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)

"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)

• 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)