Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Template:Talkbottom

Anti-ID Screed

This article has the tone of an anti-intelligent design screed. It's irrelevant to whether ID has any truth to it or not. Wikipedia should not be the place to slam a certain stance (whether wacko or not) all the while claiming to be neutral. Why not just write EVOLUTION IS FACT AND ID SUCKS, EVOLUTION IS FACT AND ID SUCKS and be done with the article? I strongly disagree with a lot of the wording in this article. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in detail, see NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" for basis of article consensus. .. dave souza, talk 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This article is terribly biased, and is being used as a soapbox to rant against ID. Go read the articles about other controversial films, and there is no criticism of the content of the films in the opening paragraph. See bowling for columbine, an inconvenient truth, sicko. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, and intelligent design.--Filll (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You should refer to those policies. Because according to the policies you cited, this article is quite biased. Furthermore, if you read this talk page, the majority opinion seems to be that this article is biased, and several users have complained about it being used as a soapbox. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD-'"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

The poor state of leads in other articles is not any reason to deplore the state of this one. This is an issue of systemic bias. Please feel free to lend a hand, without grinding an axe of course.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but I believe you are mistaken.--Filll (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, just recognize that you seem to be going against precedent. I believe that makes the opening somewhat biased. I also think it may be giving undue weight to criticism of ID, although a short evaluation of ID certainly does belong in the article. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

These other films are propaganda for pseudoscience in the same way as this film? See the NPOV references I've pointed out, which make specific provision for pseudoscience. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what side of the debate you're on. Ask a conservative, and they'd say bowling for columbine was unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific propaganda for the leftist gun control lobby. They'd tell you that Michael Moore lied and manufactured statistics, whereas the "consensus of the experts" is that responsible gun ownership reduces crime. And if you ask a liberal, or a supporter of gun control, they'd say people that oppose gun control are assault-rifle owning militia members that lie about the crime-reducing effects of reasonable gun control, and that the "consensus of the experts" is that gun control is good. This is the danger in labeling any widely-held position as "pseudoscience"; by calling something pseudoscience, you are taking sides, and wikipedia isn't supposed to do this. GusChiggins21 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so bowling for columbine and sicko were supposed to be about science? Interesting claim. An inconvenient truth is nominally about science, but I would not be surprised if the article is poorly written. To get an NPOV version might be a huge amount of work. You are free to try to do it though.--Filll (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Social sciences are capable of producing pseudoscience. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they are. As a political science instructor, teaching classes at both a State college and a Christian college, I am amazed at the amount of pseudoscience that passes itself off as "truth" in the social sciences -- and I'm talking about notable textbooks used in classrooms, not just obvious examples like Bowling for Columbine and Sicko. --profg ^Talk 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is without a doubt that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as science and, frankly, espouses it as an ideology. It's fully ensconced in the scientific culture. This, however, is a movie. Look at Bowling For Columbine, since it was mentioned. THAT is how this article should begin. "Expelled is a controversial movie promoting intelligent design." Not "EVOLUTION is true, here are the links to prove it." "ID sucks and here are the studies to back it." Those links should be used on the specific article pages. (And this article does seem rant-like at times.) Again, I protest much of the wording of this article. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<ui> Looks like you chaps haven't been paying attention to NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and the film itself. From all I've seen, the subject of the film is scientists and biology teachers. As Doctorcherokee aptly states, the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as science. Those are the experts on the subject, including teaching of the subject. Hence we follow NPOV accordingly. Taking one of your other examples, is there an overwhelming expert opinion on the subject matter of Bowling For Columbine ? If not, we balance the opinions appropriately. Of course if Expelled features victims persecuted by being expelled from churches, we'll look to different expert opinion for that aspect of the film. .. dave souza, talk 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in here and say this. I just saw a preview for this film, and the makers claim that the purpose of the film is not to promote Intelligent Design, Creationism, or Christianity. (Ben Stine isn't even a Christian.) The purpose of the film is to call attention to the plight of many individuals (well qualified or not, eg. one of the scientist that has been persecuted has two doctorats) that have been persecuted and wrongly stripped of their dignity, jobs, and credibility just because they challenged the status quo. This film does not promote any particular scientific view; instead it foghts for the rights and freedom of speech guarenteed by the United States constitution. Most of this article is biased and gives a wrong view of this article. (I forgot to sign in, this comment was left by Saksjn

I left the last comment Saksjn (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad this disagrees with all the information we have in WP:RS--Filll (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"viscously persecuted"

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

Clean up intro

Souza, first of all, looking up this page, agreement is the last thing I see. Most people seem to think the article as is stands is just ugly. Obviously it's idiocy to teach ID in classrooms, and there are plenty of articles on wikipedia to emphasize this point. To regurgitate all that content straight into the lead of this article wastes space and makes an unreadable mess. The resulting tone is one of impatience - as though you can't speak factually about the film for more than five seconds without needing to remind us yet again that it is wrong. This tone continues through the article, but I thought I'd take a stab at getting it out of the intro. -MBlume (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your suggestion violates WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way saying that the article should not refute the claims made in the film. I'm simply saying that there is a great deal of information in the article that is not necessary. For example, the long-winded description of a newspaper which reviewed the film - should we do this each time we site the New York Times? More importantly, the (many) problems of ID are repeated every other sentence. Is it not enough to state what the film is, how it was produced, what it attempts to accomplish, and why it fails? I have no wish to change the factual content of this article, I simply feel that its defensive and combative tone is not beneficial to the project as a whole. -MBlume (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, some papers and people and events are well known, like the New York Times. Some are more obscure, and I like to put a little bit of a word or two of description so the article is complete without forcing people to click the link. I personally find that style of writing extremely annoying and bad form. Also, the inclusion of a statement about Colorado Confidential was not initiated by me, but by a creationist who wanted to smear the paper. I just included the statement from their own website to be neutral. Also, you have to be familiar with WP:NPOV to edit here. All articles on WP have this tone. Some like it. Some do not. If you want to change the organizing principles of WP go to the appropriate policy page. This is the wrong page for that discussion. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Documentary status

Although I think it is highly likely someone will revert my addition of "documentary" back to the article, I would liek to point out that I have repeatedly brought this issue to the talk page and have been met with zero opposition once I have presented appropriate points.

This film consists of non-fiction footage, no actors and no pre-rehearsed script. It purports to document factual events, and while perhaps not presenting an accurate assembly of information, remains to be such a film.

Documentaries have been made dissenting against Einstein's theory of relativity [1], it is likely full of crap, but it's still a documentary, because it isn't fiction.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I can understand the desire to avoid suggesting that this film is objective, ZayZayEM is right in pointing to the chequered history of the documentary film. The John Grierson classics and films such as Night Mail are not lacking in pov. Risking the wrath of Mike Godwin, the most apposite example in relation to Expelled must surely be Leni's Triumph of the Will. In short, I agree with ZayZayEM, and won't be reverting the changes. .. dave souza, talk 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking the lead

"The film describes what have been called four or five ordinary academic disputes[5] as persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, and claims there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.[1][4] However, in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and that its promotion in American public school science classes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[5][6]"

This paragraph attempts to contrast (the only use of "However" I know) two seperate totally unrelated ideas

1. The film describes academic disputes and claims a conspiracy to keep God out of school
2. A court ruled ID is religious in nature

How are these points related in a way that requires direct contrast through use of "however". "However" would be useful if we were dispelling that

1. The academic disputes exist (nope)
2. God is not being kept out of schools (nope, it actually supports this statement)
3. there is a conspiracy to keep God out of school (again, no, it neither confirms or denies this, it just shows that a court ruling is at least in part responsible for keeping God out of schools, this could be in addition, or as aprt of a conspiracy)

The court ruling statement also presents information unrelated to the original statement about the film content.

1. That ID violates the Constitution, the first statement does not say that ID is Constitutional (perhaps the Constitution is part of the conspiracy?).
2. That intelligent design is a religious view, the first statement does not say that intelligent design is notv a religious view, it actually ties ID to religion by expliciting tying it to support for God in laboratories and classrooms.

This paragraph needs fixing. Mostly by removing "However". Expelled does not present a fictional scenario. ID/God are being kept out of schools, this is true. It presents a bizzare interpretation of this scenario, that this is somehow a bad scenario (in both terms of evil and poor science). The courts response to intelligent design does not appropriately dismiss this interpretation, it provides an odd juxtaposition of tit-for-tat that is not directed at Expelled, but at ID.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ID/God are being kept out of schools by the 1st Amendment, and taking your point, I've removed the "however" and made the statement less convoluted. Hope you find this a useful clarification. . .dave souza, talk 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The film describes what have been called four or five ordinary academic disputes as persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, and claims there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.

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

The Irony

The real irony here is that this incredibly biased entry about the film is evidence that what the film asserts is indeed true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.134.109 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you think that only one side should be presented? You might be aware of the rules of WP. We have to present both sides, or all sides if there are more than 2, as long as they are significant. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and related pages.--Filll (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia contains what is objectively verifiable, not The Truth™. I say unfortunately, it's unfortunate if you think Conservapedia is a more reliable encyclopaedia than Wikipedia can ever be. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the greater irony is that Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html where he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... " and proposes editing pages on intelligent design, , evolution, or creationism. "Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" A longer transcript has been posted at WP:ANI#Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. ... dave souza, talk 11:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

They are also wrong: we can stop it, if the need arises, and they will almost certainly alienate so many people in the process that it will make the job of getting their POV into the article substantially harder. This is a lesson several people have learned the hard way. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

wait, by this logic, if someone made a movie Evil: No Time Cube Allowed branding academic refusal to discuss Time Cube as "persecution", and we wrote an article about how in reality, the refusal is due to Time Cube being so much nonsense, this would in fact "prove" that proponents of "Time Cube" are in fact persecuted? Wow. I can see that with this sort of approach, you can get yourself to believe anything at all. dab (𒁳) 11:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The film is blatant propaganda, and should be viewed as such. I have never come across any reliable source properly independent of the Discovery Institute who seriously advocated the idea that ID is anything other than creationism. As a Christian I find their stance puzzling: it's almost as if they are ashamed to admit that theirs is a religious perspective. And it fools nobody, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not being in the US, it is hard for you to understand this I am sure. It is about US law, nothing more and nothing less. Just the law. If you look historically, that is the same reason that creation science was spawned out of creationism.--Filll (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I understand it just fine, it just boggles my mind. The idea of teaching creationism - sorry intelligent design - on a par with evolution in British schools would be completely unacceptable. We teach religion as a compulsory subject, and we don't pretend that religion is science. None of my Christian friends, many of whom are scientists, have a problem with this, but of course the Biblical inerrancy movement is not strong here, and that is the fundamental cause of the problem. That which conflicts with the literal truth of the Bible must necessarily be wrong, therefore it is unacceptable to teach it as if it were right. My personal God does not require me to deny anything that conflicts with the traditional understanding of His word, and that I guess is where I differ form the fundamental baptists who have driven the attempts to pretend that creationism is anything other than religious dogma. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, creationism, and probably ID, is taught in some British schools, including state funded City Academies which have been sponsored by Reg Vardy the car dealer. This was shown on Channel 4 in The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins, which is worth watching on YouTube or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Greene interview

Aren't we maybe giving a little too much undue weight to the speculations and opinions of one person? It's hard to see this paragraph as that relevant. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the discussion of Mathis, one of the producers, not Greene. Also Greene is notable; we just do not have an article on him yet. Also, I disagree with this removal:[2]--Filll (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Greene's article was deleted as non notable. And I actually agree with... most of JzG's deletions. 90% of that section was pedantic and boring. It might be worth keeping mention of the AiG/DI/christian organisations promotions of it, though, as, though not notable individually, they're notable en masse.. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Statements of the producer and executive producer about what their agendas are and why they made the film and what it depicts are relevant. I think that the complaints by the DI are relevant, as are the AiG and other creationist promotions. Until we get more reviews, this is what we have.--Filll (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pruned

I pruned the promotion section down to something more appropriate. This is not snakes on a plane, I don't see any evidence it has become a viral marketing phenomenon, and "so controversial you'll lose your job" or whatever is just marketing hype. I'm not convinced the quote about Newton and Galileo belongs, either - the world back then was vastly different. And we know what happened last time science and religion collided big-time: "and still it moves". The ID movement is a very modern and very American concept, specifically created to avoid the anti-establishment clause; to try to compare this deliberately-manufactured controversy with the work of historical figures during a period when science was evolving into what it is today does not strike me as relevant. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not be relevant in the UK. It is very very relevant in the US. It is hard from the UK perspective to understand the situation in the US. And this movie and its claims has substantial relevance. Even a good fraction of the candidates for president subscribe to these ideas, and the fate of education and scientific research in the US is in the crosshairs.--Filll (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"the US" comprises 300 million people. While some of them obviously care a lot about "intelligent design", I would yet have to be convinced that any of this has "substantial relevance" to the USA as a whole. And even assuming that intelligent design is of substantial relevance, from this it would not follow that this movie in particular inherits much of that relevance just by virtue of being about something of relevance. dab (𒁳) 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of those 300 million people, at least 200 million or more subscribe to the Discovery Institute position, and repeat back to pollsters and interviewers the policies of the DI when asked, including teach the controversy and similar campaign slogans. And this includes a large fraction of the politicians in the US. This is a huge issue in the country with the largest scientific and technical infrastructure in the world.--Filll (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading what I said. The promotion of the film is not significant as film promotion, and the relevance of the DI to Newton is as close to zero as makes no difference; DI is fighting a rearguard action against the scientific consensus, whereas Newton was helping to develop the scientific method. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie is significant as the latest propaganda push in what the BBC Horizon programme chose to call A War on Science. The British government and the EU have taken ID seriously enough to issue policies restricting it from being taught in schools. It's certainly of substantial relevance in Texas, which may be a small place but which has education under the control of parties supporting ID and apparently determined to remove evolution from science education. With luck this movie won't have much influence, but a lot of churches and religious people are going to use it to try to tip the balance and widen the influence of ID. The pruned material is significant in respect to the subject, and should be restored, with improvements as appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored some of the content deleted by JzG. I feel that overall, pruning was needed, but some information was useful and expanded upon points introduced but not elaborated elsewhere in the article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous statement

The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God - I take issue with this statement. Science is materialistic, and any theory that requires or admits the possibility of a Supreme Being is inherently unscientific. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember theistic evolution. However, it is possible that the statement could be better worded.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful, Raul654, that's an ID line, claiming that science is materialistic! Science is secular and uses methodological naturalism, not materialism in its common usage. Scientific theories admit the possibility of a Supreme Being, but as that possibility is untestable don't take it into account. Agree that phrasing can be improved, and the point made more explicit. .... dave souza, talk 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I did conflate materialism with naturalism (In find these abstract philisophical concepts confusing). However, to get back to my original point -- as soon as your scientific framework admits the possibility of a supreme being, "God did it" becomes a legitimate scientific explanation. More to the point, I'm sure there are scientists who reject ID because it is associated with God. (Dawkins, for example) Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're basically right, but intelligent design is built on muddling up these terms and trying to persuade people that evolution=Metaphysical naturalism=materialism=atheism, and even though Dawkins essentially agrees with that logic, he does so from a philosophical conviction and accepts that people like Ken Miller are both religious and proponents of evolution. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) By the way, Dawkins rejects ID because it's not science, and separately rejects religion because it's not subject to scientific proof. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Any inclusion of God or any other supernatural force or entity into science destroys science, since the answer to any question is or can be "God did it" or something similar. There is no reason to do science any longer at that point. Science has no position on the existence of God or not (and cannot make any statements about this question really), and many scientists are not atheists, which is the opposite of what the film claims however, and that I think is what was meant by that sentence.--Filll (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Intelligent design. I partly agree with Raul, that science does automatically reject ID because of its ties to religion - However, this is not the sole contributing factor to its rejection. The Ultimate Boeing 747 metaphor demonstrates that if religion is ignored, ID still remains an inferior proposal for origins compared to evolution (life) and other modern naturalistic explanations (the universe).--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if you allow the supernatural into science, and God into science as a cause, it turns out that all the science done so far in ID is just pure nonsense. After 20 years or more of trying, and the expenditure of many millions of dollars, all they have to show for it is failure after failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

indeed. There are many great thinkers who have contributed brilliantly to the question of the supernatural. The ID people just cannot compete, not because the topic is fundamentally invalid, but simply because they are incompetent. If you are interested in the supernatural, turn to Kant, or Jung, or Pascal, or any number of brilliant philosophers. The ID people are not even remotely in that league. They compare like a teenage garage band to a symphony orchestra. God take pity on America if this is the state of the art of their philosophy today. dab (𒁳) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the ID people are not philosophers. They are using philosophy as a weapon against science however, and as a tool to shove creationism into the public school classrooms. --Filll (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV sought

Don't like the film? Have you watched the film? There is a serious negative bent to the article. Try NPOV. Fairchoice (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it is controversial, the

label should be placed. The use of harsh words should be avoided. Claims that .... can be interpreted as "Lies that ...." The claims is not in other articles. We don't say "Clinton claims..." or "Bush claims...." in Wikipedia.

Evidence of bias, POV, and unfair treatment can be easily seen by looking at An Inconvenient Truth. You should follow that article in the way it is written. Synopsis, criticism, etc. That film is treated more kindly than this one. Be fair, not biased.

The article should also be open to editing by others not just some people.

You also need a plot section and possibly a Template:Spoiler label. Trying to slam the film is POV. Just write in a neutral tone and cite reliable sources, that's all.

As you can see, these comments are very reasonable comments. Those who will attack me may use words like meat puppet, fanatic, etc. Think again. Think clearly. And open up this article to editing by others. Fairchoice (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) with care, including the specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. Note also that a verifiable reliable source is needed for a "plot summary". . dave souza, talk 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no fanatic. The article is POV. The slant makes the film sound like a psycho produced it. An Inconvenient Truth is also a controversial film. It is handled more fairly. That film also mentions the controversy but doesn't make the film sound crazy. Make no mistake, I am for reporting the criticism that the film has received. However, I am for NPOV and a neutral tone.

Due to the controversy, you should put a tag on it. Fairchoice (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For all the "pruning" fans above, this is what happens when you "prune" out all the pro-ID material out of the article. People then see it as biased. So I think I will restore all the pro-ID material that was removed. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, creationist cranks have been complaining about the NPOV with or without the allegedly "pro-ID" material in the article. It is fair better to remain encyclopedic by maintaining a standard that only notable, verifiable material presented in accurate manner be allowed in these articles.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Things are quiet for the moment, but I do not think there is a problem with including the comments of the executive producer and the producer.--Filll (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Every comment made by a producer is not inherently notable. Promotional campaign interviews are norm and filled with lots. Interviews by proto-notable podcasters (especially ones which may contain obvious bias) are not the sort of sources Wikipedia should be using, especially with the availability of better ones - like the New York Times and Guardian.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Until we have references in the New York Times and the London Times and New York Review of Books, interviews with the producers are reasonable. They certainly are germane to the film, and they help to balance it so it is not so NPOV. After all, many many many people complain that it is too anti-ID. So put their own views in the article. What is wrong with that?--Filll (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support neutrality tag. Article is horribly biased, and not consistent with other films about controversial subjects. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

General cleanup required

The debates and edits appear to overlook a basic problem with this article: it's nearly unreadable. Please remove the semi-protected status, tag the article for cleanup, and allow other Wikipedians to wrestle the existing text into a readable, concise version. - 24.61.184.179 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Get an account and you'll soon be able to edit the article. In the meantime any proposals or drafts for detailed improvements can be posted on this talk page for discussion, and will be most welcome. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it unreadable? Frankly, the most unreadable features come from an endless parade of editors who come by to "tweak" it and mess it up, when it was quite readable a few days ago.--Filll (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to restructure it to a more readable format, and also to re-word some of the more blatant POV. Personally I think most of the "Scientific criticism" section doesn't belong in the article at all, but I'm wary of removing sourced information given that this is a highly controversial topic. Walton^One 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it did not exist before, and was integrated into the body. Criticism sections are discouraged, and it makes it easy for someone to come and delete all the criticism. For NPOV there needs to be criticism, but it has to be all through the article, not in a separate section. I just watch in amazement as a fairly reasonable article slowly turns into a pile of crap as one editor after another comes in to mess it up more and more. Amazing.--Filll (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Walton One created a lot of the mess himself and then complained about it. Isnt that great?--Filll (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is very uncivil and unfair. I am trying to help. If you don't like my edits, then revert them; I really don't care all that much. The scientific criticism stuff does not belong in the article at all; it's basically a POV screed about how evolutionists are right and creationists are wrong. However, it is sourced, so I wasn't bold enough to remove it outright. Walton^One 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you do not quite get it. NPOV means there must be stuff on all sides. Stuff that says ID is fantastic and the greatest advance in 1000 years. Stuff that says ID is produced by morons and nitwits who are trying to hoodwink the public. Both have to be in the article. Get it?

And when I wrote it, it had both. Integrated in. With many more references than are in there at present. And I am watching, editor after editor (not just you), come in, remove references, material they do not like, etc and it becomes biased and unbalanced and unsupported and the English gets messed up and so and so forth. I think you simplified one part, which is fine; made the English more simplistic which is probably good to make it more accessible. But as I try this experiment over the last few days of just letting people crap on my articles, I see what happens. They mostly deteriorate. And that is sad. You made maybe 1 good change and about 5 bad changes. Add that to about 20 bad changes of others, and we get a mess. Oh well. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Just my two cents. --Filll (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention to WP:OWN. Your definition of NPOV is twisted. It also ignores other policies of wikipedia such as notability and verifiability.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors (and I apologise for referring to others' edits as a "POV screed"), but I have not removed any sourced material whatsoever, just moved it around and reworded it. But when I saw it, there were a large number of statements along the lines of "intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth" and "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[8][18] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution." This is not NPOV; it's an uncritical endorsement of a particular viewpoint, presenting it as fact and not opinion. I agree that we need both pro- and anti-ID viewpoints in the article; but when I first saw it, it was overwhelmingly anti-ID. Feel free to revert my restructuring, or restructure it differently yourself, if you don't like the way I've done it. That's what a wiki is for. Walton^One 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The first statement you bear issues with is a fact. It is not an opinion. ID is not a credible scientific challenge to any modern origin theory. The second clearly labels this as the opinion of an entity "the scientific community" with references. The second part of that sentence could be improved. It also appears to be getting off topic and leaning towards agenda-driven language, but still essentially details a fact, not an opinion that requires attribution.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Credible" is an opinion, surely? The word means "believable" or "plausible", which is a matter of opinion - I don't doubt that it's informed scientific opinion, based on evidence and logical deduction, but it's still an opinion. On the second point, the "scientific community" is not a homogenous entity. As the article correctly states (with sources), a large majority of scientists reject intelligent design and support evolution; however, this does not mean that the entire "scientific community" shares one "correct" opinion, and that the opinions of the minority are wrong. Walton^One 10:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Credible 2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

credible 2. authentic or convincing

Science doesn't deal with "belief", so in this context meaning 2, particularly pertaining to confidence and trustworthiness of the statement is quite an obvious use of the word.

By all means provide a better alternative word. English has limitations, and I think a similar consensus will be reached on word usage here as "unequivocal" (as opposed to unanimous).

Whether by serendipity or purpose, credible is a carefully chosen alternative to less accurate "belief". Plausible may be close enough, and I don't think plausibility is really a matter of opinion .--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of semantics over the choice of wording, the general gist of the statement is that intelligent design is valueless or simply incorrect as a scientific theory. That may be true, but in the interests of NPOV we should not be taking sides in the debate. Nor, as I said, should we treat "the scientific community" as a homogenous entity and ascribe a standard view to it. Yes, we should make clear that evolution is the majority view in the scientific community, and intelligent design is supported by a small minority; the article already does this elsewhere. But we should not make a scientific judgment, even one based on published scientific sources, on our own account. Deciding what is "credible" and what is not constitutes WP:OR. Walton^One 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not "equal-weight'. WP:UNDUE. WP:FRINGE. --ZayZayEM (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent restructure

I'm going to have to say I do not agree with the recent restructure.

Dividing the now "scientific criticism" away from the "claims presented in the film" section it provides a rebuttal for is not a good idea. It divides the article and allows internal Forking of POV viewpoints. NPOV is best maintained by keeping opposed statements close together.

I think we should rollback to the earlier version.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not recommended to divide out criticism in this way. It is too easy to just remove it. I am going to revert since all these "improvements" have just turned the article into an increasingly biased mess with fewer and fewer references.--Filll (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still in favour of streamlining references. References that simply repeat each other without synergy and redundant off-topic agenda driven list should be avoided. "Example" style references that conflict with the facts being presented should also be avoided.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Filll has a valid point about lumping the scientific community's view into a "criticism" section; it marginalized that view, which happens to be the majority view, and gave the view point of the film's producers and ID proponents undue weight. I've revert you're rewrite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are two separate issues. I've retweaked wording on certain issues that had been maintained during Filll's structural rollback. No scientific references were removed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I seem to recall a large block or two of scientific references which were lost. I am going to put them back if they are not there now.--Filll (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First para

I am retiring as a Wikipedia editor. This revert with the edit summary "bad move on first sentence, kept "professional"; dividing this sentanceinto two ruins flow, and makes NYT comment seem off-hand. The description of the film is according to NYT, not just ID definition" has opened my eyes to the fact that I am wasting my time here. Bye. Avb 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See the source[3]

But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.
The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.

Empahsis added. The NYT is clearly the source for both the description of the film as "a controversial documentary film that presents claims of professional persecution to promote intelligent design" and that ID is "an ideological cousin of creationism".

NYT is not an authority on what constitutes as creationism or not. They are a reporting MSM body. It is off-hand and trite to seperate this statement into two sentances. It misleads a reader as to the authority of the NYT and the context of their statements (ie. NYT mentions ID=creationist cousin in context of Expelled description). There is nothing grammatically improper about the sentance and is quite worded well to give readers a clear and concise mainstream NPOV definition of "Expelled" from the first sentance alone.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, NYT does not need to be an authority on creationism, just a reliable source, read WP:RS and WP:V. Let's not make up new guidelines here. I don't see an issue with calling ID a form of creationism and using the NYT source, particularly since the Dover trial ruling found that it is indeed creationism. In fact that sources can be used as well. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything like that. I am content with the current version that attributes both statements (1, describing the film; 2, ID=creationism) to NYT. NYT is a reliable source and can be used. It's authority however should not be taken out of context.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am criticising this version [4]. Which states "Intelligent design is an "ideological cousin of creationism" or a "creationist idea", according to the New York Times.". A blatantly ridiculous statement. This is not NYT position on the matter, nor are they an authority to announce such positions. NYT has merely reported vailable information (likely from Dover, NAS, Forrest or any number of truly authoritative sources which point out ID=creationism). To attribute this statement to NYT either belittles the statement, or oversteps NYT's actual authority on the matter.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, we can put another 5 or 6 references about ID=creationism in there to bolster this. Maybe I should.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But you don't have to. They are used later on, in a better context. It is fine the way it is.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since people want to fight this, I think that maybe it needs to be nailed down very firmly. People love to try to dispute this, even when it is right in the New York Times. Wow.--Filll (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Professional" persecution

I rv'd the descriptor "professional" to the term persecution in the lead, because it seems to me that this is getting overly specific for a film that no one has seen. Do any of the references make this distinction? I think short of that we should go with the broader term, at least for now. Guettarda (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate qualifyer. Persecution can have holocaust or inquisition like imagery. As much as the ID-market like to equate themselves with Galileo and us with Hitler, there is absolutely no torture, punitive or even judicial persecution at play. Any actual events detailed in the film will be about alleged professional persecution.

I'm sorry I reverted it back without checking the talk page first. (The edit history didn't point it out). If it gets removed again. I merely thought it was a positive contribution that assisted in conveying the appropriate meaning of the sentence.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecution can have meanings like that, but that isn't how the term is usually used. We're using it in the normal sense of the word. Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's wild hyperbole. Richard Sternberg was "nearly" tortured, punished etc., well, actually, some people were rude about a paper he sneaked out after he'd already resigned as editor, and he kept his place as visiting scholar, complete with an office. Bet that really hurt. "Professional persecution" rather did suggest the Spanish inquisition, and of course nobody expected that. Anyway, Filll's clarified the sentence, for the better. .. dave souza, talk 15:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just checking, are you saying that "professional persecution" was a less accurate chracterisation of the scenario than just "persecution"? Does it suggest contract persecutors were brought in?--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't use sources that don't back up statements

"The film has been described as gaining media attention for a manufactured controversy, demonizing "Big Science" and claiming nonexistent scientific credibility for intelligent design to lend plausibility to the idea that evolution it is a notion to be believed rather than a scientific fact to be known, or a scientific theory to be accepted.(32)"

Has additionally been using this reference from The Christian Post. I do not know what this article is there for.

It certainly does not support the claim of a "manufactured controversy". Despite being full of usual creationist propoganda (straight from ARN) that attacks alleged "the naturalistic Darwinian creation story", it does not "demonize" Darwinism, nor does it focus on Expelled, but merely mention the movie in context of ARN's 2007 "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories".

It does not really support significant "media attention" (if its not significant media attention, it's not important to Wikipedia). It is one right-wing fundamentalist online publication[5], I would not count it as MSM.

If it is there to somehow balance NPOV through addition of a right-wing fundamentalist source to balance the secular History News Network - ummm... that's not how NPOV works. (ie. your balancing source must still be relevant and consistent with the produced text, or otherwise produce new text to counter/balance other text)

The History News Network citation is sufficient and details this "manufactured controversy" in the context of Expelled:

This manufactured controversy will gain more media attention in 2008 with the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie promoting “intelligent design”...

Note that the HNN points out this manufactured controversy existed before "Expelled" and is only going to excacerbated by the film's presence. I think the wikiepdia-text should be modified to better reflect this. To me it seems to suggest Expelled is creating the manufactured controversy, or responsible for placing it in the media spotlight. If its changed, spell excacerbate correctly =). --ZayZayEM (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly gives evidence of "scientific credibility for intelligent design" but I will remove it.--Filll (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

Awfully unwieldy, don't you think? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see below. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what Adam was complaining about was already corrected.--Filll (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph of lead

No matter how much rebuttal of ID you think should be in this article, it is important that you understand what the article is about after reading the introduction. At present this is not the case because the description of the film is mingled with all kinds of comments on the film (although perhaps valid). I propose to keep the description and the reception of the announced movie separate. The first paragraph of the introduction would become something like this:

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that scientists persecute supporters of intelligent design. It further claims that there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things conservatives consider to be societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood. Starring Ben Stein, the film is due to be released in February 2008."

After that there is room for the necessary comments. I think this will make the lead clearer.Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem more in line with standard practice in Intelligent design, Homeopathy, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually segregating criticism into sections is discouraged on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but explaiining what the subject is, then immediately setting out the criticism that was being delayed, so long as it stays in the lead, seems reasonable. We shouldn't feel the need to remove it, but if we're careful how we write the first paragraph, a brief delay before the full brunt comes in won't hurt. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I would like to add the above paragraph, however this means that there should also be a second paragraph for the lead containing criticism. It is difficult for me to write this paragraph, especially because I think the remarks are rather inappropriate for the introduction in the first place. Just adding the above proposed text however will most likely lead to an immediate revert. Does anyone have an idea for a short paragraph that gets the message across regarding the controversy about this film. I hope someone can help. This combined with the above text would form a good and hopefully stable lead in my opinion. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not favor segregation. Let's see what other editors think.--Filll (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to this. I think Adam is correct; as long as we have the criticism up front and in the lead it isn't unreasonable. As it is now, the criticism being interwoven makes it hard to read. (It also gives it an impression of not being NPOV. I think it is more or less NPOV but this style can easily lead to other impressions. And the appearance of NPOV is almost as important as NPOV itself). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't favor this edit which removes all mention of creationism from the lead. Two separate paragraphs is ok. But removal of material is not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not favour segregation of the criticism found in the "Claims presented in the film" section. I do feel BvL's suggestion would be a better lead paragraph for the article. It quickly summarises what "Expelled" is without any bias either way, through appropriate use of the word "claim". --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is not segregation in the article, but at least in the introduction. If anyone can propose a second paragraph for such an introduction it would be very welcome. Again I think that simply replacing the current lead by the above proposed paragraph will lead to reverts instead of expansion. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As discussed below, it's essential to show the context of the overwhelming majority of experts on the subject, so I've slightly modified the paragraph to make clear the description of ID as presented by the reliable secondary source used for this section of the article, the NYT. Arguments by proponents about the description are shown in the footnote. Similarly, "keeping God out of the classroom" was repeated in the next paragraph, where it is shown in the context of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. I've therefore replaced it by the press release description of "Big Science" allowing no dissent form evolution theory. .. dave souza, talk 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Still horrifically biased

I am still astonished at how POV the wording of this article is. Very little of it is about the film (unsurprisingly, since it hasn't been released yet); the vast majority reads like an essay written by someone dedicated to rebutting and discrediting intelligent design. One of the claims made in the film is described, for instance, as an "frequently-used and often-discredited creationist charge", and intelligent design itself is described as not being a "credible scientific alternative" to evolution.

For the record, I am not a supporter of intelligent design and I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-ID views expressed in the article. But it still shouldn't be there. Wikipedia is dedicated to the principle of NPOV. We are not here to take sides, or to determine that ID is not scientific. That is a matter of opinion, not of fact.

The article needs to be trimmed to about a quarter of its present size. The only criticism needed is criticism about the film (e.g. the controversy over lying to interviewees). Using other sources critical of intelligent design to source criticism of the film constitutes original research by synthesis.

Ironically, the only other place I've seen an encyclopedia article this biased is on Conservapedia (albeit in the opposite direction). However, I have been working on the Conservapedia counterpart to this article and I think it's actually more neutral than this one, for the time being at least. It can be found at [6], and demonstrates what I think this article should look like. Walton^One 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to split the "this is an opinion" hair, we'd say that in the opinion of anyone who understands what science is, ID is not a credible scientific alternative to evolution. It's not wrong for the article to make this clear, but of course we have to be careful how. I do agree that the conservapedia article is decently balanced. I just re-read this one, and I don't see that it's astonishingly biased, but I do think it possibly gets a bit off topic. Some of what's here is more suited to (and, I'm sure, is already covered in) other articles. We should look for ways to make this article link to others for detailed explanations, and stay as tightly focused on the film as we can. Friday (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think you understand what NPOV means, at least on Wikipedia. It means that both sides have to be presented here, in proportion to the dominant view in the relevant field. This film is about a controversy in science, therefore the mainstream science view must be dominant according to NPOV.

• There is plenty of material about the film here, and plenty that is positive. I did a quick check, and the article is about 88% pro-ID, including the part about the interviewees complaining, and ignoring the footnotes.

• If you want an example of a highly rated NPOV article on wikipedia, compare this one to intelligent design. That is our model here and what were are trying to emulate.--Filll (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read the Conservapedia article. It is not very informative and wildly biased. Sorry. It reads like a right wing anti-science piece of propaganda and hate literature. If that is your view of NPOV, dream on. However, this is not unusual since Conservapedia is a piece of trash by and large and completely unreliable and full of hatespeech and Christofascist nonnsense.--Filll (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. NPOV much, Filll? :) But seriously, this isn't an article about ID. It's an article about a movie that has something to do with ID, evolution, censorship, discrimination, humor, Ferris Buller, Ben Stein's money, academia, etc. "Both sides have to be presented here," but that would mean "both sides" of the movie (whatever that means). This article really needs to get away from all of the POV stuff within it, and focus on the film itself. Like Friday said, if there's additional info that some think is somehow relevant and ought to be included but it's not focused on the film itself, then link to it. That's the beauty of the tubes that make up the internets. Goo2you (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I wrote 3 additional long paragraphs, about Bohlin's column on the topic, and then Ruloff's interview and views, and Mathis' interview and views. However, this was felt to be too pro-ID. I am trying, but when people such as yourself argue with me and edit war, then the article gets mangled. I might try again to put in another huge block of pro-ID material that was removed, but I cannot guarantee that it will stay in because others feel the balance point should be somewhere else. I cannot dictate unilaterally what the article will say; this is a matter of consensus.--Filll (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole basis of the intelligent design movement is seeking out non-critical forums on which to spread their ideas. They do this because in a debate of the merits of their ideas, they lose every time, without exception. So instead, they seek to manufacture a controversy, generate news buzz, and then use that buzz to claim that the idea should be given equal time. People arguing that this article should present a non-critical exposition of their ideas are playing right into this strategy. Meanwhile, the people like Filll et al are committed to making this an accurate exposition of the movie and ID, and that certainly includes statements such as the ones Walton cited. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul654 has just proven the point that is being made here by saying that this article should be "an accurate exposition of the movie and ID" -- this article should be an accurate exposition of the movie, period. This isn't an article about ID -- we already HAVE one of those, to which we can link. Please focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When the movie (or the promotional material thereof) makes patently false claims about ID and the surrounding issues, it is our responsiblity to debunk them. So when it claims that ID is legitimate science, was must say that no, it's not; when it says ID explains the evidence, we must explain that no, it doesn;'t when it says that Guillermo Gonzalez was persecuted for believing in ID, we need to explain that no, he wasn't - that he had raised no research money, and so fourth. For every canard the film trots out, we need to show in THIS article why it's false. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That, Raul, is the very definition of POV (or at least a good paraphrase). I have yet to see any WP policy that would make it a duty to debunk every claim made in a controversial documentary. Point out the claims, yes; direct readers to relevant opposing links, yes; but a duty to debunk every claim made in the movie? Come on. Seriously. Let's focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, as I said above - non-critical media is exactly what ID's marketing strategy is based on. We will not be playing into it. They want to make a movie full of bullshit - we'll expose it for what it is. And you can say "focus people!" all you want, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• "we'll expose it for what it is". Sadly, this is the definition of agenda driven POV. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor truth (WP:NOT). We can expose "Expelled" using sources about Expelled, as these are relevant. Sources that are about Intelligent design, particularly pre-"Expelled" sources, should be avoided. Any editor concerned with exposing "Expelled" as the fraud that is, more than they are about simply informing the public of the relevant information already available about "Expelled", should take a good long hard look at WP:COI and WP:POV. In detailing what "Expelled" is, its fraudulent nature will be obviously detailed; however if we simply detail its fradulent nature we will overlook other relevant information, and possibly lose focus.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a balance to be found. As an educational resource, Wikipedia has no business letting the ID crowd spread their silliness here. But, I can see how Raul's statements might sound fishy. I suspect that you're probably both in agreement on any practical issues, and you're probably mostly disagreeing over how things are being said. It might be worth leaving this abstract disagreement alone, and focusing purely on practical issues of actual content. Friday (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul is correct in the following sense; for any major documentary if we have reliable sources saying that major parts of it are bullshit we should do so. It isn't any different from for example noting scientific and other problems with some details in An Inconvenient Truth for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not come close to debunking all the nonsense in this movie's promotional materials. All the talk about Newton and Einstein and Darwin is demonstrably false. All the stuff about Crocker and the other people allegedly the object of persection is false. We really do not have room here to debunk all the falsehoods in the movie or the movie's promotional materials. We pick 2 or 3 major points, and note briefly that this is contrary to other evidence. That is all. If you do not like it, see the Conservapedia article.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree here. Focus should be paramount. We do not need to debunk all claims, and the best way to slim the article is not to list every silly claim the film and/or its producers make. Any which gain sufficient media attention should be focused upon.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at the expense of completeness, accuracy and NPOV. "Slimming down the article" is far too often an excuse giving one view undue weight. Let's keep in mind that ID stakes it's claim in the field of science, making the view of scientific community on ID the majority view. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the bias you allege, but I do see that you don't seem to understand how the core policy regarding bias at Wikipedia actually is applied; please take the time to read and better understand WP:POINT before raising any more complaints about bias please. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the Conservapedia article on Expelled unbiased?

It was suggested above that the Conservapedia article on the same topic [7] is unbiased and NPOV. I beg to differ. For example:

• labelling scientists as "atheists"
• "Pro-evolution members of the scientific community" is a ludicrous phrase. In biology, well over 99.99% of the biologists favor evolution. What else is there? What remains is a tiny fringe of religious motivated malcontents and deranged fruitcakes. Behe is no scientist, and stopped doing science 20 years ago and is an embarassment to his home department. Dembski, with no publications, is no scientist. Dembski does not even have a degree in science for gosh sakes. The moonie Wells is no scientist, and only got a biology degree to please the second coming of Christ, according to him, Reverend Moon. Meyer is no scientist, but a philospher (and not a very good one at that), and has written all kinds of tripe about why there is a "magic filter" that can be invented to suggest "God dun it" only in certain cases, but not others, so that intelligent design will not harm science supposedly. Pure BS from a demagogue and completely discredited blowhard who is trying to raise money to promote an antiscience right wing agenda and establish a theocracy.
• Stating blindly that intelligent design is separate from creationism with no cites, for or against, is just ridiculous. It is irresponsible and definitely POV, buying into the Discovery Institute Wedge Strategy.
• previous versions of the Conservapedia article stated that it was true that pro-ID scientists had been suppressed and persecuted, taking the claims of the film as accurate, blindly, without references or contrary evidence or links. This is just pure nonsense.
• The Conservapedia article blindly states that evolution was responsible for the Holocaust, which is a blatant lie. By not presenting the other side, you are buying into this blatant misrepresentation, and it is completely irresponsible. The roots of the Holocaust are not in Darwinism, but in right wing fundamentalist evangelical Christianity (such as that promoted by Conservapedia, interestingly). Hitler quoted Martin Luther's The Jews and their Lies throughout his writing, and used this to justify the Final Solution.

I could go on. The claim that the Conservapedia article is less biased and more NPOV is just ludicrous. And to suggest that the Conservapedia article is an example of good NPOV writing tells me that the author has no idea what unbiased or NPOV is. Go back to Conservapedia and enjoy spreading lies and deceit. We will not be doing that here.--Filll (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should we care? Why don't you discuss this on Conservapedia's talk page? This looks like merely borrowing trouble for no useful purpose. Friday (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We care because Walton, in claiming this article is biased, cited Conservapedia as an example of a less-biased article than this. "However, I have been working on the Conservapedia counterpart to this article and I think it's actually more neutral than this one, for the time being at least." Filll is not borrowing trouble so much as debunking Walton's claims. Raul654 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we take some of these as suggested improvements here, then it could be relevant. But, Filll is pretty off base in most cases. Going down the bullet list.. 1) no it doesn't, 2) yes, I mostly agree there, 3) no it doesn't, 4) who cares about previous versions? 5) no it doesn't. Friday (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. And if you do not care, why are you replying?--Filll (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul made a reasonable case on how this might be relevant to us here. Do you think I'm actually wrong about you misinterpreting the content there? Some of the things you claim the article flatly asserts are actually attributed to the film, or ID proponents. Saying things like "Some atheist scientists interviewed in the film, notably Richard Dawkins..." is not remotely the same as asserting that scientists are atheists. It sounds to me like you skimmed rather than reading carefully. Friday (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that I said the same thing as Raul, several times. Maybe you did not read very carefully, I guess. And no you are wrong. Saying "some atheist scientists interviewed in the film" is a screaming NPOV and BLP incongruity. It would be like always referring to Jonathon Wells as "that moonie and former cab driver Jonathon Wells", or calling Catholicism, "that religion that condones child molestation and harbors ordained child molestors, Catholicism", or Jessie Jackson as "that anti-semite, Jessie Jackson", or Louis Farrakhan as "racist and black supremacist, Louis Farrakhan", or George Bush as "convicted felon and former drug abuser, George Bush", or Ted Haggard as "admitted crack purchaser and frequenter of male prostitutes and general dishonest hypocrite, Ted Haggard" and so on. You cannot make those kinds of loaded statements without really setting off alarm bells. We endeavor not to do this on Wikipedia, and to claim that this is an example of unbiased NPOV writing just beggars the imagination. And I disagree with all your other characterizations. The fact you want to fight about this tells me a lot about you, doesnt it?--Filll (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Labelling anyone as an atheist, even if true, particularly out of context, is a bad idea. It is a loaded term and just is a way to smear someone. And if you think a little, you might realize that there is more than one way to interpret what I wrote. I did not imply that all scientists are atheists or branded as atheists. So before you go on the warpath and further embarrass yourself, think about other potential interpretations of my text.--Filll (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd rather discuss the article, than discuss editors. Dawkins is well known as an outspoken atheist- mentioning this in this context is not inappropriate. You really are coming off sounding to me like you're more interested in a fight than a rational, on-topic discussion. Can you tone it back a couple notches, please? Friday (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You want to label Dawkins as an atheist, whenever he is mentioned in any context? Well you are free to maintain that. I think that the community might view that in a different way than you do. Let's ask on the relevant noticeboards here, shall we? Let's see what the community thinks.

However, I think that this claim says more about your own wiring than anything else. And no I am not interested in fighting. But if you attack me and tell me I am full of crap, then you might find you get a response. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Read above. Conservapedia is allowed to write whatever they like. And we will abide by our policies and rules and principles. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, you've made some mistakes about what the article says, and frankly you're coming off sounding more than a bit fanatic about the whole thing. Let's be neutral and reasonable, even on talk pages, eh? And, again, let's not borrow trouble by worrying about what some other encyclopedia says. Friday (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes what mistakes? And above, someone said that was what our article should be like, and the Conservapedia article was a model of NPOV. I disagree. --Filll (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We have enough actual disagreements to be resolved without inventing fake ones. I don't see that Walton claimed it was a "model of NPOV", only that he thought it was more neutral than this one. I don't know that he's right or wrong- they both seem reasonably balanced to me. As for my own bias that you alluded to above, it's this: ID is not a scientific theory, and the people promoting it know this full well. They're trying to bullshit people who don't know any better. It's sad, and it undermines the goal of getting people to actually understand what science is. (My own biases shouldn't matter here, but since you brought it up, there it is.) Now, please, help us raise, rather than lower, the level of discourse on this talk page. Friday (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well fighting Raul and me on this issue speaks volumes.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be about "taking sides". I'm on the side of a high quality, neutral encyclopedia, just like you. Friday (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And you are on the side of wanting to label Dawkins an atheist whenever he is mentioned on Wikipedia, in any context. Good for you ... You go ahead and try to defend that position as NPOV. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you're making up things I haven't said, in order to disagree with them. I don't see how this helps. Friday (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just read the record above. Well I am glad that you think that it is not a good idea to label Dawkins and Scott and Myers and others as atheists, even in the context of some nonreligious topic or discussion. I am glad you backed off that point, since frankly it is indefensible, at least in my opinion.--Filll (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could both of you calm down? This is both off-topic and not very germane. We're trying to improve this article, not discuss Conservapedia articles. RationalWiki is thataway. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I apologise for starting this big debate.

Firstly, I wouldn't claim that the Conservapedia article is a fantastic model of NPOV. I wrote most of it this afternoon, and I'm neither a scientist nor massively knowledgeable in this field, so I'd be the first to admit that it isn't a work of brilliance. I only said it was more NPOV than the article here, which is true. The article here is dedicated almost entirely to debunking intelligent design.

The above discussion has actually been useful, since it allows me to pick up some points for improving the Conservapedia article. On reflection, I agree that labelling Richard Dawkins in that context as an atheist is not necessary (when you write articles in a hurry, you make mistakes). I will change it.

However, I am frankly a little worried by the attitude of User:Filll. He seems to believe that NPOV requires us to take a strongly anti-intelligent design stance, and dismisses the pro-intelligent design lobby as, and I quote, "a tiny fringe of religious motivated malcontents and deranged fruitcakes." This is not NPOV. NPOV requires us to present alternative views even if we, personally, believe them to be wrong. Filll makes very clear on his userpage, and in discussions, that he does not support intelligent design and considers it a discredited, meaningless theory. That's fine. He's entitled to his opinions, and he may well be right. But Wikipedia articles are not a place to promote such a view as fact, regardless of how strongly one believes it. We are not here to educate the masses against some kind of threat of indoctrination from the ID movement. We are here to present both sides neutrally and impartially.

I personally do not have a strong view on intelligent design vs. evolution. I realise I am not especially qualified to write about it; my background is not in science and I really don't know much about the whole thing. But I know POV and NPOV when I see them. Walton^One 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Walton, confused much? There is a HUGE difference between what is on talk pages and what is in the article itself. And if you see Raul's comments above, you will see that Raul agrees with me. So does JoshuaZ. So does FeloniousMonk. So do many other editors here, like Dave Scott.

And although my own personal views are irrelevant here, in fact I have been sometimes accused of being an intelligent design supporter and a creationist on Wikipedia. And in fact, my own inclination is that it is is possible that there might be some evidence of souls, or a supreme being, or whatever, although I think that it will be extremely difficult to produce this evidence, and it is also a low probability event. But you are not going to find any such evidence in the intelligent design movement, since that the intelligent design movement is based on unscientific claptrap. And if there is unscientific nonsense being promoted as science, I am going to call a spade a spade. We do not do our readers any favors by writing misleading material.

And my strong impression is that you do not understand what NPOV is. In your current incarnation, you have logged only 8000 or so edits, and about 2000 edits in the mainspace. So somehow, I think that I have to discount most of this comment. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look. I apologise for personalising the issues involved. I have no problem with you personally. But please don't attack my editcount as a way to discredit what I'm saying. I just don't think that describing something as "unscientific claptrap" can, by definition, be NPOV. We're not here to promote our own views of science, we're here to provide a balanced and neutral view. Walton^One 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: How's this version? I've taken out the word "atheist", and rewritten part of the article to give a better idea of the scale of the criticism of the film. Walton^One 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this as an improvement, but I think the site it's hosted on will forever taint this content in the eyes of some people. Also, yes, we can construe the "look at this article" as being suggestions for improving our article, but I'm still not sold on the relevance of us looking at some other encyclopedia here. We can just as easily entertain suggested changes, without looking at Conservapedia. Friday (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to us to improve Conservapedia. It is up to improve Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I brought it up to exemplify what I meant about having a more concise article and less anti-intelligent design POV. I'm going to withdraw completely from the whole debate now, though, since it's causing me nothing but stress, and editing the article here seems a waste of my time (since every edit I've made has been reverted). Walton^One 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a crying shame that the article on Conservapedia gives a better representation of the subject (which is a film, not something else) than the Wikipedia article. I think Walton has done a very good job. The article on that site quickly summarizes what the film is about and why it is very controversial. Anyone interested in Intelligent Design can simply follow links to related articles. On Wikipedia intelligent design and perhaps Creation and evolution in public education provide good information. Criticism or elaborate information on these subjects is simply superfluous in the article on a film. Imho we can use the text provided by Walton as an example on how we can effectively explain this subject. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A few misunderstandings here. Expelled has no notability as a film, but is significant as an intelligent design creationist campaign. Conservapedia has as its remit presenting a "Conservative" point of view, and so is content to give credence to misinformation such as the claim that ID is a "scientific theory". We have to carefully comply with policies including NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Pseudoscience, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Both WP:LEAD and NPOV: Undue weight require us to explain the majority viewpoint among experts on the subject at the outset, and not hide that opinion away in links to other pages or in "criticism" sections. .. dave souza, talk 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If a person wants to quickly know about the film, and what it is about, or purports to be about, the film's official website, or Conservapedia are fine. However, the point of articles on Wikipedia is not to advertise the film, or to give a quick short summary; otherwise why would we need any article on Wikipedia at all? If someone is writing a scholarly paper, or doing research for a book report, a newspaper column, or a court case, what is going to be most helpful to them? A website that unquestioningly presents just the bare "facts", as the movie presents them, from the movie's point of view? Or an article like Wikipedia's that presents different angles, and links, and quotes, and references?

Obviously, for the purposes of scholarly research, which is what an encyclopedia is, Wikipedia is a good jumping off point, and this article is a perfect example of that. It is not meant to be an easy read. It is not meant to be a simple summary. It is not meant to unquestioningly advertise the movie. It is to present useful information.

If a scholar 100 years from now wants to know about the film, what will be more helpful to them, the Conservapedia article or the Wikipedia article? The answer is obvious. This Wikipedia article collects far more information, pro and con, about the film, its content, its promotion, its controversies, etc. And it fulfills the true role of an encyclopedia far better than the Conservapedia puff piece. And Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a piece of used toilet paper like Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I politely disagree. The article now - especially the lead - is a mess. This is the result of information that is better presented in other articles being inserted in between lines on the film. A simple description of the films claims and why these are controversial (including dubious interview and promotion techniques) is what should be here. This combined with good links to relevant articles which fully explain the deeper issues (about which this film is not about), will be a much better resource to a everyone (including the scholar 100 yrs from now).

Most importantly, the article, especially the lead, is very badly structured. I think nothing can be an excuse for writing a piece of text that is badly structured and as a results difficult to read. Not even bashing each (false) claim of the movie right after it has been made.

Finally please do not imply that I am here to advertise the movie, or simply wish to present the claims of the movie as facts. I have seen no one on this talk page who wants that. You are simply attacking straw puppets (as I believe is the saying). Kind regards, Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not the same as MOS-issues. Filll is right in asserting that the Wikipedia article is a far superior encyclopedic article than that of Conservapedia. Conservapedia manages to present a conscise perceivably more NPOV version by lacking comprehensive coverage of the subject. Wikipedia is not a "quick facts about the movie", that is IMDb's role. By producing a "quick facts" article, you do reduce Wikipedia to a promotional role. Wikipedia needs to establish notability of subjects and provide appropriate context for readers to understand subjects.

People promoting slimming down of this article will have to clearly establish themselves away from NPOV detractors. If your issues are with style, clearly state so, and be prepared to meet serious doubt from other editors who, for good reason, may be quick to assume-bad-faith.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to reduce the material that does not promote the movie (which is a minimum; my estimate is only 12%, not counting the footnotes and referneces), you will not be following WP:NPOV and will not be doing the readers any favors. Also, you do not like the current LEAD since it is not segregated. The present LEAD was written by a group of dozens of editors, and is the result of consensus. The LEAD in intelligent design is not segregated, and it is an FA rated article in the same topic area. In the intelligent design article, the pro and con material is woven together, seamlessly. And this is far more neutral and far less biased than one paragraph "on this hand" and another paragraph "on the other hand". Another reason that segregating negative material is discouraged is that it is really easy to remove negative material then. Someone who wants to create "advertising" just removes the section that is negative and then there they are, a beautiful promotional puff piece.

Clearly, you do NOT know what NPOV is. You clearly are quite ignorant of what Wikipedia is or its purpose. This version of your incarnation has almost NO edits to its credit, which raises questions about your identity and why this is, but I will for the moment AGF.

Whether you intend to advertise or promote this movie or not is irrelevant. What is important is the effect of the changes you are promoting against policy, against common sense, against the best interests of the readership. So I respectfully think you are a puppet, but maybe not full of straw.--Filll (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It did not take long for you to try to project you authority on me. I am sorry that I ever went against the will of someone with more edits. Oh and thanks for the accusations (in good faith that is) regarding my identity. I am through restating the same arguments. I give up, my time can be better spend than arguing against a brick wall. Kind regards. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Intelligent design creationism" and synthetic OR

I merely dislike the phrase because of inherent redundancy ("wandering nomads"?)....

But...

The use of "intelligent design creationism" outside of direct quotes has been discussed at intelligent design, and consensus for the time being is that it should be avoided. Intelligent design does feature this statement:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[4] The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[99][100][101][102] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[103][104][105]

Which is sufficient to explain the connection.

Here on "Expelled" I do not feel that the creationist aspect of ID is particularly important to the film, except in context of statements by the production equating ID with creationism (i.e. Stein and O'Reilly). It is not significant enough of a connection to require stating in the first paragraph of the lead, which will direct a reader to intelligent design where they can uncover all the juicy creationist connections of the ID movement.

Introducing the exact phrase "intelligent design creationism" to the lead against the consensus determined at Talk:Intelligent design might be perceived as a ninja trick by certain editors.

The lead does reveal the religious nature of ID in the second paragraph:

Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[4][5]

I thought this was adequate (not perfect) in the absence of the previous lead paragraph, but certainly would not object to more direct (but appropriately worded) links to creationism being amde in paragraphs after the first. And again I'll mention that I feel the only significance of the creationist angle is in the conflict between DI and Premise of ID's status.

I'm also going to raise my usual objections to long references with in detail explanations tying various sources together. If you have to explain to a reader how to get the necessary conclusion from the resources available, you are probably making links that not everyone can see.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is based on two sources – the press release for the film which is a primary source, and the best secondary source we have about the film, the NYT article. The former makes no mention of intelligent design, and while it can be inferred, that could be OR. The NYT article takes care on first and second mention of intelligent design to make clear that it is a form of creationism. Splitting this point away from the mention of intelligent design, or expecting readers to follow a link to another article to find that out, goes against the NPOV requirement to give due weight to the overwhelming majority view of experts on the subject, in the scientific community, among educators, among historians and in legal terms. I'm not sure what you mean by "might be perceived as a ninja trick by certain editors", and the link isn't helpful, but there do seem to be repeated attempts to set aside the consensus view of ID as creationism. The ID article itself explains what it is at the outset, in more detail than is appropriate here.

For the context that proponents deny that ID is creationism, we have the primary source of the DI's response to the O'Reilly interview, and can set that in the context of the Kitzmiller memo which reviews the evidence. I accept that stylistically this overburdened the lead paragraph, and was willing to see that shown in a footnote.

As you suggest, the whole issue could be discussed more fully at the start of the second paragraph. Taking the press release description of the "persecution" and trimming down a "societal ills" sentence repeated later, the opening paragraphs could read –

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief there is evidence of “design” in nature. It claims that “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills. Starring Ben Stein, the film is due to be released in February 2008.

The film promotes intelligent design, a variety of creationism. Proponents of intelligent design assert that it is not creationism and have objected to this description being used in promotion of the film. ...

The film is making claims about science, which have to be set in a scientific context. A recent publication which may clarify that view is National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (2008). "Science, Evolution, and Creationism". National Academies Press. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) which uses the phrase "intelligent design creationism". .. dave souza, talk 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That version would be fine as it is accurate and cleary shows the lineage of ID. That lineage is indeed germant to any discussion, treatment, or mention of ID in any medium. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like dave's suggestion. Can I again re-iterate I'm not the enemy, I'm just writing for them cos I have a brain and they don't.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Further suggestion:

Perhaps the proposed second paragraph continue like:

The film promotes intelligent design, a variety of creationism. While, proponents of intelligent design assert that it is not creationism and has no religious basis, Stein, the film's creators and the film itself continually equate intelligent design with creationism and a belief in the Judeo-Christian God. This has attracted criticism from the Discovery Institute, the think tank behind most promotion of intelligent design.

It's 11:30 and I've had to just re-reference an 80 page thesis. But hopefully it makes some sense. What do you think?--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good idea and I'll look through the sources to see how well it's supported. Good luck with the thesis, my son was regretting using MSWord for a report instead of LaTex, no doubt it'll all work out. .. dave souza, talk 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's it implemented taking care not to go beyond the sources. Thanks for the help with that, . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree

I must take issue with the statement above of ZayZayEM about "synthetic OR". He raises many points in his long post that I think require individual attention.

The use of "intelligent design creationism" outside of direct quotes has been discussed at intelligent design, and consensus for the time being is that it should be avoided. Intelligent design does feature this statement:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[4] The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[99][100][101][102] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[103][104][105]

Which is sufficient to explain the connection.

I wrote that passage in the intelligent design article, and I did not write it that way to soothe any feelings about "intelligent design creationism" having quotes around it or not. It appeared in quotes because I was referring to it as a linguistic phrase that I wanted to identify.

It appeared in this article in quotes, at least a version or two ago, again not to soothe any feelings, but because it was a phrase used by the New York Times, and we were making it clear it was a direct quote of a phrase from the New York Times. It was not placed in quotes here to avoid trodding on any sensitive toes.

Here on "Expelled" I do not feel that the creationist aspect of ID is particularly important to the film,

This is completely incorrect, as far as I can tell. The entire premise of the film is based on a repudiation of the careful strategy constructed by the Discovery Institute and the return to the teleological foundations of the intelligent design argument.

The script, the claims, the promotion, all of it, says it is about not putting science in a box where it cannot touch God. The trailers use the word God over and over and over. God god god god. That is not intelligent design as envisaged by the Discovery Institute. That is creationism. Pure and simple. Bare naked. No fig leaf to protect intelligent design from the predations of the US constitution and legal system. It lays bare the true nature of intelligent design; a variety of creationism. And as I threatened before, maybe I need to put another 20 references in the article to this effect. See, if you fight me, I will just pound back, harder than ever. Because you cannot WP:OWN this article and you cannot dictate unilaterally to everyone else how it will read. We do things here by consensus, and it appears to me that you do not have the consensus to ignore what is in a WP:RS and WP:V source.

And if you do not like the redundancy, I apologize, but that is just too bad. It is a term that is coming into general use in American English, clearly (after all, the New York Times is using it now). And it is not up to Wikipedia to rewrite the English language now, is it?

I feel this is different. Expelled has a direct link to the Discovery Institute's brand of creationism and its Wedge strategy. It is not a generic to tie to all forms of creationism. The specific nature of the film to Intelligent design and both DI's wedge and umbrella strategies rather than ties to generic creationism, fundamentalism or religiousity has not gone ignored, see AiG's spokesperson.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

except in context of statements by the production equating ID with creationism (i.e. Stein and O'Reilly).

No, obviously not just there. Sorry. Every bit of promotion, every trailer, every press report and bit on the website screams "creationism".

It is not significant enough of a connection to require stating in the first paragraph of the lead, which will direct a reader to intelligent design where they can uncover all the juicy creationist connections of the ID movement.

Um I think you are missing the point. The film approaches this as just obvious. Look at the promotion materials. Look at the trailers. Look at the quotes. Look at what Stein has written on the blog. They are not revealing any juicy connections. They just take it as a fact and never question it or even consider that it might be in doubt. Not once. Ever.

This is exactly what i am saying Filll. The importance of creationism is not that ID= creationism, but that "Expelled" and its creators are over and over saying "ID=creationism/Ywh", much to the contrary of DI's Wedge policy. DI the leading (only?) authority (...) on intelligent design and has repeatedly insisted, and continues to insist, (against all reason, and sometimes their own spokespeople) that ID is not a form of creationism.

"Expelled" should be explained as yet a further piece of evidence that Di is full of crap, and ID has always been irredeemably based on religious faith.

However, this needs to be explained, and we still can't come right out and say "ID = creationism", we can say "Expelled" further provides evidence that ID = creationism and DI is full of crap, which is more accurate and holistically informative.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Introducing the exact phrase "intelligent design creationism" to the lead against the consensus determined at Talk:Intelligent design might be perceived as a ninja trick by certain editors.

What consensus at intelligent design? The phrase was introduced into the article and the consensus was that this was reasonable. We met the challenges to it by showing there were plenty of sources for it.

In this article, we are just quoting the New York Times. It does not get much better than that, in terms of American English usage. As I said before, since you want to fight this, I can bury you in references. If that is how it has to be, so be it. You know I can. I know I can. I do not understand why you want to go there. But fair enough, we will.

And what fork are you talking about? Huh?

The lead does reveal the religious nature of ID in the second paragraph:

Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[4][5]

I thought this was adequate (not perfect) in the absence of the previous lead paragraph, but certainly would not object to more direct (but appropriately worded) links to creationism being amde in paragraphs after the first.

Except it does not use the word "creationism". And I have heard some discussion by others that this material should be moved or put in a footnote since it is a bit offtopic. I am not sure.

"Adequate" not ideal. It's a wiki. Improve it. dave gets it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I'll mention that I feel the only significance of the creationist angle is in the conflict between DI and Premise of ID's status.

But this is an article about the Premise movie, which is entirely founded on pushing ID as creationism, as near as we can tell from many interviews, and press releases, and the website and trailers.

Isn't that what I just said?--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to raise my usual objections to long references with in detail explanations tying various sources together. If you have to explain to a reader how to get the necessary conclusion from the resources available, you are probably making links that not everyone can see.

We do not use these references for any synthesis or OR. We provided cited references which back up the statements in the text, and provide places where the reader can verify those statements and learn a bit more on those topics. And because this is a topic which comes under frequent attack, we provide more than one reference for many of these points. The thing is, if editors did not fight us every step of the way, we would not need to provide so many references. The more fighting there is, the more references there are. That is just how it is. --Filll (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again this is letting intellectual terrorists win. This sort of tactic gives them vilification. Not every problem can be solved by more references. Striking an appropriate and reasonable balance, rather than falling to the taunts of trolls and other sources of unproductivity is no way to run an informative website.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been genuine concerns such as how much we can rely on the expertise of the NYT journalist, and these do have to be backed up with sufficient references. In the longer term this is something we can always review, but it's better to give plenty of backing to statements. No doubt some will feel that gives them vilification and so a sort of vindification, but even if we think the terrorists are whining, we have to write for the enemy and present their case fairly in due proportion to the well cited majority expert view. .. dave souza, talk 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit much maybe?

The endnotes! And who will be our first volunteer to come to the blackboard and spell coatrack for the class? The film isn't even out yet, but there are sixty-four sources noted, referenced over one hundred twenty times? Something approaching half these sources don't talk about the film at all. One of the references is nearly one hundred years old--the Hollywood film industry didn't even exist yet! ACK! Another one is dated 1874!! Are these sources? Or exhibits entered into evidence?[8] Only a handful of sources admit to even seeing the film, but has each and every individual in the world opinionating about it been exhaustively covered here yet? Or did the article manage inadvertently to miss somebody. Overkill perhaps? "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not ..." Professor marginalia (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have several responses to this.

• We are not some sort of advertising service, or some sort of press release service. We are providing some sort of academic documentation and presentation of sourced material. So it is long with lots of references. If one does not like it, one can read Conservapedia or any number of other articles about this film.
• By the rules of NPOV etc, we are to provide balance for the claims made in the promotional material. Until we have more real reviews, this is all we have.
• I have fought extremely hard to try to get more pro-ID material and material that takes the POV of the directors and producers etc. However, people have resisted this and deleted rafts of material I wrote and references, all pro-ID. People complain it is boring, or that they are not interested in the words of the director and the producer. This might be true, but it leads to a lack of balance and compaints like this. It just gets tiresome after a while to have people on both sides attacking my prose for being too pro-ID or not pro-ID enough.
• Our goal should be to provide an encyclopedic discussion of the film, at a certain level of depth. And that is what I have tried to do, in spite of losing probably 40% of the text I wrote from the article.--Filll (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)