Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:41, 10 January 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Creationism Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Talkbottom

Archives

Archive 1: 29 September 2007 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A bit repetitious in spots

In the course of edit wars and trouble, this article has become somewhat repetitious and chopped up. I have avoided cleaning it up and just slowly added more material, but at some point we have to reduce the detritus and repetitiou. However, to people that want this to just be some pro-ID article promoting the movie, this does NOT mean we will remove the balancing material on the other side.--Filll (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just don't make it sound as it it's being hostile to one point of view for another. Remember Misplaced Pages's policy is neutral point of view, not consensus point of view. CobraA1 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well remember that neutral point of view does not mean sympathetic point of view. The proportion of viewpionts is in accord to relative prominence. And in science. ID is viewed as complete bunk.--Filll (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it does not have to be sympathetic - but it does have to be neutral. FYI, this is an article about a movie, not science, so I'm not concerned about the scientific majority. CobraA1 (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Care to notice what the movie is actually about? What is the theme of the movie?--Filll (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course there should be a small section about its controversial nature - but the vast majority of the article should be about the movie itself: Who the actors are, how well it's expected to do in the box office, a summary of the theme, what the critics say, etc. Just because the theme of the movie takes a stab at science doesn't mean we should try to duplicate the creation-evolution controversy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraA1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• just going to butt in here. It's a documentary. It doesn't have actors (unless there are some dodgy re-enactments). The only *actor* is Ben Stein, and even then, despite Premise's harping on, being in Ferris Beuller was a small role, and the not the highlight of Ben's career.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are confused. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE etc. The notability of the film is tied up with its controverisal nature. If it was not for its controversial nature, it would not even have an article here on Misplaced Pages at all. If it was not notable, no one would care how much expected to make at the box office or who starred in it. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, NPOV says we keep a keep a neutral point of view, and FRINGE is in line with original research: I can't make up something or take something with only a dozen or so followers and put it in. "If it was not for its controversial nature, it would not even have an article here on Misplaced Pages at all." --Maybe, maybe not. And yes, the notability is going to ultimately depend on how well it does at the box office. If it became a popular movie for some reason other than the controversy, it would still be notable. Otherwise, we can throw out all of the Star Trek, Star Wars, and Stargate articles because they don't center much on controversy. Controversy is not the only measure of notability by any means. CobraA1 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

YOu are not going to convince me that the Stargate movie or the Star Wars movie would have merited this large an article on Misplaced Pages, before it opened, if Misplaced Pages existed then. I think you are sadly mistaken. And you make a very poor argument. Not at all compelling. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

CobraA1, you seem to be sadly misinformed about NPOV. Please read the policy carefully, with particular attention to NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Also note the requirement under WP:NOR and WP:V for the article to rely on reliable third-party secondary sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean sympathetic. It also means non-hostile. It means neutral. You can negatively criticise without being hostile, and this article certainly needs work on that. That aside, this movie's notability has stemmed from it's controversy (not the controversy the producers hoped for though), it will be the focus of the article. This movie will likely always be notable primarily for its controversy, and seconarily for the inanity of it's claims, these two points will likely always be the focus of this article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Duping

I wonder if the reason for the use of the word dupe is this article: . However, I support its replacment with mislead to make the article more accessible.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-ID Screed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"viscously persecuted"

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

Clean up intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documentary status

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

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

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

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

• Start-Class Creationism articles
• Low-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles