even need to cite notes merely to add material to the article about the film's content, since the only source necessary when doing so is the movie itself. And as far as the the article also being about the promotion, interviews, publicity, and controversies, this is only true to the extent that those things relate to the film. If "Big Science" is only used in some extra-film interview, then it should be attributed as such in the appropriate section, and not in the title of a section devoted specifically to the film's content. As it stands now, the word "science" in the title of the section in question is not accurate. Nightscream (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)