Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 10

Can we just archive most of this? We've discussed it a million times and reached the same conclusion every time: we won't ever agree or reach a consensus. The best thing we can do is work to improve the article. If you think its biased (it is) than help us do something about it! Saksjn (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick Googling of the subject and found 10 seconds only sourced to a Christian blog [2], and for mainstream sources I get under 15 from the San Jose Mercury News[3] and 25 from the WSJ. [4].Since the original version was not inaccurate, I'm going to revert until a better analysis can be made. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the petition filed by Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon, Julian Lennon, et alia, specify a time period? Beliefnet isn't truly reliable (nor is it Christian), SJMN is OK, but WSJ is best. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One other point: you did well in removing the "time" as it was inserted merely to try to defend the unlicensed use of the song. Such a defense has no place in the article until it is raised by counsel for the defendants on May 19. If, however, the suit specifies a time, it can go in the article so long as the source is stated. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you watch the movie? Please, if you haven't watched the movie, don't dispute what is in it!

I watched it, and I timed the Lennon song snippet. The timepiece I used counts in seconds, not tenths or hundredths, so I might have been off by a half-second or so, but it was definitely no more than eleven. We could say "about ten" if you would prefer.

That WSJ blog entry is dated before the movie was released, so it is probably based on a pre-release version. Perhaps the pre-release version had a longer snipped of the song, and the Expelled producers edited it down before final release, to bolster their "fair use" defense. But the final version definitely only has about ten seconds of Imagine.

The current version of the Wikipedia article says, '"The film makes unlicensed use of John Lennon's song 'Imagine,'" which strongly suggests that the producers are guilty of a misdeed. However, a ten-second snippet of just enough of the song to enable fair and reasonable criticism is clearly

Fair Use under U.S. law. The fact that it was only a tiny snippet of the song is critical information w/r/t the argument over whether Fair Use applies, and the omission of that fact makes the sentence misleading. NCdave (talk

) 22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You took a stopwatch to the movie?

In any case, see

WP:NOR

.

Interesting that you object to "unlicensed" and then go on to claim a "fair use" defense.

Finally, I don't know you from a can of paint, but I doubt that you're the legal counsel for the defendant, and even if you were, you'd not be pleading your case here. Besides, the courts will decide if it the "Fair Use" principle is applicable. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually did time it with a friend when we saw it and got around 12 seconds. But agree that that is original research and therefore not ok. I'd suggest maybe removing the specific time. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I originally did, before Aunt Entropy reverted it. Can we agree on that version? NCdave (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a rewrite there to mention that the lawsuit was in response to accusations against Yoko Ono:

The film makes use of John Lennon's song "Imagine", which caused internet bloggers to accuse the copyright holder, Yoko Ono, of selling out to the producers by licensing the song. Yoko Ono denies that she ever permitted its use and filed a copyright lawsuit on April 23, 2008.

Something like that modulo my bad writing. Merzul (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, but I see no reason for any rewrite. The defendants have already admitted that the use of the song was unlicensed, hence the fall-back position of "fair use". Additionally, you're assuming that Ono acted in response to bloggers: absent a reliable cite to that effect, we couldn't use it. Realistically, the best source would be the lawsuit itself (which I've read, but can't locate at the moment). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the assumption of our current source for the lawsuit, Ethan Smith writing for the WSJ. But I accept your failure to appreciate the relevance of blogosphere drama. :) I just want to point out that this not my invention, since I don't read blogs about Yoko Ono as a daily habit. Merzul (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Jim, not a stopwatch (like I said, it doesn't count tenths and hundredths of a second). If I owned a stopwatch, I'd have taken it, but I don't. (I used to have a watch with a built-in stopwatch feature, but I don't know what I've done with it.)

In any case, the movie, itself, is a primary source, not original research.

As anyone who has seen the movie can attest, the snippet of Imagine is very short. It seems pretty ridiculous to be arguing over something that was surely obvious to every viewer of the movie. Have you seen the movie, Jim? Is there anyone here who saw the released version of the movie, who doubts that the Imagine snippet was about 10 seconds long?

Merzul, do we have a reliable source quoting Ono or her spokesman and stating her motivation for the lawsuit? If not, then it is just blogger speculation, and we should only report what she did, not speculation about why she did it. NCdave (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"In any case, the movie, itself, is a primary source, not original research." -- you're timing the length of the snippet and then trying to add it is original reasearch. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, whether one has seen the movie is uttery irrelevant: we report, primarily from secondary and tertiary sources. It's really that simple. Have you ever met any of the Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States, or were you just reporting? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave - fair use is still a copyright violation. It's just a copyright violation that is tolerated because of the value it provides. The wording that's been there all along is neutral. Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Guettarda, Fair Use is a defense against a charge of copyright violation. Not every copying of a copyrighted work is a copyright violation:

Fair use doctrine. A privilege in others than the owner of a copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the owner's consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted to the owner. ... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

NCdave (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea -- let's let the lawyers fight it out and then let the court decide. Seems rational to me. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in case you'd not noticed, "reasonable manner" is open to interpretation. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave - do you have a source for your assertion? Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, never mind. Copyright violation or not, you were taking issue with the phrase "unlicensed use". Are you trying to say that the assertion of fair use amounts to a license? I need to see a reliable source that supports that assertion of yours. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Jim, and in the meantime let the readers decide for themselves. But how are they to do that if they don't know that only ten seconds of the song was used? Selecting and presenting only the information that is favorable to one side of an argument is textbook POV bias.

Source for what, Guettarda? Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, is the source for the definition of Fair Use. The movie, itself, is the source for the length of the song snippet.

The current version of the Wikipedia article says, '"The film makes unlicensed use of John Lennon's song 'Imagine,'" which strongly suggests that the producers are guilty of a misdeed, because otherwise what is the point of mentioning that the use was unlicensed? It needs to note that only ten seconds were used, lest the reader mistakenly think that the Expelled users stole the whole song, which is what the current version makes it sound like. NCdave (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT •Jim62sch•^dissera!

00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This avoids taking a position on whether it should or shouldn't have been licensed, and seems better to me. Mackan79 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This would work:

The film's use of a ten second excerpt from John Lennon's song "Imagine" led to a lawsuit by its copyright holder, Yoko Ono, on April 23, 2008. The film producers responded by claiming use under fair use doctrine. In response to the lawsuit, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19. A song by The Killers is used in the film under a license which they claim was obtained by misleading them about the film.

The last sentence is unrelated to any lawsuit or legal issues, and unsupported by any reliable source; see Legal_Issues_-_The_Killers. NCdave (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC), 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like constantly violating Wikipedia principles, is there? Why do you want to get into such trouble?--Filll (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, no. You cannot use yourself as a source for the 10 second determination. That number is a direct result of your own research. You've been here longer than me, surely you've learned the

WP:NOR rule by now. --Aunt Entropy (talk

) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I put the measured time in is because you, Aunt Entropy, reverted my less specific language, and called it weasley. I was just trying to satisfy your objection.

Anyhow, Google finds hundreds thousands of confirmations of the ten second length. So can we put it back in the article, now? NCdave (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither you nor Joshua are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, so it doesn't matter if either of you fit my standards. The movie itself proves nothing. You with a watch made the report, not the movie. And the reason I am arguing about it is that more than one reliable source gives conflicting information on the length of the snippet, as I reported above. And substituting "a few" for what is at least ten seconds is most definitely misleading. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to put Ben Stein's retort into the article, too:

"So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free. After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world...'"

WP:NPOV demands that if we're going to include Ono's accusation, we need to include Stein's reply. Love him or hate him, you've gotta admit he has a good point! NCdave (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I love the song, but yes, suing over a critical movie sounds a bit ridiculous. But I admit I say that without knowing exactly how it was used, if it was used more before being edited, or if the suit is standard practice. Mackan79 (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie wasn't really criticising the song though so it may be irrelevant. I don't know US law, and I guess nor does Ben Stein so I suggest we leave it as is. As Guettarda has pointed out, all we are saying is that Yoko Ono is suing over the unlicensed use of the song which so far has not be disputed. Whether that unlicensed use of the song is a violation of the civil rights of Yoko Ono, the suit will determine that and I don't think it's wise for us to start adding speculations from various parties. N.B. hypocrisy doesn't not generally justify violating copyrights Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If we said she was suing for unlicensed use that would be fine, but we simply say it makes unlicensed use and then that she's suing him. The problem is this accepts part of her premise that the movie disputes, since fair use doesn't require ownership, license, or any other type of rights in the song. I'd suggest rewording it just for that reason. Mackan79 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard to see your objection, since the film does make unlicensed use of the music, and the producers claim that a license is not required under the particular circumstances. We make unlicensed use of images, either taking care to comply with fair use, or ensuring that we don't need a license as the image is public domain. Simple and clear enough. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, Dave, you see the point fine. We don't make "unlicensed" quotes of authors throughout Wikipedia. There's simply no reason to say it this way when there are other ways available. Mackan79 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave Souza noted images: what has that to do with quotes? Not too sure what you're driving at. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that "unlicensed" isn't a word you use unless you are suggesting it should have been. For fair use, you don't get a "license." I didn't have an "unlicensed" cup of coffee this morning, etc. The story is one person used the song, the other person said it should have been licensed, and the first person said no, it was fair use. So, a. it's gratuitous, b. it's a legal claim we're not in a position to make, and c. it makes us look silly. Mackan79 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again Dave - please provide a source for your assertion that fair use grants a license. Does anyone (other than you, of course) dispute the fact that the song is unlicensed? The article says that Premise Media is being sued over the unlicensed use of the song. That only requires a rebuttal if (a) Stein is claiming that they are not being sued, or (b) he is claiming that they did, in fact, have a license. Please provide a source to support one of these assertions. Guettarda (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While including the 10 sec measurement from Wikipedia editors is not valid source, the quotes make it sound like the whole song is used - some type of qualifier ('uses a section of the song' 'a portion of the song' etc.) should be added to make a more accurate statement.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Good point. Hadn't thought of that. Portion sounds good. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NCdave made a really good point earlier that I attempted to use with the Dawkins interview (which I still am planning on bringing up agian once a clip is on youtube or something). The movie is not OR, it's a primary source. We do not say that a synopsis of a book is OR becasue we got it from reading it. We consider it a primary source. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The assertion by Ono is not that the use of 10 seconds of the song was "unlicensed," but that it was not legal. Being unlicensed is a necessary but not sufficient element of the assertion of the claim that the use was not legal. There is no argument over whether the use was unlicensed, nobody ever claimed that the use was "licensed." The only argument is over whether the was legal, so the "unlicensed" bit is irrelevant.

Shall we add a disclaimer to this article, saying that it makes unlicensed use of copyrighted material? NCdave (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's rather

pointy. It's normal for films to license all their music so this is unusual and opens the producers up to legal action, their defense is "fair use". dave souza, talk

19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only pointy to do it, not to ask where you're going with this. But on what basis are you saying this would have been "normal"? Under the circumstances of the movie (another band said they wouldn't have licensed if they knew what the movie was about) I don't believe that's correct. Mackan79 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Mackan, you seem to have missed NCdave's sarcasm. My clear understanding is that film producers normally take great care to request licenses for all the music they wish to use in a film, and it's rather extraordinary that Premise deliberately didn't request a license for Imagine, though they remembered to get a license from the Killers. Or do you think Dembski is a liar? . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope sarcasm isn't against the rules. In any case I don't believe it is a sarcastic point. You're saying it's unusual that they wouldn't license, I'm saying it actually makes sense under the circumstances. The question is if we should make a statement to endorse either of our personal views on this or anyone else's. I'm not sure what Dembski has to do with it. Mackan79 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Imagine" there's a break

The song is unlicensed. No one involved is disputing that. But it's very important to understand... unlicensed ≠ illegal. Unlicensed songs can be legal under a fair use doctrine (which is exactly what the producers are claiming). They don't mean the same thing. Thanks. --Ali'i 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I had just addressed this above. Nobody says it was licensed, but the false premise is that licensing is necessarily the issue. If you're claiming fair use, there is nothing to license. The whole focus on "licensing" is simply an argument from one side that confuses the whole issue. Mackan79 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... but that is the issue. If it had been licensed there would be no dispute or lawsuit. The fact that it is unlicensed is what the lawsuit is about. To omit the fact that the song was unlicensed omits the basis of these paragraphs. To paraphrase what you want to write: "Expelled uses a piece of this song. Yoko files suit for copyright infringement." But WHY? The point is that is is unlicensed. The counter-argument that they didn't even need a license to use the song is then presented. It just makes sense to include that it was unlicensed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't a valid explanation. Copyright infringement is the lawsuit; you'll see the article discusses what's involved in such a lawsuit. Having a license would be a defense, but of course hasn't been offered here. That's why I'm saying we're only confusing things by mentioning it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can clarify the point. We all agree it was used without license. That is clearly implied by the fact that Yoko is suing for copyright infringement and the producers are invoking a fair use defence. Therefore, the use of "unlicensed" conveys no extra information in terms of the facts of the situation. While such gratuitous adjectives don't contribute in presenting the facts, the information it carries is the bias of the author. Makes sense? Merzul (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you say, as I wrote just above, "Expelled uses a piece of this song. Yoko files suit for copyright infringement." the question remains, Why? Why would a suit be filed? Why are the producers claiming "fair use" as their defense. We have to think of our readers. Not everyone who reads this will understand copyright/fair use stuff, so in order to help the reader, we should explain things. Explain things such as they are filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement because the portion of the song was unlicensed. Explain things like the producers are claiming legal use of the small portion of the song under the fair use doctrine, because that mitigates the unlicensed use. If we don't mention the fact that it is unlicensed, we are missing the point of the section. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we spell out self-evident things to unintelligent readers at the expense of revealing bias to intelligent ones? Merzul (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above, Ali'i. It's actually a misunderstanding that it being "unlicensed" is the reason for the suit. If you check out copyright infringement, the real reason for a suit is that it's "unauthorized," but this is also self-explanatory. It's for the same reason "unlicensed' is out of place; the word suggests "unauthorized" when really it doesn't add anything, but only looks like it does. Mackan79 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, so if people insist on having an adjective there, it should be "makes unauthorized use", which I still maintain is implied. Merzul (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "bias" is only in your mind. We follow reliable sources and present notable views. "Ms. Ono's lawyer, Jonas Herbsman, of Shukat, Arrow, Hafer, Weber & Herbsman, said in an interview Wednesday: "It was not licensed."" ... dave souza, talk 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ono's lawyer isn't a reliable source, Dave. This is the whole problem, that we're adopting their legal claims. Mackan79 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, although of course that would also be to say that Ono's whole claim is correct. Mackan79 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What source says the song is licensed? The NYT is the reliable source, it and other sources report the unlicensed use as the issue leading to the lawsuit, the defense is fair use, not whether or not the song was licensed. Please follow reliable sources related to the section of the article, and don't refer to other WP articles which are, of course, not reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, it's hard to have a discussion if you won't respond to what I said. This isn't difficult, and you're the one who presented what should be recognized as the opposite of a reliable source to support this statement. Is there anything more to this? Mackan79 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Our source for this is the WSJ, and the question is if the narrative ever uses the phrasing "the unlicensed use". This is crucial because

1. I'm not sure "unlicensed use" is an appropriate term, as opposed to "unauthorized use".
2. There is a fundamental difference between a secondary source reporting that one side of the dispute is saying "it was unlicensed" and the source itself actually endorsing the phrasing "unlicensed use".

Please respond to these points rather than what bias is in my head. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources for "unlicensed"

This search finds precisely one source Christianity Today for the word "unlicensed" with Yoko Ono. There are zero hits for "unlicensed use" with Yoko Ono. Now, a general news search for the term "unlicensed use" comes up with more hits about spectrum licenses, but a few related to copyright, particularly software.

Where are all the reliable sources you are talking about? Merzul (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity Today: "Meanwhile, lawyers for Yoko Ono say they are 'exploring options' with regard to the use of John Lennon's song 'Imagine' in the movie—which, they say, was unlicensed and therefore illegal." Of course this is also correct in saying unlicensed = illegal, since "unlicensed" implies that it needed a license. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and all other news articles I looked at use the terms correctly, and now Wikipedia does too. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources I've looked at all make it explicit that the song is used without a license, without permission, or make unauthorized use. Reuters says "using the song "Imagine" in the documentary without permission.". the WSJ says "Typically when producers want to use a song in a film or television program, they need permission from at least two parties" and reports that "the film's three producers -- Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft -- acknowledged that they did not seek permission.." On that basis I've rephrased it. . .. dave souza, talk 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your new version is accurate as far as I can tell, and I don't get the same feeling of bias. I consider this resolved. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, with respect, as this retains virtually all of the same problems. We have now, "The film makes use of a portion of John Lennon's song 'Imagine' without permission of the copyright holder Yoko Ono, who filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement on April 23, 2008." "Makes use of" and "without permission" in this context are both entirely gratuitous POV. The question is, what is wrong with a neutral presentation? The change serves no purpose other than to insert the framework of Ono's lawyer. Mackan79 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is gratuitous, but now it really follows the sources, and the flow makes the superfluous information connect with the next in a way that it doesn't seem biased to me any more. We don't need to agree on everything, Mackan :), but this at least solves the "unlicensed" problems, so it is basically saying "unauthorized use", which is much better. Also with respect, Merzul (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. The proposed version is factually correct and completely neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn't go with the sources. Reuters states: "John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, and his sons are suing the filmmakers of 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for using the song 'Imagine' in the documentary without permission." I'm trying to respect Dave here, but to cut off the first half of the sentence is a misrepresentation. This remains Ono's legal claim: using the song without permission. All we've done is changed faux-legal into a vernacular translation of "unauthorized use"; I'm not sure how there is supposed to be any difference from the problem we had. Mackan79 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sigh, I see, you are right, and on my user-page version, I would just go with "makes use" as I think that conveys enough information; but I think personally we have spent enough time on this issue. I feel the main problem is resolved, and unlike your version, I think Dave's version is something that has the chance of being stable on this page. I guess I'm giving in too quickly, I do think you are right, but I'm tired, Merzul (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the other point, "makes use of" is similarly a legal claim of the one side, since quoting for critical commentary, the claim made by the film, would not be described in this way. This is why I changed it to "includes." If we felt the need to clarify, we would say Ono claims it makes use without permission, but it would have to be clear that this was her claim. Mackan79 (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any reason to suspect the phrase "makes use of" is of any legal import, and is freighted with some hidden legal penumbrations, causing us to prefer the word "includes". Do you have a source for such a claim?

It clearly was without permission, as claimed by both parties to the dispute, not just by the lawyers of one side. Whether this use without permission is permitted or not will be the subject of a legal proceeding, and until that is completed, we will not know if the use without permission is allowed under the relevant laws. That is the entire point of "fair use"; that someone can use a work without permission and still be permitted to do so, and the owner of the work cannot enjoin its use.

My own suspicion is that the lower court will make an initial ruling, and this will be appealed at least once to a higher court, and eventually some sufficiently high court will try to set a precedent to clarify exactly under what conditions fair use is permitted. It could very well be that the Expelled usage will be allowed, since it was probably under 25 seconds worth and they will be able to draw on immense legal resources and financial resources. However, "fair use" is usually applied to scholarly works and reviews and parodies, and Expelled does not fall under any of these categories. What the Stanford University Law School and the Expelled legal team will be seeking is to expand the definition of "fair use" to cover a broader range of commercial uses, which the Expelled usage clearly was.--Filll (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it was used, but I do know the second verse of the song:

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

The film makers say it was fair use because they included the song for "commentary or criticism." Considering the topic of the film and that of the song, this appears to be what they were doing. Now, did they use more than they needed, because it's good music? I believe that's basically the question. In any case, "makes use of" is obviously a formalistic phrase which is unnecessary unless to suggest a use beyond "commentary or criticism" as the film makers claim. This seems like a good reason to remove it, unless there is some overriding benefit that hasn't been mentioned. The same is true of "without permission," which again suggests that this is relevant, when it's only relevant according to those bringing the lawsuit. Mackan79 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources state that it's relevant, and that applies both to those bringing the lawsuit and to the defense. Even if it were one-sided, we present views from both sides, but how can someone claim fair use without using the music? The film makes use of the music, you're speculating about the purpose behind that use. The benefit of giving a reasonable level of explanation is that readers don't have to play guessing games – the purpose of the article is to inform readers, not to leave them puzzled. .. dave souza, talk 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant, should we not present it as the view of one side? You don't say "Dems voted for children's health care, which raises taxes. Therefore, Republicans opposed it. Dems said it was a good investment." You say "Dems voted for children's health care. Republicans opposed it saying it will raise taxes. Dems said it was a good investment." Mackan79 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess I am totally confused by this. The movie does not "make use of" this segment of the song? Huh?

Also, both sides admit it was "without permission". What is the issue with that? Do you claim it was with permission? If so, provide a link to a reliable source that states they had permission to use the song.

By the way, I have seen a pirated clip of the movie where this song is used. I did not time the clip and I am sure it is down from the internet by now. However, it was a good long chunk of the song, and there was also some commentary that appeared to attack John Lennon personally, if I remember correctly. There was also some very very ugly overlaid imagery.--Filll (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I said "In any case, 'makes use of' is obviously a formalistic phrase which is unnecessary unless to suggest a use beyond 'commentary or criticism' as the film makers claim." Your previous comment had been "I do not have any reason to suspect the phrase 'makes use of' is of any legal import, and is freighted with some hidden legal penumbrations, causing us to prefer the word 'includes'". Why are you pretending now not to understand? Please give me a break. Mackan79 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to back that up with a few links to legal dictionaries and legal textbooks, and the text of the relevant applicable legislation.--Filll (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I said it's formalistic, not that it's a term of art. Are you denying this? The question is why we would say "makes use of" rather than "includes." One is three words, whereas the other is one. One implies a POV while the other doesn't. It's unclear why you are defending it. Mackan79 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not care one way or the other, but you implied that "make use of" was somehow suggesting something legally or had some special connotations. And I doubted it. As I said in my edit summary, I believe that "without permission" is the operative phrase here that should not be removed.--Filll (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this again, timing a section of the movie is the opitomy of using a primary source, it is not original research! Saksjn 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Current wording

The current version reads The film contains an unlicensed portion of John Lennon's song "Imagine". Why didn't Stein use the licensed portion? Merzul (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me :) Mackan79 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoddy grammar. Fixed. .. dave souza, talk 21:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Charles Darwin quotation issue section is misleading and POV-biased in the extreme.

The section criticizes Stein for "misleading selective quotation" when, in fact, Stein's quote was fair and accurate.

The section also quotes the "original paragraph" to prove the point. Actually, however, the "original paragraph" shown is really the original paragraph plus a misleading selective excerpt from the following paragraph, with the remainder of the following paragraph omitted. The omitted portion of the following paragraph reinforces the point of the paragraph from which Stein quoted, and proves that Stein's excerpt was both fair and accurate.

I've restored the paragraph break and the missing remainder of the following paragraph, so that the supposed "original paragraph" is no longer misleading. However, we also need to get rid of the anti-Stein editorializing:

• "...his claim that..."

-- "claim" is a

word to avoid

.

• "Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so."

-- This statement is wholly untrue, and severely POV-biased.

• "The Expelled Exposed website also points out..."

-- The Expelled Exposed website is not a

phrase to avoid

, because it implies agreement with the POV expressed.

• "...the same misleading selective quotation from this passage..."

-- This statement mischaracterizes Stein's quotation of Darwin, and is obviously POV-biased.

• "...but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics."

-- This statement is the exact opposite of the truth (and severely POV-biased). The full "passage" (taken as either the entire paragraph from which Stein quoted, or that paragraph plus the entire following paragraph) makes it clear that Darwin was laying out the foundational principles of what was later known as eugenics. Only by misleading selective quotation from the following paragraph is it possible to support the claim that Darwin was not.

In addition, this editorial comment is both inaccurate and irrelevant:

• "The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics. Clarence Darrow, who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial, wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics."

-- Darrow was not an evolutionary biologist, he was a lawyer. During the 1920s and 1930s the scientific community was very much on board the eugenics bandwagon, with very few exceptions. So were the courts. In 1926, when Darrow criticized eugenics, there apparently were no leading biologists opposing eugenics.[5] In fact, Darrow, himself, laments the apparent unanimity of opinion in favor of eugenics in his 1927 criticism of eugenics.

I'm out of time this morning, so I've not cleaned up this section of the article yet (other than correcting the "original paragraph") but I'll revisit it later. NCdave (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi NCdave, your

original research giving your own interpretation of a primary source is amusing but inaccurate and, of course, unacceptable in Wikipedia. Darwin described the ideas later called eugenics, as set out by their proponents, and made clear that to him this could only be voluntary. Such eugenics continues in use today, with considerable success. American eugenics in the early 20th century took the compulsory route, and Scientific American as a reliable source makes points with specific reference to the film. Find good sources equally related to the film if you want to present someone disputing the point, your original research or a self published web page won't do. .. dave souza, talk 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC) For information, Why Eugenics is Good for Jews. . . dave souza, talk

17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Expelled Exposed, from the National Center for Science Education, is a reliable source, as we have determined through years of discussion and consensus. It is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific body on planet earth. Even an article on Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent states that the film misinterprets Darwin's quote here [6]. This is also covered in Scientific American [7].--Filll (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, correcting the misquote of Darwin is not original research. I didn't interpret Darwin, I corrected the quote of him.

Filll, the National Center for Science Education is a reliable source for its own positions, only. It is an advocacy organization, created for the defense of Darwinism, and it is the #1 ox gored by this movie. It is a primary source, not a reliable secondary source. A primary source is acceptable on Wikipedia for presenting the positions and views of the primary source, itself, not the views and positions of the primary source's adversary.

Filll, your revert restored the incorrect quote of Darwin, which I had corrected. The incorrect version merges the first 60% of the following paragraph into the paragraph which Stein quoted, and omits the last 40% of the following paragraph altogether, the part that reinforces what Stein quoted. Why did you do that?

Here's the inaccurate version:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Here's the accurate version:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

I do not object to quoting the entire paragraph from which Stein quoted. Doing so proves that Stein's excerpt was fair and accurate.

I also do not object to quoting both that paragraph and the one which follows, if you prefer. Doing that also shows that Stein's excerpt was fair and accurate.

However, I object to selectively excerpting from the next paragraph in a way that distorts its meaning. That is not only misleading, it is also strikingly hypocritical to selectively quote Darwin in an section about an allegation that Stein selectively quoted Darwin!

Can we all agree that must be fixed? Can we agree that if the following paragraph is to be quoted, along with the paragraph which Stein quoted, then the entire following paragraph should quoted, not just a part of it which gives a misleading impression of his meaning? What objection can there be to quoting the whole paragraph?

I also object to appending that additional paragraph (or any part of it) onto the end of the paragraph that Stein quoted from, to make it appear that the two paragraphs were actually one. That is simply misquotation.

Can we all agree that that, too, must be fixed? What objection can there be to breaking the paragraphs the way that Darwin did? NCdave (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be very careful in how we present historic writings because our moral sensitivity has drastically changed since the second world war. This is why I think secondary sources are important in presenting any such material, we need some authority behind who decide what section of Darwin's writing is truly representative. Merzul (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Merzul is right. The reliable secondary sources we have directed at this issue in Expelled provide the appropriate section and interpretation. Even NCdave's claim about "breaking the paragraphs the way that Darwin did" follows an inaccurate representation – the first paragraph has been trimmed to miss out the point that Darwin is discussing the views of W. R. Greg, Wallace and Galton. I'm pretty sure I've seen that discussed elsewhere, but the source we have which discusses Expelled doesn't go into that issue, so neither do we. .. dave souza, talk 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We go by the sources relevant to Expelled. I gave you 3 that all make the same point. We do not go about doing our own

WP:OR.--Filll (talk

) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify which source provides the quote as we use it? I understand several raise this issue, and that omitting parts of the sentence is misleading, but I'm also concerned by NCdave's point if our presentation isn't correct either. Mackan79 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, the entire book is public domain, and there are multiple copies online, such as this one.

Dave souza, Darwin wasn't discussing the views of Greg, Wallace & Galton, he was crediting them and expressing their views as his own. If you think that part of the first paragraph is significant, then I have no objection to including it.

Here it is with that part included:

Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations. — In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

I don't really think the part about Messrs Greg, Wallace & Galton is necessary, but I have no objection to including them. But the current version is inaccurate and misleading.

I count four issues here. Let's take a little poll:

• Q1: Can we all agree that the two paragraphs (or portions thereof) cannot fairly be merged into one? (I vote absolutely yes.)
• Q2: Can we all agree that if any of the 2nd paragraph is to be included, then the whole thing should be? (I vote absolutely yes.)
• Q3: Should we include any of the 2nd paragraph at all? (I vote weak no, but I don't care much.)
• Q4: Should we include the beginning of the 1st paragraph, through the phrase, "...from these three authors?" (I vote weak no, but I don't care much.)

The first two questions are issues of integrity. Either truncating the 2nd paragraph or merging all or part of it with the first paragraph distorts Darwin's intended meaning. I certainly hope nobody thinks that is acceptable. NCdave (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert Stevens, for affirming Q1 and restoring the split between the two paragraphs.

Per Q2, I've just restored the final sentence to the 2nd paragraph. NCdave (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza, please stop deleting the final sentence of Darwin's 2nd paragraph. NCdave (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a vote, but ...

It might be useful to split it into those four points. I agree with Q1 as that's also what our sources use, but I don't think it is as simple as just cutting off at the end of the second paragraph. I'm not a Darwin scholar, but my naive judgement of the primary source is that the matter of marriage is discussed in the next 3 pages or so of that book. Hence, my conclusion is that breaking off where we currently do is not at all arbitrary. Cutting at the end of the paragraph would be like ending it at a cliff-hanger; he raised a controversial statement that I think requires 3 pages or so for him to explain. His habit of ending paragraphs mid-topic is "absurd to the highest degree", but what can we do? ;) Well, we can rely on secondary sources such as the scientific american. Merzul (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right that breaking it off where we currently does not appear to be arbitrary, it is necessary to make a convincing argument that Stein's quote of Darwin was unfair. If the entire 2nd paragraph is included, the argument falls flat.

However, Darwin did not discuss marriage in the next several pages, and he did not end his paragraphs in mid-topic. He was an excellent writer, who used paragraphs conventionally.

That mention of marriage was on page 169, and he next mentioned it on page 175, in a very different context:

"With women, marriage at too early an age is highly injurious; for it has been found in France that, 'twice as many wives under twenty die in the year, as died out of the same number of the unmarried.'"

Chopping off the last 40% of the second paragraph serves only to make it misleading. NCdave (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have no idea what's going on here, but what I do know is that last time I checked, the article wasn't about a book; it was about a 2008 documentary hosted by Ben Stein. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I should have seen this, but can someone show the Scientific American article that we're relying on? I tried looking through several of the sources and am not sure if I found the one or not. I realize what the issue is, I'm just hoping to see the specific source. Mackan79 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at The first "thing" here, but Filll posted a few more. Merzul (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I see that. In general, I'm wondering if the whole thing may not be more complex than what we should try to cover in this way. I'm sure some people want to correct the film's presentation, which I also think would be good. The current version seems problematic, though, while I'm not exactly sure how to improve it. Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I see little but some obfuscation or trolling here.--Filll (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is indeed more complex than we are letting on here. Interpreting Darwin correctly and setting him in the proper historical context is not easy; therefore the optimal solution would be something I don't know exactly either, but the current version is better than what NCdave is suggesting. However, this is clearly not trolling, questioning the cutting off of a quotation in the middle of a paragraph is a very valid concern, which can't be simply brushed off per WP:DUE, WP:PSTS, WP:WTF, or any other policy shortcut. Merzul (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia can't misinform the public on an issue like this, I'd hope we would all agree. We need to find something that's right, either by clarifying or by leaving more in depth discussions to other sources. I lean toward the latter considering the space issues we already have; this would involve simply saying the context shows Darwin was arguing against the position being attributed to him without trying to provide the entire context here. Quoting one of the specific repudiations of the idea could be part of this. Mackan79 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This appears to involve misquoting of sources and violation of

You don't have to agree with me about that. But if we can't agree on Darwin's meaning, we at least should be able to agree to let Darwin's own, unedited words speak for him. Right? NCdave (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem to be confused and unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy. Until you can find a secondary source which states something different than the 3 sources I produced in the context of the film, then you have a problem.--Filll (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Filll, this is more like the kind of response that I'm also willing to sign my name under. I'll still say it myself too. First, I must say, NCdave, your interpretation of Darwin's words, such as "present evil", is so different from mine that maybe we shouldn't quote Darwin at all :) But to the point, while I agree that cutting the quotation in the middle of the paragraph is a legitimate concern; lacking more authoritative secondary sources than the Scientific American it is the best we can do. If you want to improve this, we need to dig up better secondary sources. I too insist on not interpreting Darwin ourselves, and choosing a cut-off point is an interpretative act. Merzul (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the secondary sources, we have Stein and his movie producers with one (correct) summary, and we have a magazine editorial by the Senior Editor of Scientific American with a different (wrong) one. Both are secondary sources w/r/t Darwin, but I don't think either are

reliable sources

under Wikipedia's rules, and there's obviously no consensus (so far, anyhow... until Rennie sees the error of his ways).

So I think we need to let Darwin speak for himself. I will accept any cut-off point that is on a paragraph boundary. I am satisfied that if we cut it off on a paragraph boundary (and not merge two paragraphs into one!) that Darwin's intent will be fairly represented.

W/r/t the word "present" (in the phrase "overwhelming present evil"), it means "already existing now."

The significance of that is it proves that it is incorrect to interpret (as Rennie did in his editorial) the "present evil" phrase as referring to the anticipated policy of neglecting the weak and helpless, or its results. A result cannot antedate its cause, so a "present" evil cannot be the the result of an anticipated action. Rather, an "overwhelming present evil" is the trigger which, in Darwin's view, would be necessary to justify an admittedly dehumanizing policy of neglecting the weak and helpless.

Darwin's usage of the word "present" was exactly the same as in the more familiar phrase, "clear and present danger." What did you think it meant, Merzul? NCdave (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't any issue with the passage as it is, at least not the issue that you're on about. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I do not understand why some want to reject 3 sources in favor of their own made-up theory and research. The film is of course a primary source. And we have 3 secondary sources stating that what the film did was misrepresentation. They are all wrong? Find other secondary sources, like the New York Times or the London Times or Science News or New Scientist or the Economist or something of similar quality.--Filll (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that Stein misinterpreted Darwin (as did the earlier creationists who fabricated this misquote). Furthermore, it also seems pretty clear that the additional material quoted doesn't change that fact. "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"... Why must we bear it? Because (according to Darwin) intervention would be unjustifiable, an "overwhelming evil". The rest is apparently wishful thinking, as Darwin isn't expressing a policy, but merely a hope (more to be hoped for than expected) that the problem would correct itself. We are trying to shorten the article (see the length warning at the top of the page)... so why include irrelevant material that doesn't change Darwin's meaning? Especially as our reference, the Scientific American article, doesn't include it: hence, this inclusion would be a

WP:SYN violation anyhow. --Robert Stevens (talk

) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should provide the commentary that it's misleading, but I have a hard time particularly with how we have combined the paragraphs. Did any of the sources do this that I am missing? It seems very odd to combine paragraphs while attempting to correct the record about the original source. Mackan79 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could simply put a paragraph break in the appropriate place. I'll do that: it won't affect the article size. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...Ah. That's interesting. There IS already a paragraph break in there, but the Wiki software isn't showing it! --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on the whole issue. It's simply an example of quotes being trimmed to shorten them. Even if the entire quote was shown in the movie, it would not have changed the meaning! Saksjn (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem here. Why are we just not going with

WP:RS?--Filll (talk

) 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Truncation of the 2nd paragraph, by deleting the final sentence, changes its meaning, in a way that gives the misleading impression that Stein's quote of Darwin was misleading. If we are to include the 2nd paragraph at all, we need to use the entire 2nd paragraph, so that its meaning is clear. NCdave (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well,

original research, hence unacceptable. .. dave souza, talk

19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with including the final sentence? NCdave (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Darwin quote, no matter how it is presented, is the historical context. I think that the historical context of the quote needs to be carefully addressed in order to demonstrate why Ben Stein is misleading (but I don't really think he is misquoting egregiously). In the preceding centuries, slavers saw anybody of a different race as fair game. In the late 18th Century, Australian Aborigines were not considered to be owners of the land they inhabited, perhaps not even human at all.

Darwin's words reflect his times in relatively moderate terms, and it has been his concept of evolution, supported by the study of genetics, that has eroded the whole concept of race to the point where race is now considered to be a social construct, and not physically real. To modern ears, his views are racist, but he was not heading towards racism, quite the opposite direction. Quoting him to imply that science is to blame for genocide is simply wrong. Compare with Martin Luther, who does not speak in moderate terms about the Jews, and actively promotes genocide (as I read it, anyway). Trishm (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Trishm, those are arguments in defense of Charles Darwin, but they do not address the issue of this article's selective quotation of Darwin to buttress the false accusation from Rennie & Mirsky's editorial that Stein's quote from Darwin's Descent of Man was misleading.

Rennie & Mirsky wrote in an editorial, and editorializing is to be expected in editorials. But we are supposed to be writing in an encyclopedia. Editorial comments are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article (though I don't object to you making them here on the Talk page).

An argument that we should cut Darwin some slack, because he was writing less than 40 years after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, is reasonable, though I don't think it really fits in this encyclopedia article. But selectively quoting from Darwin in order to support an accusation against Stein is not reasonable.

If we are going to quote the 2nd of those two paragraphs, we must quote the whole thing, not just the part that seems, when removed from the context of the rest of the paragraph, might seem to support Rennie's editorial accusation against Stein. NCdave (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Find some secondary sources, preferable in the mainstream media, that make this point. It would be even better if they did in the context of discussing this movie. And present them. How about that? Then there is no problem of course. Otherwise, there is a problem.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times must we go through this charade? Stein was wrong, Rennie was right. This is clear (to anyone not suffering from reading-comprehension problems) in BOTH the Scientific American version AND the proposed longer version (but, of course, NOT in Stein's version, which omitted Darwin's description of eugenics as an "overwhelming evil"). The only change-of-meaning was by Stein (and the earlier creationists who used the same misquote)... NOT by us. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of idiocy? Listen, I'll say it again since no one has adressed it, Stien's version of the quote means the SAME FREAKING THING!!! Just because something was trimmed to save room doesn't mean it's purposely misleading. We are Wikipedia, we don't take sides! 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is hypocrisy at work here. You guys are accusing NCdave of OR and not using reliable sources when much of your assumptions that make it into the article are OR or come from unreliable sources. Expelled Exposed is not a reliable source, neither is an editorial. Saksjn (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to NCdave's difficulties with "present" and (especially) "with". But Stein's truncated version omitted numerous other ways in which society helps the less fortunate, and (most importantly) completely omitted Darwin's opposition to abandoning those measures: "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature" was omitted, and the reference to "overwheming evil" was omitted. It is quite obvious that Stein didn't want to portray Darwin as the humanitarian he actually was, but instead wished to convey the entirely false impression that Darwin would have approved of eugenics. By the way, Scientific American and the NCSE are reliable sources, and we are quoting from them: therefore there is no OR being perpetrated by us here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times am I required to repeat, over and over and over and over, in what way Expelled Exposed is a reliable source? Does anyone read what I post on this topic? I have probably said this at least 10 times. Please look at what I posted before and tell me why it is wrong.

And Scientific American and NCSE are both reliable sources in this instance. In addition, although we have not included it in the article, the mediator of the pro-intelligent design blog of William Dembski also weighed in to agree with Scientific American and NCSE on this point. So we have the two sides of this debate agreeing on this, with references (although I will admit that Dave Scott is a slightly less prominent source than NCSE or Scientific American). It seems ridiculous to claim that there is any dispute here in the sources.

I will remind everyone it is not up to us to make the decision if the sources are right or wrong, but to report what they claim. And three sources, from the two opposing sides of the debate, agree with each other. Case closed.--Filll (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert, none of the portions of the paragraph that Stein omitted in any way diminish the meaning of the part that he quoted. Rather, the "numerous other ways in which society helps the less fortunate" reinforce the part that Stein quoted. There was nothing in that paragraph that argued against abandoning those measures. Indeed, most eugenicists did not advocate abandoning those measures or neglecting the poor; rather, they advocated sterilizing them, and there is nothing in Darwin's words that could be construed as opposing that.

What's more, you have misquoted Darwin. He did not refer to "overwhelming evil." He referred to the "overwhelming present evil" which, he said, would be necessary to justify a policy of neglecting the weak and helpless.

The word "present" means "already existing, now." It proves that what Darwin called evil was the conditions that would have to already exist to justify an anticipated/possible future policy of neglecting weaklings.

Stein's quote of Darwin was an entirely fair and perfectly accurate statement of what Darwin believed. NCdave (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, it doesn't matter who supports the NCSE, it is obviously not a third-party source, let alone a reliable one. Nor is a magazine editorial a reliable third-party source, regardless of what magazine it is in. NCdave (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• The argument about third party sources is irrelevant and spurious. If you feel there is some policy that supports this, provide a link. Otherwise, the next time you make it, I will remove it. Fair warning.
• Provide a link to a seconndary or tertiary reliable source that makes your quotation argument, or the next time it will be removed. Fair warning.
• You cannot spam the talk page with the same argument over and over and over and keep making it even though it does not gain consensus. This is in violation of Wikipedia policy.--Filll (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, it was difficult to read through all of this heated discussion, but why all the fighting about "secondary" sources and "orginal research"? This is about a direct quotation from Darwin, not about what secondary sources say. The article states that Stein deliberately misquotes Darwin, and then the article gives the broader context of the quotation. However, the article cuts off its form of the quotation arbitrarily in the middle of a paragraph, and thus leaves out a few sentences that are clearly relevant to the "misquotation" at hand; that is, while not espousing forceful eugenics, the sentences omitted by the article as it currently stands have Darwin saying that the genetically inferior should voluntarily not breed. While the Stein quotation is definitely strategically selective and perhaps misleading (that depends on your POV, which should not come in to play here), the correct quotation should absolutely include everything relevant to the issue from the actual original text of Darwin, and not just cut off the quote right before it gets to the part that makes some of us uncomfortable (though once again, I acknowledge that Darwin certainly does not appear to espouse eugenics; he only suggests that perhaps the handicapped should choose not to marry and produce offspring). If we can't even give the entire quote here for whatever reason, then this section of the article should be entirely deleted, since it is utterly idiotic to say that Ben Stein was so bad and evil in his misquoting and butchering of Darwin's original text, and then go right ahead and arbitrarily cut off and butcher the original text. Quoting wikipedia policies is like quoting the bible; anyone can come up with a "WP:blah blah" to support what they want to say. What matters is that as the article currently stands, our article is openly attacking Stein for misquoting Darwin, and then to prove our case, we give what we call the complete, original, and nuanced text, when really it's just another "strategically selective" quotation! You can't say that secondary sources did this first, regardless of how "WP:reliable" they are or whatever policy you want to abuse, because if that's the case, then they clearly were "strategically selective" as well! "WP:OR" does not mean "WP:Turn off your brains and just believe", does it?Tix (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes! It seems ridiculous to insist that Darwin be selectively quoted in this article, to try to bolster the argument that Stein selectively quoted Darwin.

I am flexible. We can include the entire paragraph that Stein quoted from (optionally sans the bit at the beginning in which he credits his sources), or if there is consensus for it we can also include the following paragraph. But to include just a selection from the second paragraph, to make Stein look bad, the way Rennie did in his editorial, is plain wrong.

I've restored the final sentence to the second paragraph. NCdave (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll wrote, "The argument about third party sources is irrelevant and spurious. If you feel there is some policy that supports this, provide a link. Otherwise, the next time you make it, I will remove it."

I'm sorry, Filll, I didn't realize that you were unaware of the policy requiring the use of third-party sources.

WP:RS

says, right near the beginning:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies."

Likewise, WP:V says:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

That is a core policy of Wikipedia. We are not free to ignore it. "Third-party" means uninvolved. The NCSE & its expelledexposed web sites are obviously not a third-party source w/r/t this film, since the NCSE was a major topic of the film.

Wikipedia has a limited exception to the requirement for using third-party sources, to allow for the use of primary sources to document the subject of an article's own positions and views. But the NCSE & its web sites do not fall under that exception, for this article. If you want to quote their web sites, you may do so in the NCSE article, not here.

Also, Filll, I respectfully ask that you please not edit or threaten to edit other editors' comments. You do not

own this talk page. NCdave (talk

) 09:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But Darwin wasn't using the future tense, he was using a Conditional sentence. Conditionals like this could be fulfilled in the future, or they could be fulfilled in an alternate present or past. For instance, "if I were stronger, I could lift this box" refers to an alternate present in which I am stronger than I really am. It is actually your version that makes no sense, because the "overwhelming present evil" obviously wasn't present when Darwin wrote, therefore he should have said "overwhelming future evil". But what he actually meant was that, whenever this temporally-undefined situation occurs (in the future, or in an alternate present or past: it doesn't matter), the act of neglect (or, by extension, eugenics) brings about both a future (to that moment) "contingent benefit" and a present (i.e. then-immediate) "overwhelming evil".

Furthermore, it's apprent that you do understand this on some level. Not only because of your insistence that an "overwhelming present evil" could actually occur in the future rather than the present, but also because of your wrong but illuminating statement that the rest of Darwin's paragraph (omitted by the NCSE and SciAm) would "change the meaning". How is this not an admission that the NCSE/SciAm version (with its "overwhelming present evil") doesn't already mean what you would like it to mean?

As for the "truncation" of the rest of the paragraph: you really need to understand that Wikipedia reports the arguments of OTHERS. It wasn't actually US who decided that the rest of Darwin's paragraph was irrelevant to this argument (though it clearly IS irrelevant anyhow): our SOURCES decided that. By including it, we're going outside the section that our sources are arguing about (hence

The word "with," in this context, means "19. As a result or consequence of" (per this dictionary), as in these examples:

• She is trembling with fear.

She is trembling as a result or consequence of fear.

• He's sick with the flu.

He's sick as a result or consequence of the flu.

• We will launch our missiles only with severe provocation.

We will launch our missiles only as a result or consequence of severe provocation.

• If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, as a result or consequence of an overwhelming present evil.

No other interpretation makes sense, because a result cannot antedate its cause, even if both cause and result are speculative. In the speculative future scenario that Darwin discussed, the "evil" was something that he said would be present (already existing), and an already existing thing cannot be the consequence of an anticipated (future) thing. So Darwin cannot have meant that the "present evil" would be a result of an anticipated policy.

Darwin was profoundly ambivalent about our civilized protection of the weak and helpless. One one hand, he believed that for the "weak members of civilized societies [to] propagate their kind... must be highly injurious to the race of man."

But, on the other hand, despite "the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind," he recognized that to "check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason [would carry the cost of] deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

So, should civilized societies protect and coddle the weak and helpless, or neglect them? On this question, Darwin comes down squarely on the fence. He doesn't unambiguously reject neglecting the weak and helpless, but he says that it could only be for a contingent (anticipated) benefit (to the race), and as a result or consequence of a great already-existing evil.

Most of the eugenicists who followed Darwin were very much in agreement with him, about both the problem and the humanitarian concern. They most often resolved that dilemma in the obvious way, the same way that ethical dog breeders treat poorer specimens of purebred dogs: by taking good care of them, but forcibly sterilizing them to prevent them from propagating their kind. In the United States, tens of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized, and in NAZI Germany even more were.

The NAZIs, however, were not as concerned with the "deterioration in the noblest part of [their] nature." The National Socialist movement was grounded in racial resentment and hatred, anyhow. Their concern was with "the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind." As Stein demonstrated with an ample selection of NAZI quotes in the movie, they were very much convinced of the correctness of Darwin's belief about the danger of allowing inferior people to breed, but lacked his squeamishness about radical ("final") solutions.

For reference, here is the pair of paragraphs under discussion,with the parts Stein quoted shown in a non-bold font, and the sentences numbered in green:

[1.1]Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations. — [1.2]In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. [1.3]But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. [1.4]This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. [1.5]Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. [1.6]With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. [1.7]We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. [1.8]We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. [1.9]There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. [1.10]Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. [1.11]No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. [1.12]It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

[2.1]The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. [2.2]Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. [2.3]The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. [2.4]Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

You can use the [green sentence numbers] when referring to Darwin's sentences. NCdave (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

...Nope, you are merely repeating your false accusations regarding change-of-meaning, misunderstandings of Darwin's words (and basic English), and misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies, without adding anything new. Therefore I will revert you (again). --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And I see that all you've done above is to regurgitate the stuff you already had on your talkpage (some of which I had already quoted previously). You have failed to address the points I raised. Apparently you have no interest in discussion. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And again, entertaining as it is to read NCdave's tortured misunderstandings of the text, we look to reliable secondary sources for interpretation and selection of the primary source in order to comply with

WP:NPOV policy. .. dave souza, talk

12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the idea that Darwin is not so much misquoted as misrepresented, by quoting out of context, as this movie review puts forth: http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2008/04/23/Opinions/Of.Ben.Stein.Bad.Science.And.B.s-3343208.shtml

When the movie [Expelled] isn't busy making demonstrably false claims that Intelligent Design supporters have been discriminated against, it's making Mike Godwin cringe by comparing evolution to Nazism. With faux shock written on his face, Stein "learns" that evolutionary biology was used as a justification for Nazi atrocities - the implication being that, because the theory has bad moral implications, people shouldn't believe it.
...Modern evolutionary biology shows that "race" doesn't really exist on a biological level and that, because most mutations are recessive, breeding them out of existence is almost impossible anyway. So even if evolutionary theory did have moral implications - which, like most scientific theories, it does not appear to - genocide and eugenics would not be among them.

Perhaps no one has shown that acceptance of evolution is perfectly consistent with good behavior better than Darwin himself, who wrote in "The Descent of Man" that our sense of sympathy, which originally evolved as an instinct, has become "more tender and more widely diffused" and that we cannot check this instinct "without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

Trishm (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said. The selection has to be read in the context of the whole section, which includes reference to the more detailed discussion of evolution of sympathy elsewhere in the book. Such analysis requires reliable secondary sources, which we have provided. .. dave souza, talk 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

in the summary of the expelled exposed link, we say that it is a "site debunking each claim made in the movie" This should be changed to "site debunking claims made in the movie" as it is more concise and the former has an antagonistic tone. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page instead of edit warring, RC. The way it is written now certainly suggests every single claim is debunked. How best to confirm/deny this? Midnight Gardener (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, your welcome. Second, how I debunk that is this. Let the facts speak for themselves. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

At one point the movie claimed that Nazis killed millions of people. At another point they mentioned the earth being round. I doubt that those claims are debunked. RC's proposed wording thus makes sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the www.expelledexposed.com site claims to debunk the movie's key claims. Apart from the obvious absurdity of the statement that the site debunks all the movie's claims, which you noticed, the current wording about "debunking" the movie's "claims" is terribly POV-biased, implying that the www.expelledexposed.com site has the better of the argument. Some here certainly think that to be the case (I do not), but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.

In general, "claims" is a

There is another problem, however: The www.expelledexposed.com web site is not a

Actually, the film would be the

reliable source. --Woland (talk

) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... a website set up by a major, mainstream organisation with a reputation for fact checking and care, as the NCSE is, is a Reliable Source. Read

WP:RS. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk

) 14:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful, the NCSE is a partisan organization. We can generally give them large amounts of weight per UNDUE but we need to be careful about taking their opinions completely uncritically. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE is a

WP:RS, that's obvious. However it is also directly involved in the film: it is a target in the film, and its director is one of the scientists featured in it. Just cover the story in the article, editors-don't render an official judgment on it. Example, "Expelled Exposed was created by the NCSE to debunk claims made in the film. Most significant of the claims EE challenges are dot dot dot." Professor marginalia (talk

) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so which wording do we like best, or do we wanto to use a completely different wording? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE is obviously not a reliable third-party source. They are an advocacy organization created for the express purpose of defending Darwinism. The NCSE is the organization criticized most directly and extensively in the film. Their web site is a self-published source, and pretending that it is reliable third-party source for information about this film is like pretending that the RNC is a reliable third-party source for information about Obama & Clinton. The NCSE has an ax to grind w/r/t this film, just as the RNC has an ax to grind w/r/t Obama & Clinton. NCdave (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE provides tha mainstream view, which you seem to have an ax to grind about. They're clearly a reliable source providing that view, and we should show that view without giving undue weight to pseudoscience or other extreme minority views. .. dave souza, talk 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, are we talking about the same thing? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the NCSE isn't exactly a peer-reveiwed journal. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um hang on here a second. The NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world. The NCSE is also affiliated with the

WP:SPS this is a reliable source. So please stop with this nonsense.--Filll (talk

) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"The NCSE does publish a peer-reviewed journal I believe." Note the last two words. Also, I have never said that the NCSE isn't a reliable source. Why is it that most of the time you mark your opposition(s) argument(s) as nonsense? Please note that we are discussing rewording the description of one of the external links (although I'm not sure how we got on this NCSE tangent). RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>What word would you prefer that I use instead of "nonsense"? Do you want more variety? A better writing style? This is only the talk page you know. I write a bit informally on the talk page compared to the mainspace pages. I personally did not bring up the NCSE here; I was only responding, as I have done several times when they were accused of being a poor source. I also am not positive that their journal is peer-reviewed; is that relevant here? If you are so interested in it and you believe it is relevant, why not investigate it? Also, do you believe that my use of the word "nonsense" to describe arguments that I believe are nonsensical is a violation of policy? Perhaps you would be good enough to link me to the place in policy where it states that the use of the word "nonsense" is forbidden. Perhaps you want to charge me with a violation of

Filll, Until you said "Please stop with this nonsense," your post was utterly reasonable, measured, and professional. Then, at the end, you threw in a very slight unnecessary pejorative. If you had left that part off, this discussion would have stayed closer to the topic (sources). Instead, you chose to say, "stop with this nonsense," which was not professional or helpful, and it caused a predictable reaction, which would have been better to avoid.

Which is better, talking about sources, or talking about whether RC-0722 is talking "nonsense"? Which helps build the encyclopedia?

By the way, there is no such thing as a "violation of WP:CIVIL". -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's wonderful to have you on this talk page, GTBacchus, but your post had more to do with Filll's behaviour than the sources. And of course my post has more to do with your behaviour than the article. Being such

kettles and pots, we can offer the other editors some soup, and get back to discuss the article. :) Merzul (talk

) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, until you can demonstrate to me that you have read the last several hundred kilobytes of talk page edits and mainspace edits, I believe I will discount your comments. They might even be more relevant if you had participated in the previous discussions for the last 10 months. Thanks awfully.--Filll (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just making an observation. It's pretty clear to anyone who can read that your above paragraph consists of seven sentences of reason, and one sentence of provocation. If you think the last is helpful, then wow. If anything in the last 10 months of editing makes provocation helpful, then wow. That's all I've got to say here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty to say. I could explain and defend myself. But unfortunately given the current circumstances and climate, I am unable to do so. --Filll (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to defend yourself. If GTBacchus can argue in a better and more effective fashion, I'm waiting to be impressed. We are all doing our best, Merzul (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why I proposed the "DGG Challenge".--Filll (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Back the truck up. Filll, did I say you were being incivil? Did I say you were violating a policy by using the word "nonsense?" Did I say that you write informally in the mainspace? Also, this discussion isn't about sources; it is about the description of an external link, as stated in the first post of this thread. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets not have any further

That is my understanding. --Filll (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I still believe that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the article. B. As stated on the

NPOV page, it says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." RC-0722 ^247.5/1

04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"However, if A is much more prominent than B, the Wikipedia article will include more of A's viewpoint in it; that is, the article will be biased towards the A view (I am using the word bias in the statistical sense, that is, biased means weighted)." And this is where you are wrong, because "bias" and "neutrality" do not refer to these things. "Bias" and "Neutrality" do not refer to the ultimate answer to the question posed by the controversial topic. They refer only to the wording with which that topic is described. Again, I used the 1x/10x example more than once; why won't you respond to it? If I say:

...That is a perfectly neutral and proportionate statement. It's neutral because it's a statement of fact, and statements of fact, when worded in a way that does not betray any opinion, viewpoint or agenda on the part of the writer/speaker, are inherently neutral. It's proportional because it properly references the fact that ID scientists are a relatively tiny minority, and that the idea itself has no standing in the scientific community. What I sense here is that you think something is not neutral if a group is said to be in the minority, or on the fringe, because the implication may be that they are "wrong". But why is this? Where do you get the idea that stating something is a fringe idea is a betrayal of neutrality? That some ideas and groups are fringe ones is a statement of fact, there's no "bias" in stating so, and if a reader interprets this to mean that they're wrong, that has nothing to do with WP failing neutrality. How one interprets a passage and how it's worded are two different things. WP reports facts. What a reader understands from them is separate from this. There is only bias or a betrayal of neutrality if the statement is either untrue, if there is an element of subjectivity that is being described matter-of-factly, or if there is an element of legitimate conflict on a controversial topic in which one or more major groups are not represented. Thus neutrality and proportion are not mutually exclusive. If I say "Nine of these ten people liked Movie X, and one did not", that is perfectly neutral and proportionate. But if I include the passage "...and that one guy who didn't like it has no taste", then THAT is not neutral. Neutrality refers only to the viewpoint of the editor. Not the viewpoints of the conflicted groups being described. Allowing the former into the wording of material violates policy. Allowing the latter is required by it. This is precisely what the NPOV policy prescribes. Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this appears to be quite counter productive in a number of respects. In a final effort to try to move this into a constructive mode instead of this type of thing, please make suggestions for how you would rewrite this article. Of course, if you would care to rewrite the article in a sandbox and present the results here for inspection, that would be quite beneficial. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg you, in the bowels of Christ, to think that you may both be correct :) Overall "neutrality" is established by describing dispassionately the various published views in proportion to their prominence amongst experts on the subject. Thus the view of 90% of film critics is that this film is a stinker, and the article reflects that view proportionately. In relation to its scientific message, it promotes a fringe viewpoint which is pseudoscience and is not to be given "equal validity". Editors have to apply these principles in a neutral way, but not all editors will agree! . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that he is correct, in some particulars. However, what seems to be exhibited on this page repeatedly by this editor are attempts to engage in somewhat unseemly debates. I do not intend to take what might appear to be

WP:BAIT

. It might not be, and I apologize if I am misreading the situation. If I am pushed sufficiently, I will respond to the questions posed, but I am pretty sure that if we go down that route, this editor will not be particularly happy with that. So please, let's not go there. Instead, let's work on improving the articles on the encyclopedia.

Quibbling over the meaning of the

polyseme "neutral", and how it is applied by me, or by those editors characterized by singular editing interests serving some agenda, or by NS or by the editors of one section of a policy document or another is not particularly useful in this instance. I have given explicit examples of my usage. An admin above, Dave souza, has confirmed my usage. FeloniousMonk, another admin, has also confirmed my usage more than once on this page. --Filll (talk

) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill, it is true that you accomplices have helped you stave off logic here and elsewhere. This is most usually perpetrated by preventing others from editing (by locking down the article) or by blocking (by shutting down accounts). That does not mean that your blatant disregard for neutrality has not been witnessed. How many times have you told others to go to other sites rather than addressed their valid complaints and concerns? 98.169.241.244 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the complaints department, this page is for discussing improvements to the article. Make suggestions

reliable sources and we'll discuss them. . . dave souza, talk

14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have even written about these options in my draft essay on the subject. Many have applauded the approach I describe in my draft essay, including the admins User:GTBacchus and User:Carcharoth. So clearly I am not alone in this. Do you think we are all wrong? If so, why? And what would you do differently? I would also invite you to try the AGFC and demonstrate explicitly how you would manage difficult editing situations and what decisions you would make and how they are superior to those of other editors.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

First and Foremost. If the mainpage be read, at the top would be the words, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Filll, take your challenge yourself before you tell others to take it. Now, I'd strongly suggest you people continue this discussion elsewhere, as this is the talk page for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The post at the top of this thread is about the article. Disputes about the tone and neutrality and NPOVness of the article occupy a large fraction of this talk page discussion. You feel confident enough that you want to tell two admins that they are abusing the talk page? Interesting...--Filll (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am that confident because the discussion (as I see it) is not about where the articles fits the NPOV policy, but rather NPOV itself. Also, your first post had nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the editors. (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and direct you to the direct quotes I placed from other editors discussing specific changes they wanted to make in the article. And if we do not agree with NPOV is, we cannot make the article NPOV. Do you not think that is an accurate statement? For example, I believe that according to NPOV policy, this article can be about 90 percent negative about the film. According to some other editors on this page, they believe that according to their interpretation of NPOV policy, this article must not be 90 percent negative, or even 50 percent negative, or in some cases even 1 percent negative about the film. So that leads to disputes, right? I would think that would be obvious. But I guess not...--Filll (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By NPOV policy, the article cannot give undue weight to any views; all noteworthy views should need to be discussed in fair and reasonable proportion. But never, at any time, does NPOV allow for the article to assume or adopt a negative or positive position, every view must be equally neutral in how they are represented. If 90% of the things there are to say about the film are negative, then 90% of the content will be about those negative things. That's subtly different than saying 90% of the article will itself be negative. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article cannot give

WP:UNDUE problem (of course, the proportions can be determined other way besides the proportion of reliable sources, but that is a good example). Of course the article should not itself advocate any position, but should just report what the sources say. That is obvious, and I hope I never gave any other impression. And there are many definitions of "neutral" clearly, as can be seen by looking at this talk page or any talk page of a controversial article. So I think it is best to just avoid the term "neutral" since so many are confused about it or disagree as to what it means.--Filll (talk

) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV does mean neutral. 'Actually, even Jimbo gave a speech on this subject a couple of years ago at one of the Wikimedia meetings where he pointed out that the term 'NPOV' was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it confused people into thinking that the articles were supposed to be neutral.' I have no idea what this refers to, actually. I do not agree with it at all, and I have no idea what I might have said 'a couple of years ago' which might have been misinterpreted in this way." --

Jimbo Wales. Now, can we please take this discussion somewhere else? RC-0722 ^247.5/1

17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is probably sanctionable; impersonating Jimbo. Very funny.--Filll (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Filll, then maybe you should take this to a place where it will get site-wide attention, that way people who do not come to this talk page have a chance to weigh in on what NPOV means. PM, agreed. (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed and discussed and discussed and a consensus has been forged among the editors on Wikipedia, long before you or I appeared, years ago on this issue. This has long long been established. Why would you believe otherwise? Goodness gracious. I only repeat what I have been instructed in, when I see people trying to apply an incorrect version of policy, over and over. This is nothing new, because it is tried all the time on controversial articles. That story is as old as the hills. If you want to change the policy, I would invite you to go to the policy page for

WP:NPOV and propose something different. Maybe you can forge a new consensus.--Filll (talk

) 17:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I didn't say anything about rewriting this article, and I think I made this point clear earlier. It's unfortunate that you think discussion over a basic policy (one instituted by your insistence that it's actually not one) is not constructive, though I'm glad that you're able to at least conceive of the possibility that you're wrong. With all due respect to the other admins whom you claim have backed you up on this (though I don't recall reading them saying this anywhere), I will only say that I have a senior WP admin who says you're wrong. His name is Jimbo Wales, and right here he says:

And in addition to disproving your wild assertion that "NPOV" doesn't mean "neutral", and that he supposedly said this at a meeting somewhere, he also refutes your assertion that a proper description of source prominence proportion is "not" neutral by affirming the opposite, that an inaccurate description of a lopsided proportion as being equal would be not neutral:

RC is right that most of this does not seem to pertain to the article. However I would not have participated in this if it were not for Filll's attempts to rewrite core WP policies to suit his own whims, or his wild assertions that armies of admins support him. Filll, I'm hoping that this has now been resolved, so the next time you have a radical interpretation about a plainly described policy, please corroborate it with other admins, and ask them to clarify it for others before you start claiming that they have taught you this or that WP's founder has backed you up on this, when it's clear it was your own misinterpretation all along. You want to move on? Fine. But please do not presume to tell the rest of WP what NPOV means, or that we shouldn't use the word "neutral", because the only who was "confused" about this policy or who tried to rewrite it was you. And Jimmy Wales himself said so. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you are not here to write an article, why are you here? I am afraid I have had enough. Sorry, but I tried. --Filll (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I belive he was refering to this thread. <sarcasm>Also, you are going to discontinue this discussion when you were on the fringe of showing us the error of our ways? Please, Filll us in.</sarcasm> (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to recenter this discussion on the article. I thought that was your main purpose, from what you wrote above? I would suggest we try to avoid rancor if possible.--Filll (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that this topic had nothing to do with the article in the first place, you're going to have a hard time with that now aren't you? Also, yes I would like to see this discussion end, or moved elsewhere. BTW, that's not rancor, this is a Rancor. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow your claims are not particularly compelling. I wonder why that is?--Filll (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it again. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, if someone starts a discussion in which he tries to rewrite a core WP policy by claiming that it really doesn't mean what all its pages say it means, that he can cite a plethora of admins to back him up, and falsely claims that the founder himself said so, I'm going to speak up in order to point out that he's wrong. I do not have to write or rewrite the article in order to do this, and it is not for you to determine whether this is valid or not. Again, the only one who's been caught in the middle of a lie is you, so I'd restrain yourself from further rhetorical attacks upon others regarding not finding their statements "compelling". Okay? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? I do not mean to give any offense, but what lie do you believe I have spun? Do you have proof that I lied? I maintain that I have not done so, to the best of my knowledge and intent. Please do not make such serious accusations so lightly.

Just because I decline to engage in combat here in the interests of

principles of Wikipedia

. And given an extremely unpleasant situation fraught with danger, I do not believe I should stoop to engaging in some long drawn-out offtopic discussion of semantics.

For example, does the definition of the word "neutrality" that you used agree with the definition of the word "neutrality" used by all those who have visited this talk page? I suspect if you did some investigation, you might find that the word "neutrality" is used by many if not most inexperienced users who have an ideological agenda in a very different way than what your usage has implied here. Because the word "neutral" is open to a variety of interpretations, it is a somewhat problematic word to bandy about in policy discussions. In my estimation, most ideologically-driven editors define a "neutral article" as one that is gives "equal validity" to all views, or even excessive validity to minority views (i.e., violating

WP:UNDUE

). And that is why using the words "neutral" and "neutrality" can produce complicated difficult situations at controversial articles. This should be clear from my repeated explanations. The fact that it is not is quite telling and unfortunate.

Please do not take offense at any of this. If you find this post offensive in any way shape or form, please notify me immediately and I will strike or remove the sections that offend you or irritate you. Please, I do not want to fight. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Claims that Jimbo corroborated your distortion of NPOV in some unidentified speech at some unidentified meeting is what I'm referring to. Citing allegedly countless admins who aided you in your Wikiskills as supposedly doing the same (as if they are somehow responsible for your attempt to distort the NPOV policy, when it was entirely your own responsibility, and not theirs) is as well. I suppose it is conceivably possible that these falsehoods were not deliberate on your part, but I find it unlikely in light of other bits of circumstantial evidence. But if I'm wrong, I apologize, and retract this particular accusation, at least provisionally. As far as your claim that you do not engage in "combat", this is also untrue, as you have a documented history of making sarcastic, uncivil and even threatening remarks to others, and of making condescending ad hominem statements that are neither necessary nor conducive of civil discourse. If you don't want others to conclude that you do not have counterarguments, then perhaps you should refrain from declining to answer perfectly valid arguments, something that you have done a number of times (though thankfully, not always). As for "my" definition of "neutrality" that I use, the only one I use is the one that agrees with the policy pages that describe it, and the founder of Wikipedia. As a matter of comparative validity, whether it agrees with others who have visited this Talk Page is unimportant. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above several times, using the word "neutrality" can lead to misunderstandings, because the word "neutrality" has multiple meanings, and this is of crucial importance on controversial pages. And since many have misunderstood the word "neutrality" on this page, it is important here. Otherwise, there would be no reason to even discuss it, because who cares? However, this is a topic that arises over and over. If one ignores the actual "label", which is relatively unimportant, and look at the meaning as I described above:

Let me give an example. Suppose there are two views on a subject, A and B. In an article about A, a neutral way to present A would be to include the description of A from the point of view of the proponents of A. However, that is not what we do on Wikipedia. We do not make our articles neutral, but something we call "NPOV". In an NPOV article about A, at least as I understand it and have it explained to me by people with many many more edits than you or I have, Wikipedia includes A's view of the subject, and B's view of the subject, and A's criticism or view of B and B's criticism or view of A. And if A and B are roughly the same "prominence" however we define that, the Wikipedia article will devote about as much time to the A viewpoint as the B viewpoint. However, if A is much more prominent than B, the Wikipedia article will include more of A's viewpoint in it; that is, the article will be biased towards the A view (I am using the word

WP:FRINGE

subject that lacks prominence, this notion of "in proportion to their prominence" has to be bent a little to fairly describe the minority view, and in practice the proportion is determined by consensus in that case.