Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

And thanks to Nightstream for taking it up with Jimbo. Not sure why the conclusion Jimbo reaches doesn't seem to be shown above, but here it is:

Which brings us back to this film being 90% regarded as a turkey by film critics, and the pseudoscience it pushes being an extreme fringe view in the context of science. I think that gives us a good basis for thoughtful consultation and dialogue. .. dave souza, talk 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow it seems completely inline with what I have been told the policy is, over and over. And what I tell others that the policy is, over and over. It is interesting that it did not appear above, isnt it? And it is also interesting although I try to avoid any conflict, this is met with disgust or worse. Hmm... all interesting. Interesting that invitations to make suggestions for writing the article are dismissed. Quite interesting. But all of this is sort of moot, since of course what Jimbo says is sort of irrelevant, and has been irrelevant for a long time. I also still take back nothing; I just want to try to avoid conflict if possible.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"What we are looking for is often a way to "go meta" in a way that different parties of different beliefs can agree to. Normally, descriptions of how prevalent a particular belief is can be something that people on all sides can successfully agree upon. I hold that X is true. You hold that not-X is true. As a rough cut, we can say that although X is a view held by a minority of economists (suppose), some of them quite prominent, not-X is generally more widely held by economists, and there is a lively debate about it, or perhaps there was a lively debate about it, but now that debate has died down, or... this is all useful information for the newcomer trying to understand the field." -- Jimbo Wales.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." [1]. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Filll) "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. I leave you with not one, but two shortcuts:

WP:SOAPBOX. RC-0722 ^247.5/1

20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a weak argument at best. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is going in circles. It sounds like everyone agrees with what the NPOV means. If the remaining disagreement is simply over the sematics used to say what it means, then this isn't the place to debate it--take the discussion to

WP:NPOV. I also think it would be best if the "oh yeah?! oh yeah?!"-"OH yeah yeah!" "Yeah, oh yeah!" stuff were taken to a different arena.Professor marginalia (talk

) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what I've been trying to do all along (without the minor sidetracks). RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see two things going on (1) a group that want to claim that "neutral" means that this article not include any criticism of the movie, or minimal criticism, since that is not "neutral". They want to remove or at least downplay the fact that most mainstream film reviewers have panned the film. They want to remove any information that appears to reflect negatively on the film or the filmmakers. I believe that they are misinterpreting what "neutral" means in the context of Wikipedia, and not interpreting NPOV accurately, at least as far as I can tell (2) A group that wants to argue tortuously to try to

I think that there is no problem with correcting group (1) and I will continue to do so. If there is a problem with this, then please tell me why.

I have tried to avoid taking the

This is not an article about a movie, but rather a point-by-point argument based on original research to support Filll's personal beliefset. It would be really nice if articles like this one would avoid an editorial slant and just report facts. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:FRINGE. .. dave souza, talk

21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dave ... you saved me from typing bullshit as my reply to the anon. Fortunately, I don't have to do that now. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A.

WP:BAIT [which no one has done, but everyone (except those on Filll's side) has been accused of] is an essay. B. Dave, you imply that articles of this nature should have a slant. C. If what Filll says is true, then my nickname Bilbo Baggins fits me more than I thought. (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1

21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's Troll.

Don't feed. .. dave souza, talk

21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a troll? What kind? Bridge? Tree? Cave? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you folks to please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, such as calling them trolls. I do not agree totally with 98.169.241.244's note (I don't think regurgitating anti-Stein editorials from elsewhere counts as original research), but I think that 98.169.241.244 is correct that this article flagrantly violates Wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality, balance, and the use of reliable third-party sources. You need not agree, but you should nevertheless refrain from name-calling. NCdave (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By their deeds ye shall know them ;) . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, Trolls are here to do nothing but cause trouble. I have not intentionally caused any trouble. Now, since it appears I am not welcome here without being subject to namecalling (by an admin), I shall return to the

shire and edit in peace. However, I leave with this simple phrase: Put a helmet on! RC-0722 ^247.5/1

18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, as an experienced editor you should know that throwing around trolling accusations is not going to help resolve editing difficulties. It is not going to create the collegial atmosphere we should strive for. Please consider removing that remark so that editors can get back to the business at hand. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution" section is both inaccurate and very, very POV-biased. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"largely devoted to"

The "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution" section of the article says:

"The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust,..."

That is not at all accurate. The great bulk of the movie is devoted to a defense of academic freedom, and documenting instances in which scientists have been mistreated in various ways as a result of having given credence to Intelligent Design. The connections between Darwinism and National Socialism, etc., are made in the last third of the movie. They are an important part of the movie, but it is far from correct to say that the film is "largely devoted" to them.

In addition, the claim that the film "portray[s] evolution as responsible for" those six things is not accurate for five of the six:

1. communism -- No. Film notes acceptance of Darwinism by Marxist leaders, but does not say that Darwin and his theory are "responsible" for communism.
2. fascism -- No. I do not recall the film even mentioning fascism, and I'm certain I would have noticed if the film claimed that Darwinism was responsible for fascism. The only source given for the "fascism" claim is a movie review on a blog site.
3. atheism -- No. Film lets some atheists (at least one, anyhow) tell how the study of evolution led them to embrace atheism. But that is a far cry from suggesting that Darwin and his theory is responsible for atheism, in general.
4. eugenics -- Yes, the film portrays Darwinism as responsible for the eugenics movement.
5. Planned Parenthood -- The film notes that PP founder Margaret Sanger was an ardent eugenicist, strongly influenced by Darwin, and that she placed her clinics in lower-class neighborhoods to try to reduce the birthrates of "inferior" people, in accordance with eugenic principles. However, that is not the same as saying that Darwin and his theory was "responsible" for the existence of PP. A better case could be made that Malthus and his theory were responsible for PP. (Also, PP doesn't really fit very well in a list of ideologies, anyhow.)
6. NAZI atrocities -- The film promotes the view that Darwinism was a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for German National Socialism. It is thus inaccurate to say that the film portrays Darwinism as "responsible" for Nazism or NAZI atrocities; it would, however, be accurate to say that the file portrays Darwinism as "partially responsible" for Nazism.

One out of five right is flunking, badly. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, your interpretations which contravene

WP:V. .. dave souza, talk

14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A full third of a work devoted to a particular idea does not constitute "large devotion"? I disagree. As for whether evolution is portrayed as "responsible for" a movement or ideology, or merely "accepted" by its adherents, is largely hair-splitting. We could use phrases like "portray or connote negatively by virtue of its association with or elevation by", but that seems to be such a technical difference that making it is unnecessary, IMO. The fact that some of the creationists use the qualifier "partially" may be technically true, but in terms of the overarching ideas put forward by the movie, and in an article that summarizes its salient points, it seems an distinction that, while necessary to make in the text when quoting interviewees directly, seems unnecessary to make in section headings or in summary passages. Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Largely means principally or mainly. The connection between Darwinism and the NAZIs was a prominent part of the movie, but not nearly as prominent as the movie's coverage of the academic freedom issue. The principal theme of the movie was the academic freedom issue. NCdave (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, Largely means largely. "mainly" would be hard to say under the sourcing but largely seems fair. Would you prefer "in a large part"? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid

There are other major problems in the "Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution" section, as well. For instance, the text seems to deliberately use

"Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie claiming that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler. As Scientific American notes, the film almost always inaccurately labels the modern theory of evolution with the outdated term 'Darwinism'..."

Notice how the view of Weikart is disparagingly called a "claim" (which wrongly suggests that it is inaccurate), but Rennie's silly editorial criticism of Stein's terminology becomes a fact "noted" by Scientific American magazine.

This sort of bias is pervasive. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:NPOV/FAQ. .. dave souza, talk

14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the following?

"Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie stating that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler. The film uses the term "Darwinism", which biologist have long abandoned because the modern theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone. John Rennie writes in the Scientific American that this is an attempt to portray evolution not as a evidence based science, but as a dogmatic ideology.

Opinions? Merzul (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to fit it in, but it is a discredited "claim". That doesn't mean that "claim" is the best term to describe it, but it also means that "stating" has the problem of giving too much credence to a discredited claim. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "claim" isn't that bad, especially since it is used on both sides, see the heading "Claims that film producers misled interviewees". I do think, however, that the "As noted by" gives the impression that we are too much siding with the source, and I tried to distinguish facts and opinions a bit. Merzul (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I favor Merzul's suggestion. I don't think "states" connotes credence, but if it is, how about "asserts"? Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Claim that NAZIs burned Darwin's books

Hitler's acceptance of and reliance upon Darwin's theory of evolution, and his enthusiastic embrace of the eugenics movement which was based on Darwin's writings, is very well documented. But this section claims that, "In fact, the works relating to Darwinism were burned by the Nazi Party."

That is inaccurate. There is no record, of which I am aware, that the NAZIs burned any of Darwin's books, let alone all of "the works relating to Darwinism." What's more, the source that is cited in support of the claim does not actually indicate that any of Darwin's books, or any other books about Darwinism, were ever burned by the NAZIs.

The source given in support of this dubious claim is the following item in a numbered list of disparaged publications, from a set of collection evaluation "guidelines" found in a 1935 issue of a NAZI journal for lending libraries:

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."

In the first place, that list was very broad, and it is not at all clear that most books which were described by that list were actually burned. (E.g., another item on the list was, "Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.")

In the second place, it does not appear that the writings of Darwin, himself, let alone most other scientific writings about Darwinism, were what was intended by the NAZI author's terminology. "Writings of a philosophical and social nature" would seem to exclude most scientific writings, and writings relating to "primitive Darwinism" (presumably as opposed to modern 1935 Darwinism) and "Monism," does not sound like a reference to Darwin's writings, in part because Häckel (not Darwin!) is the sole example given of such writings.

Häckel's "primitive Darwinism" was an obvious target for NAZI wrath, because he believed that racial characteristics were environmentally acquired, rather than strictly by bloodline. That's almost certainly why the NAZIs hated his writings. Darwin, on the other hand, did not espouse such views, and consequently was not disliked by the NAZIs. (In Häckel's defense, he did his work before the science of genetics existed.)

Inasmuch as the cited source does not state that the NAZIs burned Darwin's books, let alone all other books about Darwinism, this claim should be deleted from the article. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered this before but i'll do it again, this is a list of books to be removed from german public libraries and burned, this is refereneced to a high quality academic source, find an equally good source to challenge this as your opinion is not used on wikipedia. I pointed out previously that its is "primitive" Darwinism because darwin says that both Jews and aryans are (Shock/Horror) humans, as opposed to what the nazis know to be the TRUTHtm that the aryans are a superior species. Yes lots of books were burned including "Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life." because the nazis thought such "sickly sweet" works of fiction would leave the german people weak and unable to do what the nazis wanted doing. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of unthoughtful, "top of the head" style arguments that show up in blogs and spread like rumors as if it were solid scholarship. I wish we'd show better scholarship here at wikipedia. The ref used here is synth, a very weak one at that. This one would be far stronger, written by an historian: "In Germany, Darwin triumphed. Here, the debate favoured the argument that characteristics were inherited, and that a strong and vigorous race could only be produced by natural selection. 'All human traits,' wrote Eugen Fischer, director from 1926 of the newly founded German eugenics institute, 'normal and pathological, physical or mental - are shaped by hereditary factors.'...It is significant that Hitler shared this scientific conception entirely. Darwinism fitted with his presumption that all life was struggle and that life favoured the fittest. Mein Kampf is peppered with references to heredity and inner nature as the principal determinants of human evolution...Even if Lamarckian science had not been discredited experimentally in inter-war Germany, Hitler would still have promoted Darwinism at its expense." The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, R. J. Overy 2004. Here's another one, again making a stronger case than one can be drawn from Die Bücherei: "Meanwhile Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) profoundly undermined the biblical basis of understanding human groups by declaring that human beings had evolved not since Adam, a mere four millennia past, but over hundreds of millennia, and by suggesting that races had evolved by a process of understanding the human race biologically, and it was a short step for certain of his followers to invoke natural selection and survival of the fittest as the basis of human behavior and racial characteristics. In the United States there were early Darwinists who appealed to the theory in support of human behavior and in the form of a competitive capitalist spirit. In Germany, however, Darwinism took a different direction: calls for social intervention that would control selection in order to avoid the degeneration of human groups." Hitler's Scientists, John Cornwell, 2004. So, No more

synth! Professor marginalia (talk

) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this connects with NCDave's question/comment. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking of is passage in the article: "In fact, the works relating to Darwinism were burned by the Nazi Party." The cite to the passage is a copy of an administrative list dated 70 years before this film was released, "Guidelines from Die Bücherei". The reference is impossibly oblique, and can more easily be used to argue that Hitler banned social Darwinism and other social or philosophical misapplications of Darwin--which is ridiculous. The cite and the claim that goes with it are synth.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is very very bad. As wrong as NCDave is on some issues, he is absolutely right on this one. We need a better source, or this original research must be gone! Merzul (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. We need a source that actually makes the

Sorry, I misread the source a bit, it's not that bad... I thought someone went through the list checking books. I'm very sorry about that. The other points of PM still stands, and most importantly, this is terribly confusing as a source! Merzul (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying once again. :) I removed the sentence. We need a source that actually makes the

Good call. I think there was a source somewhere that related this particularly graphic illustration of the issue to the film, but it's not to hand and we'd be better to cover the issue in a way that's well sourced. Will aim to come back to this. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 07:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

left-wing blog sites and editorials are not reliable, third-party sources

This section relies heavily on left-of-center blob sites as sources, rather than the reliable, third-party sources which Wikipedia demands. For example,

• The claim that the film portrays evolution as being responsible for fascism is supported only by the (self-described "progressive") Colorado Confidential blog site.

• A couple hundred words are devoted to regurgitating truly vicious criticism from an editorial by Arthur Caplan.

• Another hundred words of vicious criticism are quoted directly from a skeptic.com blog site editorial by Michael Shermer.

• The section even cites a Richard Dawkins blog site editorial.

Wikipedia is supposed to rely on reliable, third-party, secondary sources. Editorials and blog sites are not reliable, not secondary, and in Dawkins' case not third-party. None of this junk belongs in an encyclopedia article. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:RS .. dave souza, talk

14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We've all read those two Dave, and here's the issue: if left wing blogs can be sources why can't ID blogs. Saksjn (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of links, why does the article repeatedly refer to "Big Science" rather than

Do you really think that article describes PZ Myers and his tanks of zebrafish? . . dave souza, talk 06:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer is: because as written the article can pretend like Ben Stein coined the phrase "Big Science" and therefore Stein is paranoid and off-based. Using the term

Big Science on the other hand, implies that Stein knew exactly what he meant when he used this phraseology. 98.169.241.244 (talk

) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Stein either doesn't know what the term means, or is lying. Just as he obviously doesn't know what "Darwinism" says about the cosmos! (hint: Darwin wrote that it was the best evidence of a Creator). ... dave souza, talk 10:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion and your interpretation. That is NOT a neutral point of view and if you were to create this argument through documentation it would be original research to support your thesis. The neutral fact is that Ben Stein said the term

Big Science

. It's your opinion that he is a liar and/or an idiot. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to confuse your opinion with facts.

By your twisted logic/justification, the article should use the convention that "Hitler", "Holocaust", "Planned Parenthood" and "Darwinism" all belong in quotes because Ben Stein doesn't understand these words, or he's a liar. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are clearly just confused at best. That

The Big Science article is not the same as Stein's Big Science. And besides, Big Science isn't even in the movie, only in the advertising, so why do we even mention it? Saksjn (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Three obvious points:

• If editors are empowered with defining the meanings that come from other people's mouths then there is no hope for rational discussion at any level.
• If we can link to Hitler, Darwin and the Holocaust, then surely we can link to Big Science. This does not "reference" the link as a source. It's just a link.
• Big Science
  is in the movie, only someone who hasn't seen the movie would think otherwise. Which begs the question: why would someone who hasn't seen the movie speak with authority about what the movie says?

If Lord Filll is maintaining that the enclyclopedia that only certain people can edit is not sourceable, then he has made my case. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The point we're making here is that YOU are "defining the meanings that come from other people's mouths", by assuming that Stein was referring to giant particle accelerators and suchlike. Those who HAVE seen the movie apparently don't think that Stein was talking about giant particle accelerators. Do you have any evidence at all that Stein was referring to giant particle accelerators, or anything similar? And Saksjn is someone who HAS seen the movie, and is under the impression that the phrase "Big Science" doesn't even appear. So, have you seen the movie? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the movie, if it was mentioned, it was brief. Sorry if I made a mistake. Saksjn (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If it was mentioned in the movie, do you have a source? The problem with this arguing without a source is that we have people who are pro-film and anti-film both claiming it was not mentioned, and it was mentioned, depending on how they perceive the appearance or nonappearance of this term to aid their argument against the filthy democrats / liberals / scientists / Darwinists / evolutionists /atheists etc at the moment. I personally have not seen the film. I do not know if it is in the film or not, since we have no source that satisfies

WP:V

. I do know that it appeared in both the promotional materials and in the interviews about the film and some of the reviews of the film.

Also, I am not asking for anything other than we follow policy. Do you have a problem with Wikipedia policy? I know I do, but this is not the way to change it. It has more the appearance of trolling, so I would suggest you want to avoid that.

And if you want to link to the article

Big Science, do you know what the smartest thing to do is? It is to make a special subsection of that article discussing the use that Ben Stein and the Expelled filmmakers made of this term, and what meanings they ascribed to it. With lots and lots of sources, since this is clearly quite contentious from this talk page. Stop complaining and attacking other editors and get to work instead. And if you want to worry about who can edit this encyclopedia, then demonstrate that you are interested in actually editing the encyclopedia and not just whining or fighting. --Filll (talk

) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Filll, but there is one more option, we could pipe-link it:

Big Government, but this too has some problems. At least, the article seems to be precisely what Stein is talking about, and it's by analogy with Big Government that he coined/usurped the term Big Science. Merzul (talk

) 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As you say, there are problems. The

Huffington Post appears to be genuinely liberal, which will upset our illiberal friends, and the "and" means that the author thinks Stein means all three. As you say, it's a neologism in that it gives an imprecise but negative impression to the uninformed audience. Suprised he didn't start using the Evil Empire of science. In practice, "big science" appears to be used to indicate anyone who disagrees with ID. Thus PZ with a few tanks of zebrafish (which are teeny) is portrayed as though he has 700 employees and a giant hadron collider or whatever they call these things. So, unless a really good source is found with a precise translation, "big science" is best when the sources use that term, and science is what he really means. As opposed to pseudoscience which he supports. . . dave souza, talk

22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the movie in the theaters still? Box Office Mojo hasn't updated any figures from this past weekend.[3] Additionally, there has been no more further mention about its earnings or status. If so, we probably mention its no longer in the theaters. Paper45tee (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's moved to discount theaters it's a good bet it finished. Now we have to wait for the DVD so we can get those stats. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still playing in a theater near me. The expelled website's "where playing" locator shows a number of theaters. We can't source claims with conjecture. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's currently running in 210 theaters. [4] A "film week" in the USA apparently runs from Friday to Thursday. Expelled has been losing 30-40% theaters per week, excepting the transition from week 1 to week 2. If this trend continues it will stay at 210 theaters until Thursday and then drop to around 125, maybe. --RenniePet (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the weekend chart, you can see it was still in 210 theaters as of this past weekend. I assume BOM will update the daily chart soon. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The injunction ran until yesterday, at which point Premise Media was allowed to file arguments to have it lifted. Has anyone heard any developments? Did Premise Media try to get the injunction lifted? If so, were they successful? Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the WSJ:

Judge Lowe seemed skeptical, and decided to stay the original TRO pending his ruling, which means that “Expelled,” currently playing in theaters around the country, cannot be reproduced or otherwise distributed.[5]

Paper45tee (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The only person that "stars" in the film is stein, why do we mention him? Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. He's found starring in many google hits. Is he in the film? Professor marginalia (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. There'es a lot of people in it but Stein is the only "star."

It is hard to know what to make of it. There are of course many cuts of this film. And early cuts of this film might have had Jason in it, and then later cuts did not include Jason. I did read about Jason's role in the film a few months ago. But it would not be surprising if he did not make the final cut. If and when there is a DVD released, Jason's cut scenes might very well be included in the DVD, if they are judged to be of interest. We will see.--Filll (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Merzul has renamed the "Legal issues" section to "Copyright controversy," which is fine by me, but The Killers' song still is irrelevant to the section, because there is no copyright issue (or other legal issue) relating to their song. It was properly licensed. The only issue is that the band's manager apparently didn't like the movie, which is not a copyright issue, and not a legal issue, and seems not at all noteworthy. NCdave (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If they gained the copyright permission by deception (as they appear to have done), then that's not a legal issue, but it's still a "copyright controversy". --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you know if the Killers were "deceived"? Because the person responsible for the band's image says so? Oddly enough, the Killers are not suing the film. Rather, their manager is merely staking out a position where they can both take money from the film, and deny any controversy which might come from the film. It's almost like when Coolio said that Weird Al Yankowich ripped off Gangsta's Paradise, but kept on cashing the checks and never took legal action against Amish Paradise. This type of posturing is perfect for grabbing the money while retaining the street cred.

Great work above NCdave. My guess is that the corrections will be rationalized away and nothing will change. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"How would you know if the Killers were "deceived"? Because the person responsible for the band's image says so?" Yes, and it wouldn't even matter if he was lying! This would still make it a "copyright controversy" (just a slightly different "controversy"). You still seem to have trouble grasping the fact that Wikipedia reports the claims of others. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert is right, it doesn't matter if the manager is right or wrong. And note that good suggestions do not get rationalized away, but the disrespect for our work makes it harder to take the legitimate complaints seriously. Merzul (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does the band manager's gripe have to do with copyright? There is no allegation of copyright infringement, ergo it is not relevant to this section. (The band manager's allegation that he was deceived is not credible, anyhow, since the description they were given of the film was perfectly accurate.) NCdave (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a very hard time understanding why WP has a duty to report the baseless claims of the band's manager (without any refutation) but at the same time WP does not have a duty to report the claims of ID theory? Much like this page the intelligent design page is a hatchet job backed up by double-speak and name calling on the discussion page. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an ID theory? Better tell Johnson, it was missing the last time he looked ;) . . dave souza, talk 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The opposing argument I suppose is: "There's an Killer's lawsuit? Better tell Souza, it was missing the last time he looked ..."

But I am loathe to step down to that level.

Your mockery of the very idea of ID being a theory demonstrates the fact that you're so deeply lost in your own universe that you can't begin to understand that not everyone sees the world the same way you do. Maybe if you would listen once in a while rather than arrogantly shutting down critics and refuting strawmen, then you might begin to understand that the opposing viewpoint is based on reason, just like your viewpoint.

Sadly, your comment clearly indicates the debate philosophy that when logic fails: poke fun at the opposition. I am from the school of thought that believes that one should remain silent when one has nothing of value to add. An apology is not expected, but would be appropriate. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So why don't you remain so then? I have yet to see any evidence of anything to value to add. Maybe that is forthcoming?--Filll (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there problems with wording with this article? Absolutely. Does the article use words to avoid? Yes it does. Why is that? Well, I do not believe I put any in there, at least intentionally. However, when an article is as popular as this one, there are a huge number of "driveby" editors who come to edit the article, who often have never edited Wikipedia before, do not know its myriad confusing and contradictory rules, and probably will never edit Wikipedia again. And a lot of cruft and nonsense gets into the article. Why doesnt this get fixed? Several reasons, but I would say principally that it is edit warring. Regular editors become burned out on cleaning up the article, because almost no improvement they make in the article is likely to stay very long. And often these kind of improvements are swept away when interlaced with completely inappropriate changes against policy that are frequently introduced. Reversions take them all away, because it is just tedious to pick out the good edits from the bad.

I also see recent evidence of continued misunderstanding of

And guess what? People aren't stupid. They're going to think whatever they want to think---no matter what you or Ben Stein say---anyway. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong premise. This is an article about the film and its surrounding controversy. The two are inseparable, as the film's producers made explicit in their first press release. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first clue should be the comparison the word count found in the controversy section in the above-mentioned films (or any other film on WP for that matter). 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• We get it. You think ID is a load of horse shit. You get it wrong then. Our views on ID are irrelevant. And you have assumed incorrectly in fact. What you should draw from the evidence presented in this article is (1) most of the reliable sources are not particularly enamored with this movie (we do not use "load of horse #$%%" here) and (2) that this article has been edited by a large number of driveby and anon editors that probably do not know the rules very well, so it is not very well written and will have to be rewritten eventually.

• Now, tell me again, what's so dangerous about letting someone express their viewpoint in a movie? Nothing, at least in most cases. And I do not think that this is a case where letting the filmmakers express their viewpoint is dangerous, or at least directly dangerous. There is always the law of unintended consequences of course, but these things cannot be predicted easily.

How am I or anyone at Wikipedia preventing anyone from expressing their viewpoint in a movie? Are we attacking the filmmaker's websites and hacking them? Are we filing lawsuits against the filmmakers? Are we threatening the filmmakers personally? Are we picketing the theatres showing the movie? Are we stealing copies of the film and burning them? Are we ordering the destruction of this film? Are we really doing anything more than what we claimed; reflecting what the reliable sources in the relevant areas state? I do not think so, sorry. And that is exactly what we are supposed to do.

If you want a different article on Wikipedia next time, have 90 percent of the mainstream reviews come out positive instead of negative. If it is about science, have most of the science sources express positive sentiments about the movie. Then the Wikipedia article will read differently. Automatically.

I might note, are people with this viewpoint being shut up somehow, in the movie or at other wikis like Conservapedia or Iron Chariots or Creation Wiki or Research ID Wiki? As near as I can tell, not by Wikipedia and not by anyone else. Are people with this viewpoint being prevented from proclaiming their message on radio and television and in movies and in books and newspapers and magazines and in sermons and speeches and blogs and websites? As near as I can tell, not by Wikipedia and not by anyone else.

Do you think that the lawsuits have only been filed for ideological reasons? Well then you do not know intellectual property rights history very well. But none of this is really relevant. So please, try to focus on improving the article instead of these offtopic rants.--Filll (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this discussion has very little (if any) relevance to the article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to this? [6] I see that it seems to have been swallowed by the archives before any action was taken. I'll put it in the "Nazism" section. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it actually covers some good points which should be incorporated into the description part. I'm rather pushed for time just now, will aim to come back to this. .. dave souza, talk 06:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That should go under the article which refutes the premise of the movie along with the links to all the other loonie blogs that disagree with the film. In the meantime, what's so hard about putting an article about the movie in the article about the movie? 98.172.21.102 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off significant views about the film, as you propose, fails

WP:NPOV. Removing loonie sources would rule out the film's producers and proponents ;) . . dave souza, talk

06:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true only if you believe the NY Times and NBC News are examples of NPOV, which of course means that NPOV is not neutral. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! Nightstream, could you have a look at this example of some anon who misunderstands "neutral"!!!! . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what neutral is.

Furthermore, I have no problem with the liberal bias pervading both NBC News and the NY Times. What I have issue with is liberal ideology masquerading as neutrality at these institutions. By the same token, if Wikipedia called itself "the liberal encyclopedia that anyone who agrees with us can edit", then I would have no issue with this article or this reference. But, as we all know that is NOT WP's claim ... 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

98.169.241.244, RottenTomatoes.com compiles movie reviews from a wide assortment of movie critics from across the nation. Last I looked 33 critics gave the movie negative reviews, vs just 3 that gave it positive reviews (and if you read them, even the three positive reviews are far short of shining endorsements). Claiming "liberal bias" doesn't wash. The Neutral Point Of View statement is "Nearly all professional critics have severely trashed the movie". Not just "liberal bias" movie critics, as you attempt to assert. When less than one in ten professional movie critics rate a move above the half-way mark, that is far into the minority. Just because you disagree with almost all the reviewers does not change the Neutral Point Of View fact that nearly all reviewers panned it, and just because you disagree with them does not diminish their overwhelming Due Weight. Wikipedia Due Weight REQUIRES that that small minority get very little coverage in the article. Alsee (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The response to that is: of course they're going to trash it! If they don't, they'll get labeled as a freak. It's not that nobody thought it was a good movie, it's just that nobody wanted to lose their job over it! Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiight. :-/ The Fox News reviewer trashed it because he feared he'd lose his job due to the liberal ideology of his bosses. Um. Well, don't stop taking the tablets. . . dave souza, talk 13:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. (Mostly.)

The truth is most movie critics are raging liberals. In this article, those who disagree with the "majority" opinion are labeled as "conservatives" and "Christians", while the flaming liberals are not identified as progressives, liberals or right wing.

Let's be honest here. Only about 7% of movie critics are conservatives in any form. (See a corollation between reviews and political viewpoint?) The converse of this is that Fahrenheit 9/11 has an 84% rating. The truth is both movies are watchable only to those who have already made up their minds and they don't mind crappy camera work. Neither film is anything great. The fact is that those ratings show more about the reviewers than the reviewed. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No let's really be honest here. There is a claimed liberal media bias. Maybe it exists, maybe it does not. To claim it does and include it in this article is

WP:SYNTH

unless some reliable source has made that connection. Do you have such a reliable source? If so, present it. I am sure we would include it.

Is it possible that the Fox film reviewer, and other reviewers from conservative and Christian publications that panned the film are secretly "closet liberals"? Is it possible that the Fox film reviewer and other reviewers from conservative and Christian publications that panned the film are doing so purely for ideological reasons? Yes of course it is possible. But we cannot make that case without a source, otherwise it violates

WP:NOR. Got a source?--Filll (talk

) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The truth is most movie critics are raging liberals. - Ok, lets assume it's true. That for some reason Conservatives are all unwilling or unable to become professional movie critics. An odd assumption, but lets go with it. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia rules are that we report the Reliable Sources that are out there. It doesn't matter if every newspaper is wrong and biased, it doesn't matter if all economists are wrong and biased, it doesn't matter if all of the chemistry textbooks are wrong and biased. We Neutrally report what the existing Reliable Sources say, and where there are conflicting views, we apply Due Weight were the most prevalent view gets the most coverage, and fringe views get less coverage or even no coverage. It would be impossible to build any articles if everything turns into an endless argument over "truth" and who is right and who's wrong. If people are reasonable, they can AGREE what Reliable Sources say, even if they have the opinion that they are all wrong. So Wikipedia skips the battle over "truth" and instead Neutrally reports what Reliable Sources say. And the liberal-conspiracy premise is bogus anyway. There are quite a few explicitly conservative reviews that pan it as well. I think some of them got pulled OUT of the article because it's not really appropriate for the article to harp on every conservative that criticized the movie. P.S. You ought to sign in an account name. It's kinda awkward talking to ten digit number. Alsee (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In his book 'The Lying Liars', Al Franken did a wonderful job explaining the myth of the liberal media. In basketball, coaches will often complain about a referee's calls, even if he (the coach) really believes they are correct. This is called "working the ref". Coaches do this so that later in the game, the ref might hesitate to call another penalty on the same team. The conservatives have done more-or-less the same thing with the media - they complain loudly that the media is liberal. In response, the networks put on right wingers like Joe Scaborough, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. Glenn Beck somehow manages to avoid being canceled, despite being - by far - the lowest rated show on CNN. (Paula Zahn's show, which was canceled for low ratings, had 20% higher ratings than Beck) Raul654 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we please at least try and keep this on the topic of the movie's article? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that we simply cannot use the assumption that the media is liberal. I believe it is rather biased, (just look at the pass that Obama has gotten) but I cannot prove it. None of us can. Saksjn (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy y'all. Much to everyone's dismay, I am back from my wiki-page break. Now, as I see it, the media has a liberal slant and so do movie critics, but why are we discussing this here? Why don't we hit my favorite button on the remote (stop) and move this tape to a a different VCR. In other words, why don't we relocate this discussion to a different talk page. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This one here. Can someone edit the talk page so that it mentions this? The Squicks (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you want.--Filll (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming, Squicks, that you meant to say "article" instead of "Talk Page". However, I see no mention of this article in that news article, and could not find any with my browser's Finder. The only mention of Wikipedia on that page is one of the user blog comments that comes after the article. For one thing, an anonymous blog comment is not a

reliable, verifiable source. For another, the mention isn't even of this article. It's of the Reductio ad Hitlerum article. Nightscream (talk

) 06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a hidden link in "exploited the memory" just before "of the millions whom Hitler murdered", but although it's an amusing review, it's not of any significance and the article's been linked from more reputable sources. Bit disappointing it's not linked from erudite :-/ Thanks anyway for the link :) . . dave souza, talk 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he or she meant that we should add something like the following to this talk page:

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Simon Vozick-Levinson (2008-04-23). "I saw it, so you don't have to: Ben Stein's 'Expelled'". Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch Blog.

Although, I think this is for when the article is actually being talked about, not just when it is linked to. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny this should come from me, one of the biggest fans of

Fixing... RC-0722 ^361.0/1 12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done RC-0722 ^361.0/1 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[7]. This source also gives a firm reliable source for the short nature of the clip in question (which they say is 15 seconds). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather a confusing report, unclear where Tim Wu comes into it apart from being a guru. However, it's evident that there are two court cases, the plaintiff in one being Yoko Ono and the plaintiff in the other being EMI records. Shouuld we expect a better source soon? . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a new source about the legal proceedings yesterday and it says "About 20 to 30 seconds of the song are played in the movie." Paper45tee (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So with all these conflicting sources why don't we just go with the primary source: THE FREAKING MOVIE! Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We really have no practical way to do that. The movie is not like a book or magazine or newspaper article that we can directly quote from to state that it says X or Y. The only way to do this is to time the clip, and that is original research, especially when there are multiple versions of the movie and it is not in the public domain and might be changed, etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and so on, but I'm fairly certain that the length of the clip is far less significant than we take it to be. The key question for fair use is whether something is seen as critical commentary, so you can play the song in a documentary about John Lennon to discuss the composition, but you can't even use a few seconds for background music in a documentary about world peace without obtaining a license. On the Wiki, we can't use book covers to decorate sections, no matter how relevant that book is to the section in question, and making the thumbnail smaller will not make it any more legal :) (Flawed analogy, but at least amusing...) Anyway, I'm arguing here that we should stick with saying "a portion" or something unspecific until the lawsuit is over. Merzul (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Timing a section of a movie is not OR, it's using a primary source. It's the same freaking thing as counting how many paragraphs a section in a book is! Saksjn (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not that simple. We know there are several versions of the movie out there. After this lawsuit, there will be at least one more. When the DVD is released, that will probably be a different version too. Also, songs can fade in, and fade out. So when do you start timing? When do you stop timing? If we send 10 people into the movie with stop watches, we will probably get 10 different answers. To really do it properly, you need a copy of the film you can stop and start (as on a DVD) and do it over and over and over, possibly with a digital timer. In a movie theatre, there is always a delay between the time the song starts and the time that the person starts the stopwatch. The same is true for the end of the song. Then there is the question of how long the lyrics are and how long the music is, since these will not be the same. Then there will be other sounds present, played at the same time as the music, like Ben Stein talking and so on. So that will make it hard to time. The closer you look at this, the more complicated it gets. If it was as easy as counting the words in a paragraph and we all had copies of that paragraph, then fine. But it is not that easy. Not at all.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really bloody irrelevant how for long the song is used in the movie. AS I said before, let the court decide if it was fair use. All of the wringing of hands going on here about the length of the "snippet" is pointless. Bottom line: Merzul is correct. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the DVD comes out I'll do your freaking complicated method to find out information any of us could find out with stopwatch easily. Saksjn (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that the DVD version will not be the same as the theatre version necessarily. Just wait for the courts to make a ruling. This is just nonsense.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Went and saw the movie again, counted the seconds which they played "imagine", they played two lines in 15 seconds. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but to ask, "who cares at this point?" We can rightly state that a portion of the song is used. We don't need to include the number of seconds it appears. That is a detail not needed for the reader to comprehend what is going on with the lawsuit. Why are we still discussing this? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think that timing the portion in the movie counts as original research - it isn't something that can simply be discerned by watching the movie, it involves a measurement. Which, of course, introduces error. But mostly I agree with Ali'i - what's the point? What does this add to the reader's understanding? That point seems to be missing here. Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion was archived without any decision being made, so let's see if we can do something about the following paragraph.

The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust,^[22][6] a common creationist claim.^{[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]} Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie claiming that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler.^[50][51] As Scientific American notes, the film almost always inaccurately labels the modern theory of evolution with the outdated term "Darwinism" to imply an ideology.^[52]

I have questions about the following issues:

• Is there a reason or just an accident that some refs are at the end, while the ones for the holocaust are not? The footnoting for that sentence is a bit confusing.
• Could we simply remove "a common creationist claim"?
• Maybe change "claiming" to "asserting", although I don't feel strongly about that because "claim" seems to be used for both sides in this article.
• Do something about "As SA notes ... to imply an ideology". The first construction really feels like us endorsing the source. That the film uses the term "Darwinism" to that effect is an opinion, and not a fact. I think it is a very reasonable and well-argued opinion, so it should definitely be included, but it is a subjective assessment so we should not present it as if we also think this assessment is true. Here is my attempt to rewrite this sentence to separate fact and opinion: The film uses the term "Darwinism", which biologist have long abandoned because the modern theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone. John Rennie writes in the Scientific American that this is an attempt to portray evolution not as a evidence based science, but as a dogmatic ideology.

Comments? Merzul (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should reword the last sentence. Also, the term "a common creationist claim" should be removed. I think the reason some refs are at the end and some are not is because that would look something like this: "The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust, a common creationist claim.^{[22][6][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]}" Now, to me this looks really cluttered. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm irritated by the numerous "superscript parades" and working on an alternative. But the article has improved. For example, at one time there was even more obsessive emphasis given to connecting the film to creationism with link after link. The link parades result from conflicts on the talk page and have no other value besides building a protective wall against complaints from the talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we did not have "superscript parades" when it was first written. However, since this movie and article were popular, a raft of visitors came by and messed up the article and the wording and the formatting. And it is a lot of work to go and fix it, and not really worth fixing until the article has quieted down. Otherwise, one's work will just be lost by edit warring etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the "a common creationist claim" (or some variant thereof) should stay. Like most (all?) other claims that the movie makes, it is a simple regurgitation of long-discredited claims made by other creationists. Within the immediate DI circle, these same claims have been made in the recent past by both Richard Weikart and Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy (which several DI members participated in). We could provide numerous more cites to this, but it would result in yet another 'superscript parade'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indication of the fact that it's regurgitating a discredited creationist claim should remain. Amhart's recent article directly adressed the film's use of Weikart's assertions and the part played by Berlinski, so that's a good source.[8] While I can understand the thought behind saying that "link parades result from conflicts on the talk page and have no other value besides building a protective wall against complaints from the talk page", that seems to me an unfair characterisation of sincere attempts to provide sources answering legitimate questions. Now that more sources directly related to the film are becoming available, these references can be reviewed. . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If it stays then it should be reworded to be more accurate with the movie. Why? Because the movie is not about creationism; it is about ID. Creationism is a "subsection," if you will, of IDism. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong way round, see

NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. .. dave souza, talk

11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What assumptions should we make? I can't think of any, considering the movie was pretty straight forward in stating it backed the ID movement instead of just creationism. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ID is a subset of Creationism (not vice versa), specifically it is

Neo-Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie makes creationist claims. The movie pushes intelligent design as well. The movie and its promotion link intelligent design and creationism in a way that intelligent design proponents have been unwilling to do in a public forum before. The DI even issued a press release about it at one point. The "common creationist claim" part should remain. If someone is to understand this movie in context, one has to understand what the issues are and a bit of the history. That is, things like intelligent design, creationism, Darwinism, blaming evolution for the Holocaust, blaming evolution for eugenics and planned parenthood (with its obvious allusions to abortion), and so on.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you guys have it backwards. Creationism is a subset of ID, not the other way around. Why? Well, because creationism is the theory that a metaphysical supreme being created us, whilst ID implies that the creator has some level of intelligence, and not necessarily supernatural. (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We have several reliable sources that state the contrary. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Many sources talk of the links to creationism, so it's notable. The link parade is cluttered and I hope we can fix that. But the article at one time went overboard putting undue weight on the association, just overkill. It's much better now. "Expelled supports intelligent design, a form of creationism.^{[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115]} The film claims scientists are punished unfairly if they believe in intelligent design creationism, ^{[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115]} Courts have ruled intelligent design is not a science but a creationist^{[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115]} theory and not a science. (Did you know ID is creationism? Well it is.^{[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115]})" It was almost that bad, but it's been much improved.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I am really beginning to doubt that these sources exist. PM, I'm not saying creationism isn't linked to it, what I am saying is that creationism is a subset of ID. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In terms of this article, what difference does it make? The article needs to report what other sources claim about it which these sources also associate to this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is simply "what I am saying", lacking a

WP:OR. As an assertion, ID is the least restrictive, and thus does not conflict with any other creationist belief system -- however it is simply one of a wide range of creationist belief-system formulations -- and is thus a subset of creationism. Furthermore, we have a large number of sources stating that ID is a subset of Creationism, not the other way around. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.^[1] The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;^[2][3][4][5] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".^[6][7][8]

That is just a taste. There is a lot more where that came from. In fact, the previous versions of this article had a lot. And guess what? People just like yourself came along and removed them. And then, they complain that they are not there. Oh interesting, huh?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a bit more:

It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,^{[9][10][11][12]} and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".^[13][14][15]

You want more? There is lots more.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, one of the very first New York Times articles about this film called intelligent design a "creationist idea". Of course your ideological cousins in fits of outrage removed that, but it was there. You can find it in the history.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RC0722 - I would recommend the latest edition of Ronald Numbers' The Creationists as a good (and fairly sympathetic) starting point. ID quite clearly is a subset of creationism, and not the other way around. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, thank you for providing refs (finally). Guettarda, 2 things. 1. My name is with a hyphen (-) 2. ID is not clearly a subset of creationism. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RC0722 - ID is most certainly a subset of creationism. I don't know how you can rationally hold the opposite position. 99.245.90.58 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

I can hold that position because ID states that intelligence has to be there for life to be born, whilst creationism states that the intelligence is a supreme being(s). RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, you can hold whatever beliefs you want, as long as you do not try to force them on other people or use them to hurt others. However, for the purposes of this article, your own personal beliefs are

WP:OR and do not belong in the article or on this talk page. This is not a debate forum--Filll (talk | wpc

) 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. That ID is a subset of creationism is a widely accepted notion, RC0722. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.127.234 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Twelve minutes is too long for you to wait? Particularly when the intelligent design and creationism articles are chalk full of this stuff? You never both to read Wikipedia articles on the subjects you are opining about to see what they say? And this argument has been had dozens of times previously on this page, and references provided. In fact, as I said before, one of the first New York Times articles on this movie had it right in the article, which we quoted. Sorry, but I am not impressed with your snide comment. Please strike it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Dean's statement? It is still in the article-see footnote #25.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I refuse to strike my comment. Why? Well because in the past you have verbatimly stated that you had "hundreds of sources" backing your claims, and yet refused to provide them. Thank you for finally providing some evidince backing your claim. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if you will not strike it, then we know what to think of you, don't we? And so you are claiming that I said I had hundreds of sources stating that "ID is a form of creationism" and refused to produce them? Please provide a diff.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A. You know exactly what conversation I was refering to and I'll even give you a clue: it isn't this discussion. B. I don't really care what you and your redshirts think of me. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• You know exactly what conversation I was refering to and I'll even give you a clue: it isn't this discussion. Then you admit it is completely inappropriate and misleading to bring it up here, right?

• I don't really care what you and your redshirts think of me. Calling other editors "redshirts" probably is a violation of
  WP:NPA, don't you think? Also, you should care what your fellow editors think of you since this is a collaborative consensual environment.--Filll (talk | wpc
  ) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A. If I cared what everyone thought of me, I would be very depressed. B. This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion. If you have a problem with me, take it somewhere else. (blip) RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common creationist claim

Let me make it a bit more clear what I don't like about "a common creationist claim". I think the most relevant criticism is the following from Expelled Exposed:

Expelled’s inflammatory implication that Darwin and the science of evolution “led to” eugenics, Nazis, and Stalinism is deeply offensive and detrimental to public discussion and understanding of science, religion, and history.

That view has been echoed in many reviews, hasn't it? That's also the main idea in the current introduction to the discussion about the Nazism issue, but we are over-whelming our readers with footnotes and minor issues, such as "a common creationist claim", which I think distracts from the main criticism expressed in our sources about the film. Merzul (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I will remove

our connection that the claim is a common creationist one, until we can find a source that makes that argument directly with respect to the film and that's what we use as a source. Merzul (talk

) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think waiting all of about 12 hours means nothing. When the pro-intelligent design proponents here have insisted repeatedly that material stay on the page for a minimum of 120 hours before action is taken, I think 12 hours is a bit short. Particularly when you have previously been told repeatedly that this is a bad idea and many people disagree with you. Strikes me as a very VERY bad move, don't you think?--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a bit impatient, but

well, it is hard to see what I mean unless I make the edit. The end result, thanks to Dave Souza, is that the paragraph in question is more informative. I won't object, if you want to put back "a common creationist claim", and all the refs. My opinion is that it adds very little and gives the impression of a POV-insertion. I don't dispute that this is a common creationist claim, but if it is useful background information, maybe we could consider formulating it in a way that doesn't sound like we are sick and tired of these creationist arguments. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Merzul (talk

) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold

I will be bold in fixing this paragraph, it is quite horrible. First, the statement that it is about all the Fascism, Planned Parenthood, etc., is based on Dan Whipple in Coloradio Confidential. Neither names mean anything to me, and he says:

After a half hour or so, "Expelled" wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood. One of the few funny parts of the film, though, is Stein's interview with British philosopher of science Richard Dawkins.

I'm trying to find a more accurate source that can at least distinguish a philosopher from a scientist. Merzul (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen it elsewhere but can't recall where just at the minute. Obviously the article developed as very limited sources first became available, and needs to be updated with better references. . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I tried to fix it, but I'm not very happy with the result although I tried my best, too much prose attributions maybe. We can revert that, but I believe very strongly that all those pre-movie refs to back up "a common claim" should be kept out. Merzul (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, though ironically Weikart's statement comes from an (immediately) pre-movie primary source :) Your summary seemed to me to miss the argument Weikard presents, so I've rephrased it and added another source commenting on Weikarts argument and his part in the film. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Dave Souza. I think that context you added is much more interesting than "a common claim". And nice copy-edits as well to make it more close to the sources. Now, some work to integrate the flow a bit and basically it's done. I have to go now, will check tomorrow, just wanted to thank you for those edits. Merzul (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read it again now, and there is no problem with the flow, incredible copy-editing skills there. I probably had fragments of my own writing haunting me :) The next paragraph might disrupt the flow, but I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do about it. Merzul (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just hope that someday we can achieve a clean looking article. Saksjn (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this has already been noted here - can't be bothered searching the archives.

Expelled is not on the list of theaters for this week. [9]

So it had a total run of five weeks. [10] [11] [12]

I'm wondering about the economics. Those three sites say the gross income was approx. $7.5 mil. But what percentage of the gross goes back to the producers, after the theaters get their cut and the marketing is paid for? On IMDB it says the film had a budget of approx. $3.5 mil. Did they make money or lose? (Do they care about the money - they presumably have other motives.) --RenniePet (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the distributor gets about half of that, and I don't think advertising is counted in the film's budget, so it probably lost money. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, advertising is (most of the time) accounted for in the budget. As for individual theaters I have no clue. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, other almost as unreliable commentators say that the budget doesn't include advertising, and that the producers stated that they'd spent a multiple of the budget on advertising. Verification needed. .. dave souza, talk 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was still in 83 venues as of 22 May.[13] Reports of death may be premature ;) . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. (I'm sure it wasn't on the list when I posted my message, but it's always possible I made a mistake...) --RenniePet (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Actually, other almost as unreliable commentators say that the budget doesn't include advertising, and that the producers stated that they'd spent a multiple of the budget on advertising. Verification needed." Wow. I'm unreliable now? Well, I will have you know that I don't need to source it because I had no intention of putting it in the article. Good day. (blip) RC-0722 ^361.0/1 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note this down, this means the fifth week had 210 theatres, and the sixth 83. It'll probably dribble on in one or two theatres for a while, but its days are definitely numbered, and the chance to see it has passed for most. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to my morning newspaper, it's still playing in one theater in the area.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Check the movies website for current theater locations http://www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 May 2008

THis is relevant how? All movies released to theatres run out of theatres willing/wanting/needing to show it eventually. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is relevant because the section title is "No longer running in the theaters" and Matehzar posted a link to current theater locations. If there is any doubt to the accuracy of that list, the theaters could be called to confirm showtimes. Calebb (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article need to state that it is out of theaters; is it in discount theaters now, and do they count? Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the credentials of the writer of this entry.

Specifically, has he actually seen the movie?

Did he research the web sites of the "Expelled," to get there take on the events in their lives.

Does the writer hold any positions from well know groups that have come out against this film.

This article strikes me as something that would be better suited for Free Inquiry, not as an article for an Encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 May 2008

The article has many editors working on it. I saw the film but my opinion does not belong in the article. The article has almost 200 footnotes, including many from sources involved in the film, so it can't be faulted for lack of references. The affiliations of the sources cited may have significance here, not the editors'. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected Expelled to this article. Judging from article stats, the vast majority of visitors to that (former) dab page are coming to this article.-Wafulz (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, here are the stats: Expelled, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, The Expelled.-Wafulz (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking at the stats, I'd say that's a good call redirecting. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of the creationist claims with the claims about Nazi atrocities is enough to give readers pause. There is no need to rub the reader's nose in it. Bwrs (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the source that characterized the many examples taken from a Crocker lecture at NVCC as "discredited" creationism claims also admitted not knowing if that was exactly what she taught at George Mason University, where she claims she was penalized. The NCSE based their claim of "discredited science" teaching on what was published in the Washington Post from NVCC, as well as from slides of hers from the Coral Ministries website, admitting "Though it’s not known whether Crocker used the same slides while teaching at George Mason". The claim in the article here should be tweaked just slightly so as not to be more assertive about what she taught at George Mason than either of the two sources cited. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't have a big issue with losing "discredited", the description here is an extremely brief summary of what the Washington Post describes as "The lecture she was to deliver had caused her to lose a job at a previous university, she told me earlier". So we're relying on Crocker's statement to a reporter, and a reliable source describing what she taught students at NVCC. We don't mention the slides. It might help to head the section with See main article: Caroline Crocker. .. dave souza, talk 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It does help losing discredited because the Expelled Exposed was backing up the charge "discredited" with examples from the slides and the NVCC. Crocker does seem to admit in the Wash Post article that the lecture is the same as that given at George Mason, but if that isn't enough to sew it up for EE it shouldn't be enough here either (especially in line with BLP concerns and all).Professor marginalia (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that we have the response from the media covered at the top of the article even before an overview of what the film is about and the points it makes. That sort of thing belongs near the bottom with it's own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.139.218 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NY judge: Film can use John Lennon song 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a ruling against the preliminary injunction, but includes the opinion that a fair use defense is likely to prevail. See also – [14], [15] and [16] . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Half of the introduction of this article is dedicated to negative reviews of the film. I believe that these should be placed under a "controversy" section, and that the introduction should be a brief synopsis of the film itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of this comment would make me think that you had not actually read the article. Both the first paragraph of the lead and the first section of the article are synopsis of the film's content. Yes there is much content about the controversy of the article and the bad reviews, but they are in proportion to the movie. (i.e. controversy over the movie is much more widespread than actual content of movie, bad reviews overwhelm the good.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For an explanation of the style used in the introduction, see

WP:LEAD. Anything in the body of the article (including the controversy) gets summarised in the lead. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk

) 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the areas this article should be improved is to prune some of the infatuated blogmentary. There are nearly 200 cites, a fourth of them to blogs, and one of them authored by a community college math teacher/blogger identifying himself as "Zeno". One of the more notable and RS justifiable, PZ's blog, has been cited over a dozen times-that's a lot. But many of these blog cites are used, not because they're offering a balanced representation of general opinion, but because there was something peculiarly unique about it, a juicy editorialized quotation to use here or quirky supposition taken to play up in the article here. The blogs offer much of the less encyclopedic material, such as coverage of PZ's intervention in the conference call, which I don't recall mentioned by any sources outside of the blogosphere. The article is unfocused, the main points are unclear, and it's more Entertainment Tonight than it should be due to the gossipy bloat. Looking at claims sourced to blogs is a good place to start improving this.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess after the release of the film, there are now more reliable sources so many, so going through and upgrading sources is not a bad idea. Also, shortening and focusing the material in the process. Less is More. Only problem, of course, is that sharpening and focusing an article is terribly hard. Do you have specific suggestions as to where to start? Merzul (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. Saksjn (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd start with some of the most dubious, like the back and forth between Myers and Smith over unauthorized use of copyright material. Both of them are chasing rumors, neither of them have any particular knowledge or expertise of copyright, neither of them played a role in the dispute, and despite the hoopla, neither turned out to be very accurate prognosticators on the copyright type stories. Myers and Smith aren't reliable sources for every possible subject, one of those being copyright disputes, so I think better sources could be found on this, concentrating on what did happen rather than what two bloggers thought did or would happen. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I started with two blog refs used in the Lennon suit. The court order itself is superior ref and the 2 blog refs are somewhat less accurate (confusing temporary restraining order with injunction for example), and failed to notice that the filmmakers consented to the TRO. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also tightened the XVIVO copyright controversy section to stick to the claims made in the demand letter and in the complaint for declarative judgment-any connection between this film and Dembski's use of Inner Life at DI is self-published blog hunchwork and no source yet shows this connection has been made by the actual disputants involved (yet, anyway).Professor marginalia (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. You've also stripped down the overview to remove citations to bloggs. That part was constructed using available sources to outline the "plot summary" in response to requests that the article include a synopsis of the film. The stripped down version is much less informative, missing out aspects like Stein featuring in a lecture hall at the start and finish, but covers the main points in outline and is shorter. I've corrected a point that the Variety critic confused a bit: although he writes of "Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas", the term and the concept was Herbert Spencer's. . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not checked this article for a long time and it is still as lengthy as it was. Did all of the editors abandon the endeavor to cut it down? Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, I haven't seen this on my watchlist very often lately. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In fairness when I put the tag on it, in the morning of April 29, it was roughly 45KB longer. Immediately after I did that it was still growing, but it started getting shorter by that night. It kept reducing until about May 3 when it got down to a 105KB. After that it started slowly growing again, but it's nowhere near its previous high. So all totaled declining period lasted 4 days, but the length has been comparatively stable at 110-115 for the last month.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is still inordinately long because of the continuing commitment to rebut the film point for point rather than to cover it as an encyclopedia article would normally do for a small scale movie/documentary. A controversy section would cover the controversy in about two or three paragraphs. The bias inherent and previously mentioned by others in the archives calls into question the commitment to a neutral POV by the editors on this piece. As it is the length and one sidedness of the entry does more to establish the bias that the movie claims exists than a shorter version would particularly since the Intelligent design sections of Wikipedia already address the central issues of the intelligent design debate. The desire to rebut point for point therefore seems more emotional than it is practical TFTLCD (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with

WP:NPOV we show various views about the points made in the film, without giving undue weight to the extreme minority views promoted by the film's producers. Since the film exists to make these points, removing them would make this article incomplete and uniformative. . . dave souza, talk

22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Any truth to the claim that the film's "star (Ben Stein) has said he wanted to call "From Darwin to Hitler'."[17] No doubt taken from Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler who appears in the movie. If we can find a better source this should be included. Paper45tee (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a quote from Stein in a NYTimes article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's right. Cordelia Dean's NYT article, ref. 4, refers to Stein: "He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.” " Any rumours that he thought of calling it Springtime for Hitler are entirely unsubstantiated. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the last laugh will go to Ben Stein. While the left has been busy railing against this movie, the center and right have made important progress:

The film has prompted some states to consider legislation that would insulate teachers and students who believe there is evidence of "design" in nature, Walt Ruloff, a co-producer for the film, told Cybercast News Service.

In fact, within the next two weeks, one Louisiana state legislator expects his bill to reach the desk of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) where it will become law. The Louisiana Science Education Act, which passed by a vote of 35-0 in the state senate, has broad bipartisan support, said Rep. Ben Nevers, the bill's chief sponsor.

• http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200805/CUL20080529d.html

Should the article include something about Louisiana (and other states as they follow suit)? 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a section already on the academic freedom bills. It should be updated as the new situations develop.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Louisiana legislature, who brought upon themselves Edwards v. Aguillard -- before laying claim to the "last laugh", it pays to make sure there's not people waiting in the wings to laugh at you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

These bills have been around since 2004, is it really accurate to suggest such a strong causality between this "documentary" and the current legislature?Lightnin Boltz (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Walt Ruloff is pushing the idea of some vague influence of the film, but the bill's chief sponsor "Nevers told Cybercast News Service he has not seen the film". So, no connection. WP is not a crystal ball, and the bill has yet to be signed. Interesting read, but I don't think it's a reliable source. Wonder when they'll publish this "scientific theory" of intelligent design that they claim their "scientists are working on"? . . dave souza, talk 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is a known creationist, I think there's very little chance of him not signing. It's as good as done, and when it is done we'll put the information on the relevant article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, his statement on ID is pretty scary. Looks like his laws of entropy will create chaos out of order in Louisiana schools :-/ dave souza, talk 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not the first person to point this out, but this article is far too long. It's currently 112KB; per guidelines at WP:Article size, any article over 100KB should 'almost certainly' be divided. Exceptions may be made for articles on topics with extremely broad scope, but that is not the case here: this is an article on one film, and not even a particularly significant one, seeing how it earned only $7 million domestically. Wikipedia's guidelines basically demand that this article be cut down or split into smaller articles.

My recommendation would be, as an immediate solution, to cut this article down to bare information on the film itself and break commentary about it into a separate article,

It's already been done, see

WP:FRINGE. Trimming is in progress, with thanks to those finding the time to do it, it's a long slog to cut it down while maintaining due balance. . . dave souza, talk

17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are only about 60kB of prose. Most of the rest is sources. This is quite normal for articles on controversial topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is disengenious, flippant remarks like the ones made by users such as you dave souza that will continue to keep this article long, unwieldly, and completely useless. No real discussion can occur, nor can constructive edits. I attempted to engage in this discussion I don't know how many archives ago. Do you, those of you who make comments like these, honestly think that your smarmy, back-handed way of talking goes unnoticed? Do you honestly believe yourselves unbiased? Or are you so busy loudly declaiming others and congratulating yourself for "slipping in a dig at those 'religious types'" that you forget what an article needs to look like? If your are one of the people claiming to 'maintain due balance,' then I would encourage any other editor to make sure they automatically distrusted your edits. Your bias towards evoltuion is obvious, and if you can't put this belief of yours on the back-burner long enough to make even a passing comment without showing contempt, then perhaps you need to remove yourself from the editing process of this page. I have done so myself both for this reason, and the firm belief that this article will most likely never get beyond the rambling drivel that it now looks like. Even the talk pages are an utter mess of yammering. I won't really be checking back on this page, because I am willing to bet that in a week my comments will have been archived because the discussion page will have gotten too long...again! People keep on harping on about how "this just happens with controversial articles" but really, at what point do we all as editors say that it has to stop?Rocdahut (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See

NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, and didn't they say that ID is about science, not religion? . . dave souza, talk

14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been many "disingenuous, flippant remarks" made on this talk page but it's something of an unfair accusation to use in this thread. I agree that editors are having a little too much fun getting in their snarky digs sometimes here. I'd like to see all sides remember to stay professional and not bring their own or anyone else's emotions to the editing. It does not reflect well on the credibility of article that editors' personal views are made plain at times on the talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Last time when I asked here about why Roger Ebert was silent on the film, without a review (in the past he would review basically all notable films), an editor cited the film being so new and Ebert's injury. Now, he has reviewed films coming out after Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, such as Speed Racer and Kung Fu Panda, while still not giving a review to this one. Anyone can explain this anomaly? Or did he provide an explanation of not reviewing it? Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers like Ebert typically review movies from reviewer screenings. Ebert's unlikely to make it a point to catch up and review every film released during his absences from work. Maybe he will when it comes out on DVD, I don't know. He did leave a comment on his "movie answer man" column. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I must have missed it. I will probably go take a look myself when it is available at Blockbuster, to see how this controversy has arisen. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes on "big science"? Shouldn't it instead be linked to

This has been discussed before and can be found in the archives. In short, the consensus was that the film used "big science" in a different sense than the article on Big Science. The film uses "big science" to refer to the scientific establishment, while the article on Big Science discusses large scale science experiments. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Science is not philosophy, by radio host John Moore in today's National Post accuses Expelled of misquoting Darwin in order to make its point:

Expelled is at its most risible when it tries to establish a direct line from Darwin to eugenics and genocide. Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him we are sorry … we don't mean to diss Darwin."

Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this appears to relate to the showings due in Canada. Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun, Saturday, June 21, 2008, gives good coverage, with equally interesting quotes from Stein: "When I alerted him to the alteration of the Darwin quote and read him the full passage, he said he was "kind of dismayed if that's true." He also said he would check it out, so I look forward to Stein disavowing at least that part of the movie.", and regarding the Anti-Defamation League's statement, Stein told him bluntly, "It's none of their f---ing business." The extended quotation is a bit long, all these comments will have to be incorporated concisely. Will try to help soon if not beaten to it! The Vancouver Sun article opens by referring to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new anti-science "documentary" which opens across Canada on June 27" so that date should be added. By the way, what is the … character meant to look like in "are sorry … we don't"? Can we replace that with a standard font, as it looks like A in a box to me. . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

EMA honors Stein with Freedom of Expression Award recognizes outspoken individuals, Cheryl Cheng, Video Business, 2008-06-10 "Known for his outspoken economic and political beliefs, writer, actor, filmmaker, economist and lawyer Ben Stein will be honored with the Freedom of Expression Award at the Entertainment Merchants Assn.’s Home Entertainment Awards on June 24." --Faith (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) *(better RS for same article; most likely the original story) Home Media Magazine --Faith (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But more relevant to the Ben Stein article than this one.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so, since it's directly for Expelled. --Faith (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The source you provided doesn't say that. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Might want to give it another go as it does indicate that exactly. --Faith (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. Here's from the press release, "The Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) will recognize writer, actor, filmmaker, economist, and lawyer Ben Stein for his articulate expositions of his economic and political beliefs, often contrary to the prevailing Hollywood orthodoxy, by presenting him with its 'Freedom of Expression Award,' EMA announced today." The award is bestowed to acknowledge a body of work in the "home entertainment industry". Expelled is not even yet available in the "home entertainment sector". This award is to Ben Stein, not the film, and isn't a major or notable award in any case. We don't need more trivia in this article-it's already too long.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't read the entire press release, which states in part, "There are very few like Ben Stein, who continues to impact popular culture in a variety of ways, from his broadcast and print work, to his most recent involvement in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” stated Tom O’Malley, President, Vivendi Entertainment. “His voice is one of the most respected not only in Hollywood, but all over America, and we’re delighted that he is being recognized for all of his insightful and impactful work on this film." [18] --Faith (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stein's work on this film is obviously just one thing, and the most recent thing he has done that he is honored for. Based on my impression watching the film, there isn't much of any "articulate exposition of his economic or political beliefs" in it except anti-Nazism or totalitarianism, which are hardly controversial positions in terms of "political beliefs". Professor marginalia (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's

WP:WFTE; we don't have to agree to cover it properly. --Faith (talk

) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the validity of giving him the award. I'm challenging your interpretation that the award was a direct result of Stein's work in this one particular film. Repeating the reasons I disagree this article should mention the award are: a) the sources do not point just to this film, the sources list this film because it is the most recent example of Stein's controversial works b) this interpretation is supported by the fact that his economic and political work is mentioned specifically and this film is not even about that c) this already bloated article should stay focused on issues directly related to this film and not Ben Stein's career and d) it can't be assumed without sources to show it's true why Stein would win an award from a DVD business association for his work on this one Hollywood film in particular before it's even yet been distributed in DVD. This film isn't even available in the home entertainment market yet, so why assume this award is to honor its contribution to that industry?Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was following a line from several articles and saw he was getting an award. It still appears to me that it's for Expelled, but /Care. Place it where you wish. --Faith (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But, note, I was correct: "Veteran actor and social commentator Ben Stein won the Freedom of Expression Award for his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which showcases educators who have been singled out for publicly bringing religion into the debate on the origins of mankind".[19] --Faith (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to comments related to the article on its talk page. This is not a place to discuss the subject or past disputes. - Kuzain (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please mind your own business when you are unaware of the history of the conversation. Noting I was correct was supporting the addition in the article, which is obviously a comment related to the article. --Faith (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the article only or this will be brought to the attention of a moderator. - Kuzain (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like someone is trying to insert a little POV OR to downplay the success of this film. What does that phrase have to do with anything? Is it used anywhere else in the same manner (i.e. about movies' performances) elsewhere on Wikipedia? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the intention of the word 'nominal' in this case. If you look at the 7th definition here you'll see that the amount referred to is in fact a nominal amount as opposed to a real amount, in order for the real worth to be measured in comparison to other documentaries (as the dollar stands today) all of the documentaries in the preceding years from 1982 to the present would have to be adjusted for inflation. Thats my understanding anyway. --Woland (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, the link you provided does not include the 7th definition of nominal. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now it does.--Woland (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good eats. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent> The source cited for its 12th position ranks it by nominal "domestic total gross", while offering an inflation adjusted ranking for premier pass holders. It appears to be close behind Tupac: Resurrection, which ran for 6 weeks in 2003, and if it continues to run long enough and attract enough cinema goers might get into 11th place in nominal terms, while remaining behind Tupac: Resurrection in inflation adjusted terms. A battle of the giants! . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nominal" in the article is wikilinked to Real versus nominal value, which explains the meaning of the term in this context. It is the correct term for inflation-unadjusted figures in economics, finance, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

These excuses are nonsense. I've Googled "nominal dollars" for Wikipedia [20] and Expelled is the only movie article that shows up. No "nominal dollars" for Michael Moore's and Al Gore's movies. Gosh, I wonder why. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you don't understand something does not make it "nonsense". If you don't like the way liberal documentaries are treated, you are welcome to go edit their pages. If you don't like the way inflation is discussed, you are welcome to edit Real versus nominal value. If you can't understand that 1982 dollars are different than 2008 dollars, then complaining about economic lingo should not be your starting point. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to change the subject. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I did no such thing. The topic was "nominal dollars" and "you complaining". I pointed out a remedy: (1) Learn what "nominal dollars" means (2) Edit the other articles. If you are too lazy or stubborn to take action to prevent yourself from being annoyed by the content of articles here, then nobody can help you. You are familiar with the concept of a Wiki, right? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is your accusations that are nonsensical. "Nominal dollars" is the correct economic term for the figure given. I really don't give a pair of fetid dingos kidneys as to whether it is used for any other film article (maybe they all give the figure in 'real dollars'). Stop trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. There is no POV, just correct economic terminology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"just correct economic terminology" ...for this and only this movie... 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to go around and check to see if other articles are using real or nominal figures and then try to fix stuff. Otherwise try to explain why this differential is "POV." I have next to no knowledge of economics and figured out what it was saying by looking up 'nominal' in the dictionary. --Woland (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This and only this movie article makes a big deal of the film's placing in this rather unimportant league. It's topped in that ranking by Tupac: Resurrection, an article which doesn't show the film's ranking. Perhaps we should just omit the ranking from this article as well? . . dave souza, talk 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"in nominal dollars" is absolutely correct, and I don't think it really needs changed. It could be changed to "not accounting for inflation", but that's slightly longer. This seems to be a non-issue. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why this movie and only this movie is described on WP as such? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You *do* realize that adjusting for inflation will decrease the movie's ranking, right? If anything, giving the nominal (as opposed to inflation-adjusted) value is bias in favor of this movie. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly none of them were edited by an economist, so none of them knew the right term. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you haven't edited them in yet? I don't concern myself with every movie article on Wikipedia, so I cannot be sure why they don't include it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I can explain exactly why this movie and only this movie is described on WP as such. Some editor or editors were keen to add the exciting news that this was the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States ever. Presumably because they thought it sounded impressive. However, the source only goes back to 1982, so that had to change, and the source explicitly states that the figures are not inflation adjusted, in other words nominal, with inflation adjusted figures available for premium accounts. So, it's the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States - (in nominal dollars, from 1982 to the present). Of course we could just do what is done on the article for that impressive high ranking film Tupac - Ressurection and not include the ranking. Up to y'all. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

lol! Now this is funny. To see what would happen, I inserted the exact same text into the articles for the top 5 documentaries. On two of them, the text was moved to being relegated as a footnote. Two have not been touched yet. Ah, but on the third, we have this wonderful exchange of comments on the edit summary page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Inconvenient_Truth&action=history

1. 00:27, 1 July 2008 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) m (56,800 bytes) (Reverted to revision 222712638 by KimDabelsteinPetersen; rv As new as the movie is - inflation is sufficiently small to have no impact on the figure - so the information is irrelevant.. using [[WP:TWINK) (undo)

1. (cur) (last) 23:59, 30 June 2008 GoRight (Talk | contribs) m (56,848 bytes) (rv: Too new to be in nominal dollars? How does that statement make any sense? It merely means in dollars not adjusted for inflation. Source does not claim to have adjusted for inflation.) (undo)

1. (cur) (last) 19:16, 30 June 2008 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) m (56,800 bytes) (Reverted to revision 222594578 by 63.225.233.215; rv unnecessary inclusion (and i doubt if its correct). The movie is to new for it to be in nominal dollars.. using TW) (undo)

So who's right? The people who want such a statement included in this article or Miss KimDabelsteinPetersen? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen is egregiously wrong. If we were comparing two 1998 movies (or even a 1998 movie with a 1997 one) the fact that the dollars were nominal would not be a problem. If however we were (for example) comparing a 2008 movie to a 1988 one (or worse a 1968 one), it would be significant issue. It is not the date that matters, but the date difference (strictly speaking the amount of inflation over the intervening period), and very modern movies are just as likely to generate large date differences as very old ones. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So who's right? Following normal discussion, An_Inconvenient_Truth has been improved in line with this article. All good. Feel free to add the same information to the rest of the top 12. . . dave souza, talk 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what is missing is that in three of the films you introduced the language to, it was irrelevant. The text is relevant when comparing movies over time (for instance ranking the highest grossing documentaries of the past 30 years). In the instances where you were changed or reverted, (excepting the Inconvenient Truth article), you added the phrase after a statement such as, "It earned $35 million dollars." The parenthetical didn't mean anything. If you add the parenthetical after a statement such as, "It earned $35 million, making it the 6th highest grossing documentary." then the qualifiers need to come into play, and the parenthetical is fine, and rightly should be there. Please let me know where I can help if someone is disagreeing with you. Mahalo and thank you. --Ali'i 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian numbers are in ($24,374 for Canada on 36 theaters nationwide) and the press reports are also out. I think Box Office should be changed to US Box Office and Canadian Box Office should be added giving the break down and reaction for Canada. Kenntand (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"It's none of their f---ing business." :) Yes please, if you could add something that will be much appreciated, and these quotes from Stein are relevant to other sections of the article. Sorry I'm rather overextended just now myself. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks. One thing, in light of the enthusiasm for rankings, should we note that it soared to 20th position on the Canadian box office list,[21] coming in close behind another film which opened at the same time, Thoda Pyaar Thoda Magic. In Hindi. . . dave souza, talk 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A review by a non-famous person on an internet message board is not notable. Can someone remove this external link? I can only "View source", possibly because I am a new editor. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lightnin Boltz (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted with no explanation or note on the talk page. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed again. Kenntand (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

About 42 seconds into the Expelled trailer currently comprising the front page of http://rampantfilms.com , it says, "Join Ben Stein in this year's most controversial documentary film." I have no idea whether the narration was written by liberals, neocons, or nematodes, but there is a strong implication that the filmmakers themselves consider their film to be controversial.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If this movie is a propaganda film, so are Michael Moore's recent political films along with Al Gore's environmental horror flick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.34.50 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The category "American propaganda films" should be removed from this article unless all other films which have been described by opponents as "propaganda" are likewise included. The definition of "propaganda" (taken from propaganda) is so broad that it can be applied to any documentary or work of scholarship which argues in support of a thesis:

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large number of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience.

Unless you want Category:American propaganda films to be coextensive with Category:American documentary films, some more restrictive and precise criteria must be established for determining when an article merits inclusion.

Please discuss here. -- 75.21.74.124 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss? It's propaganda with little attempt made towards Truth. Period.

Instead of a pro-Creationism 'education' film, it's a rabidly anti-Science rant.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

by "American propaganda films", I would understand films produced by the US government for the purpose of propaganda. Including each piece of insincere pseudoscientific trash is probably over the top and makes this stuff appear grander than it really is.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the category "American propaganda films" should be reserved for government-sponsored propaganda. I'm removing that category from this article. Eseymour (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We found that a majority of film critics described the film as being in the propaganda genre, which does not require a film to be government sponsored. Presumably you'll have no problem with the relevant articles appearing in the "propaganda films" category, without any implication that an American government has sponsored the propaganda. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every documentary which has a slant should be considered propaganda. If "Expelled" is included in that category, then you'll also have to include "An Inconvienient Truth" and all of Michael Moore's films, just for starters. Eseymour (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't every documentary with a slant be considered propaganda? The only alternative is to define "propaganda film" as: "any documentary with which I personally disagree," which unfortunately is how most Wiki editors are using the term. "Expelled", "Inconvenient Truth" and "Fahrenheit 911" are all propoganda films, and should be labelled as such. Plazak (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of our opinions. A significant majority of the professional film reviewers described this film as propaganda, and none said that it wasn't propaganda. If the same applies to other films, then they too should be included in the category. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that professional film reviewers, like most Wiki editors and the general public, tend to use "propaganda" subjectively as a term to throw discredit on views with which they personally disagree. If we use it in this sense, then all it means is that the views expressed by the film are unpopular with most reviewers. Plazak (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, got verification from a source? Several of the reviewers pointed specifically to propaganda techniques, and of course several great films are propaganda. All your comment means is that you want to discount reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda film" must be defined as something other than "a documentary with a slant," because almost every documentary has some kind of slant. Furthermore, that definition dilutes the meaning of "propaganda." The problem is that it's ultimately a subjective term. And combing through a bunch of movie critics' reviews of the movie to see how many of them used the word "propaganda" does nothing to alleviate the subjectiveness. (BTW, it's meaningless that no one said "it's not propaganda"--that's not typically the kind of remark you see in a movie review: "Great action sequences, sharp dialogue, not propaganda!") And Plazak is right that film critics don't use the term in any technical sense, but simply as an insult. Because "propaganda" is such a loaded term, I suggest that we should err on the side of caution and not put films in that category which do not unequivocally belong there. Eseymour (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that Wiki editors check out the definition in the Wikipedia article on Propaganda: "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large number of people." This certainly covers films by Gore and Moore, who forthrightly set out to influence public opinion. The article goes on to note: "Propaganda often (my italics) presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." Note that the techniques of "lying by omission" and "loaded messages" are often present in propaganda but are not required for something to be propaganda. I believe that most dictionaries give similar definitions. The trouble is that many people, including many Wiki editors and film reviewers, latch on to the presence of what they believe are discredible propoganda techniques, and neglect the fact that these techniques are not required for something to fit the definition of propaganda. Plazak (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We did read that definition, which, as you said, would cover every "documentary with a slant". And as has been previously stated, this is essentially every documentary. So if you use that as your criteria for when a film belongs in the category, Category:American propaganda films will be coextensive with Category:American documentary films, thus making the category useless. But there's no rule that says we should use that particular definition to determine which movies belong in the category, and indeed if you look at the other films in the category, every one of them is either a government produced film, or a film produced during a wartime in support of the government and the war. From that point of view, Expelled clearly does not belong. It may be frequently characterized as propaganda, but the category is really intended for films which can be unambiguously and uncontroversially labeled as propaganda. For example, Prelude to War is considered a propaganda film by historians, which is very different from being labeled as propaganda by film critics.

I would propose that the category is intended for use with, and should only be used for, films which would be described as propaganda by historians, not film critics.

--75.21.74.124 (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Plazak makes a fair point that you can define propaganda as not necessarily having to include loaded messages or misinformation, etc., but when you look at the small number of films included in this category, it's clear that the precedent on Wikipedia is not to include every film which is intended to influence opinions or behaviors. Eseymour (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above on the point that movie critics as a group have no special expertise in defining propaganda. Their job is to watch a lot of movies and write entertainingly about them. We should not depend on them for our definition of propaganda any more than we would depend on them to judge the technical merits of the creation/evolution debate. Plazak (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I weighed in on this before, and it seems nothing is going to change but I'll say it again. While this movie fits at least one definition of "propaganda" I don't think it belongs in the category.

If we look at Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, as far as we know today, the film is scientifically sound and there's no agenda to mislead, even if 50 years down the line, the premises do not pan out (and most of us pray they don't).

In a column I wrote, I too compared the film to Michael Moore. Moore, some argue, occasionally plays fast and loose, and one study of one film deemed it only 93-95% accurate, most of the dispute regarding bin Laden's family. I've not heard quantitative studies (only qualitative) of Stein's film, but frankly I haven't identified anything that IS accurate.

With this in mind and considering the overloaded meaning(s), perhaps we should seek a new term to supplant "propaganda".

"Bullshit" is one that comes to mind.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's nice and all, and I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on its content, but I imagine you're largely right (though there is some hyperbole in your statement methinks; I believe the film states at some point that Darwin believed humans evolved from earlier species and that the Nazis killed millions of people, and I don't anyone is denying that much is true), but that doesn't address the simple matter of policy: "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article". I have nothing against stating quite plainly and early on that the film has widely been regarded as a piece of anti-evolution propaganda from the ID crowd, I just don't like it being pigeonholed as such from the get-go by an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. It seems a pretty plain breach of policy, and I hardly think its removal is any sort of whitewash. -R. fiend (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. Wikipedia is not "neutral" in the way you are describing. It is NPOV, which is not quite the same. I am not sure you want to know the difference, but we can explain it to you if you want.

Also, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. And numerous reliable sources call this film propaganda, as has been repeatedly discussed here on this talk page (see the archives). So if you want something else, you have to present reliable sources that state it is not propaganda. For example, find a

Yes yes, I've heard that a million times before, however, as I'm not arguing that the film is not propaganda I don't need to cite anything stating such. I'm merely looking to uphold the policy that says "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article". Leave in all the sources that call it propaganda, and explain why they do so, but uphold our categorization policies at the same time. One could easily find reliable sources calling both

Yassir Arafat terrorists, but they aren't categorized as such, because that would be endorsing such a characterization. The same policy should be upheld here. -R. fiend (talk

) 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a "reliable source" that a film is propaganda. As I have noted above, the term is commonly used in a manner untrue to its actual definition, and that movie reviewers as a whole have no special expertise in identifying propaganda. Plazak (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is not whether the film is propaganda, the point is that the category is being misused in this instance. Please, I urge everyone to take a look at the other films that are in this category - every single one is a World War I/World War II government made or government sponsored propaganda piece designed to get the American voters and soldiers to support some specific government policy, or similar. It is quite clear that the intent of the category is not to include every film that meets the definition at propaganda, as that would be crazy; the intent of the category is to provide a means of collecting wartime propaganda films produced by or for the US government in one location. Expelled may be a dishonest and B.S. filled piece of creationist propaganda, but it simply doesn't fit in with the purpose of the category. Furthermore, it's hard to look at this single recent political film being placed with obvious examples of government wartime propaganda and not see that its inclusion in the category is about as far as it gets from NPoV.

--75.21.74.124 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good point (and one everyone else seems to miss), we are discussing the categorization of the film and nothing else. Not whether it is 40% accurate vs. 93% accurate, or whether other sources have called it "not a propaganda film" (if a reviewer calls some film "a festering piece of shit and the about the worst film ever" do we need someone to call it "not a festering piece of shit nor the worst film ever" to have it removed from category:festering pieces of shit that are about the worst film ever?), not whether it is, in fact, a propaganda film. Right now this is the only film in

Loose Change isn't in the category. Before another person comments back "but it's propaganda! Reliable sources say so!" can they defend its inclusion when it appears to violate categorization policy? -R. fiend (talk

) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You raise 2 good issues, R. Addressing a point you made earlier, I'm not at all offended you question if hyperbole might be involved as I made a couple of very strong statements. In my defense, after research for my column, I am certain my contentions are sound and well-founded. Scientific American published more than one article on the misleading posture of Expelled, understand– not just a difference of opinion but a gross manipulation of facts approaching fraud. Numerous articles have addressed these issues as well, and a couple of Christian groups have formed web sites critical of the dishonesty in Expelled. I believe one expressed regret for potential damage to Mr. Stein's reputation.

Darwin was mentioned above, and I'll use that to make my point on a small scale. The movie quoted selected words and sentences to make Darwin sound like a cold supporter of radical eugenics, but in reading the few sentences surrounding Darwin's statement, you realize Darwin was writing with great compassion, the opposite of what the film implied. I could go on at length about the pervasive chicanery in their interviews, their editing, and even their promotion, but I encourage readers turn to factural sources.

That brings us to a second good point you make. Like you, I don't much care about movie reviewers' opinions and I feel Category:American propaganda films might not be appropriate. Indeed, I believe it is inadequate, mainly because Expelled's level of duplicity is jaw-dropping.

I confess to an outraged personal PoV here in that I despise dishonesty. I'll defend people's right to believe whatever they wish, but I dig in my heels when someone tries to deceive.

The

Wedge Strategy

illustrates what we're up against. In other words, the argument here isn't about creationism or someone's believe the earth is only 6000 years old, but that there's a concerted effort to attack scientific knowledge and mislead the public.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC), with respect.

Thank you for your response, however once again I don't feel most of it is germane to the topic at hand. I'm not here to defend the film, or even to discuss its contents. I haven't seen it yet (I'm waiting for its DVD release) but I m well aware of its level of deceit, and its factual statements may even be confined to "Hi, I'm Ben Stein..." That doesn't matter. My issue is with Wikipedia policy regarding categorization. We could debate whether or not this film is propaganda til the cows come home. It is pretty clear it meets some definitions, but not others (e.g. no government sponsorship), and it's pretty clear that a lot of what I suppose are reliable sources call it (or compare it to) propaganda. (It also should be noted that the definition of propaganda the WP article on the topic gives is so broad as to include moat forms of art and any form of advertising.) All that can be covered in the article. Putting in this category, by all appearances, violates the policy I have repeatedly quoted above. No one is responding to that. I recall someone stating in an earlier debate about this that the category isn't endorsing the view that the movie is propaganda, it's merely an NPOV "navigational aid" to help people find similar movies. That this is now the only movie in that category makes such a statement ring even more ridiculous. Let's just remove it from the category and leave the discussion of propaganda to the article itself. No one is going to say to themselves "Hmmm, this movie isn't in the category 'Propaganda'. Every word of it must be true!" -R. fiend (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As you say, it's a navigation aid to lead users to articles covering similar topics. This film is described by several reliable sources as a propaganda film, using propaganda techniques, and on the basis of that expert opinion is appropriately categorised in the genre. In a related discussion the view was put that "the only type of film that should be excluded would be films who have supporters/fans/advocates in the mainstream who dispute the label", and I've found no such dispute. It may be disputed by fringe views. If the criterion is to remove all articles from a category on the grounds that some editors think it's unfair, but have produced no sources to verify their opinion, the categories become effectively useless for any topic under debate. If a similar consensus of expert opinion views other films as belonging in the category, then they too should appear in the category. . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the criterion is to remove articles from a category based on existing policy: "7. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Additionally, much as we all might like to, I think it would be difficult to dismiss ID proponents as "fringe views." I'm not going to do a widespread search for the film's apologists describing it as "not propaganda" as that is a pretty rare description of any movie ("The Dark Knight: 4 stars! A terrific thrill ride! And not propaganda!"), though I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to find some people of note who consider the film honest and straightforward or some such description, which is effectively disputing the label of propaganda. Perhaps anyone defending the movie would be considered ipso facto "fringe", I don't know. Additionally the idea of it being a navigational tool is a joke, as there are no other movies in this category. In any case, much of that is not significant to the categorization dispute. The propaganda label is not self-evident, as the movie does not bill itself as a propaganda piece, and it is controversial. The policy seems pretty clear here. -R. fiend (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The movie is controversial, and is described as such in its press release, but is there any evidence that the categorisation of it in the propaganda genre is controversial? So far I've only seen unsupported assertions by editors here. . dave souza, talk 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're looking for me to quote a film reviewer saying "Expelled is not propaganda" which is an almost absurd way to describe anything. One could argue that simply being referred to as "propaganda" is in itself controversial, but I'd rather not go down that road. The main objection is on the grounds of self-evidence: the producers do not consider or describe it as propaganda, and it is clearly not self-evident that it is. In fact, the article points to only a few examples of it being called that, and Scientific American appears to call only the section linking Darwin and the Nazis "propaganda" (it is, I suppose, a minor point) New Scientist says "it seemed more like a...propaganda film" (emphasis mine) which is effectively saying it is not one, just very much like one. So we have a few people calling it propaganda, most reviewers not saying it is (or isn't) and yet based on a handful of quotes Wikipedia states in no uncertain terms that it is a propaganda film, and refuses to acknowledge that by doing so it might be in the slightest way controversial. How many people need to say it's propaganda in order for it to be in the category? If a reviewer calls it "Worst Film Ever" would we put it in a Worst film ever category, or simply reference in the text that "X called it the worst film ever"? The latter, I think. Why not in this case? I have no problem with the statement "Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda" being included (though there is the minor point I made about Scientific American). The films defenders (and there are some) who think it is an honest portrayal of "Big Science" clearly do not consider it propaganda (though trying to find such a quote would be akin to trying to find someone calling it "not the worst film ever"). Simply removing from the category does not endorse the view that it isn't propaganda, it makes no endorsement either way, and adheres to Wikipedia policy. -R. fiend (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

R., you have the best line of the whole trip:

its factual statements may even be confined to "Hi, I'm Ben Stein..."

I am confused, though. Are you saying the film is not propaganda because (a) it doesn't label itself as probaganda and (b) it's not government sponsored?

Pardon me if I interpret this wrong (which I may well be doing), but if so, wouldn't we be in a position of arguing Boortz, Hannity, and Oberlin are not propagandists? You're a good writer, but I keep feeling I'm missing something.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not propaganda, I'm saying it is not the place for Wikipedia to decide it is merely based on some reviews, and that its categorization as such is contrary to stated policy. I would be equally as adamant about its removal from a category:Non-propaganda films, should it exist and be categorized such. As for Hannity, et al., I'm not going to make any call there; it's irrelevant to this topic. I will, however, point out that none of them appear to be in category:propaganda. -R. fiend (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See! The propaganda's working!

My view is that it isn't us saying it, there's big names saying it:

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC), with respect

No one's saying it isn't propaganda, and removing the category (which you seem to favor) isn't saying so either. Putting in the category American propaganda films is saying, in no uncertain terms, that it is a propaganda film. If we wouldn't put it in the opening sentence for POV concerns, why is it in the category (and keep in mind in some settings categories appear right at the top, just below the title)?

I don't want to get into a whole debate on what is and isn't propaganda. That's a separate issue. If Hannity is propaganda then isn't Moore? If O'Reilly is than isn't Olberman? This is not the place for such a discussion. Let's just not add any of those people to the category. -R. fiend (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely YES to everything you say in your 2nd paragraph.

A problem is the movie's propaganda in sheep's clothing, masquerading as a "documentary".

Can we do this?

• change American Propaganda Films to simply Propagand Films

UnicornTapestry, I notice you included the propaganda films category without removing American propaganda films. Per

WP:SUBCAT, it should be in one or the other (or neither), not both. 75.21.74.124 (talk

) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think removing American Documentary films would be at all appropriate.

Documentary Film

defines a documentary as a film "based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to 'document' reality", and I think it's clear that Ben Stein & co. are attempting to document their (warped and misguided) view of reality. (To some extent they may be deliberately lying in the film, and certainly they have lied about the film, but mostly I think they are just approaching things from a particular point of view.) The article goes on to say

The nature of documentary films has changed in the past 20 years from the cinema verité tradition. Landmark films such as

mondo films

" or "docu-ganda." However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.

In other words, the bias in this documentary is merely one instance of a larger shift in documentary film-making towards films which advocate for some thesis. And while the passage does mention that some critics question the "documentary" label, these works are still referred to as documentaries by filmmakers and film critics, and indeed Expelled is described as a documentary even by the film critics who call it propaganda.[22][23][24] The New York Times may call it "one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time," but it is still a documentary.

--75.21.74.124 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)