Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

A point of contention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reading this article in toto you will notice the phrase "theory of evolution" and "intelligent design" repeated throughout. This is an accurate statement made in multiple quotations in the article. However, in the opening paragraph, there is a deviation from this consistant practice creating ambiguity that promotes one theory over the other, by the addition of the words ("scientific" theory of evolution) and (Although intelligent design is a "pseudoscientific" religious idea). Neither of these statements is correct, nor are they in the public interest, and do not add value to this article. The only other mention of "pseudoscientific" is by Michael Shermer founder of The Skeptics Society, clearly highlighting the origin and partisan context of the words used.

Please feel free to read the definition of what a scientific theory is here: Scientific theory

According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

Note that evolution under one blanket does not qualify, more precisely macroevolution does not qualify, in the same way, creation does not qualify, in that it cannot: "be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Using the word pseudoscientific is then just as applicable to macroevolution as it is to intelligent design, and since this article and the movie it is talking about does not differentiate one from the other, but blankets all evolution as being one school of thought, it is highly irregular to make the opening paragraph containing blanket statements trying sway the reader in a direction of a specific belief structure, namely belief in one unprovable theory over another.

Please remove the inuendoes to allow readers to get information, and not opinion-based information, as this is a violation of the terms of use. When writing for an encyclopedia it is not appropriate to use deliberately intended inuendoes to promote or demote an idea based on opinion no matter how popular that opinion may be.

I am writing here in the talk section as every time I remove the two ambiguous words my edit is undone.

Best regards,

Johnbplett (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue that intelligent design isn't pseudoscience. Arguing this point based on your own understanding of the term is original research, which is not usable on Wikipedia. It also has little to do with improving this Wikipedia article about a movie that came out twelve years ago. Further, Wikipedia isn't a platform for debate, it is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, and as a tertiary source, Wikipedia provides information based on reliable sources.

Your use of the term "macroevolution" suggests that you are not familiar with the modern understanding of evolution. If you are sincerely interested in understanding this topic, you may find Modern synthesis (20th century) helpful. Per many, many sources, intelligent design is pseudoscience, and to misrepresent this as having mainstream support would be at odds with the fundamental purpose of this project. If you would like to review those sources, there are over a hundred at intelligent design. I am merely mentioning this for your convenience, as again, this page is not the appropriate place to have a discussion on the larger topic of evolution. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, The attack is not coming from me, nor did I ask for a debate. My request is also not "based on your own understanding of the term" but on direct quotations from credible sources. I stick with hard facts in my articles, and when editing. If there is a gray area that remains unproven, then I say this is a gray area that remains unproven regardless of my personal beliefs. I am merely mentioning this for your convenience, as this page is not the appropriate place to have a discussion on the larger topic of evolution. Scientific theory vs Belief vs Scientific_hypothesis Awake!#Distribution

I do not control anything, nor do I want to. I am merely pointing out a minor problem with this article that could be fixed with the removal of two words, but I am met with stiff backlash and opposition that seem religiously fanatical in nature.

Johnbplett (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing about an attack nor about control. Using this as a backdoor attempt to convert me to the Jehovah's Witnesses is unexpected, and comically ineffective, but it's also spamming. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy.

Reliable sources consistently treat intelligent design as pseudoscience (or worse). We are not interested in your opinion that reliable sources are wrong. You imply that your understanding of scientific theory is better than the mainstream sources, but your opinion is totally irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Grayfell One of the things you are omitting is to assume good faith.

You state "Per many, many sources" and "reliable sources" but when making reference you send me to another Wikipedia page and a blog post?

":The Scientific theory article you point me to, states that evolution is a well established foundational scientific theory and "Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology" [1].Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)"

When I give you a link to a published article you do not assume good faith but accuse me of spamming?

All of this because I tried to remove 2 words form an article?

What valid objection it there to removing the word "pseudoscientific" and stating just the fact "religious idea" or to remove "scientific" form the correct statement "theory of evolution"?

It such a simple request an attack on someone?

It seems this movie hit the nail on the head, in one way, a narrative is being forced not just in the intellectual community but on Wikipedia...

Johnbplett (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The valid objection is, that on Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbplett (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, your reference "to an article in a published journal" links to Jehovah’s Witnesses.org and their Watchtower Awake magazine, which are undoubtedly strong on truthiness but don't meet Wikipedia's policies requiring reliable secondary sources on this topic. . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the format for you. Please do not insert new headers above other users' contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving to the content.

Please read WP:LUNATIC. We repeat what reliable sources say. You have been misled by unreliable sources to think that ID is somehow not pseudoscience. That is your problem, not Wikipedia's.

The article Intelligent design contains reliable sources that explain why ID is pseudoscience, and we follow them. We do not follow your opinion instead.

What you are doing here happens every day in some article about a pseudoscience or about its proponents. Someone does not understand the facts, has an opinion, and demands that that opinion needs to be reflected in the article instead of the facts. That. Will. Not. Happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Johnbplett: Don't accuse others of attacking you when they haven't done so. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean we have to immediately agree with whatever you say, we can point out problems with your claims. Awake! is pretty obviously only going to convince other JWs. Convincing non-JWs with Awake! would require converting them.

If you want to argue that Wikipedia should not call Intelligent Design a pseudoscience, go to that article. If you want to argue that Wikipedia should not take the stance that Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, go to our article on evolution. This is not the article about those topics. This is not a general discussion forum, it is specifically a talk page for improvements relating to this movie.

Wait, no, actually, don't bother going to those articles, I'll just cut to the chase and let you know what you're going to find out there: Intelligent Design pretends to be science but isn't -- that makes it pseudoscience. Trying to argue that it's really a religious idea and therefore not pseudoscience means that it doesn't belong in science classes (and I'm saying that as a big fan of Natural theology).

The religious idea behind Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationism, an interpretation of the Bible that degrades Genesis into a scientific(ally wrong) claim by ignoring the various ways Yom is translated, 2 Peter 3:8, and the very concept of metaphysical poetry (much less the concept that such art is intended to point to a higher meaning than how long the universe has been rotting about). That's why the majority of Christians outside of America (and a significant portion in America) and the majority of Jews (period!) reject it in favor of Theistic evolution. If it were in not scientifically false, then it wouldn't be only a fringe minority of American-style Fundamentalists and their political cronies using the most uneducated interpretation of an ancient text to defend it. As I've said elsewhere regarding YEC:

The only individuals advocating YEC are followers of the very closely related Abrahamic religions (and the Jewish and Muslim membership would realistically be described as "token"). No atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, agnostics, or anyone else supports YEC. If the world was observably only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old. Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation.

Ian.thomson (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Theroadislong and @Ian.thomson

Thank you, this is exactly the point. Intelligent design is a religious belief, so it creates ambiguity when it is preceded by "pseudoscience".

Macroevolution is a mainstream conclusion drawn by many, from the evidence seen in microevolution, but not by all. It is definitely not the only mainstream thinking, and therefore, I am not creating ambiguity or misrepresentation to say the "theory of evolution".

However, in the opening paragraph, the use of the word "pseudoscience" and "scientific" does create an ambiguous notion.

The articles I have shared comply with Wikipedias requirements for being reliable sources, and show very clearly that there is definitely more than one mainstream view and therefore any article on the subject should comply by being neutral. [[Wikipedia:|Neutral point of view]]

Just to be clear, I referred to an article in a published journal that quoted from another published journal in the field of Science as the reason why I removed the word "Scientific" in front of the phrase theory of evolution. I also shared a link to the definition on Wikipedia of what a Scientific theory and Scientific_hypothesis is. Both links have similar criteria for a theory to be scientific. Again I am referring solely to macroevolution, as this article and many others do not distinguish a difference, just another ambiguity that causes confusion.

In order for this to be an Encyclopedia, there must be an impartial neutral tone to writing articles that very clearly have more than one "mainstream" thinking. Please do not blanket the religious belief of intelligent design with creationism, a very definite pseudoscience.

I am appealing to the editors, to please take a deep breath, and look at the facts. Currently, the amount of time and argument you have generated for the sake of defending 2 words that would not damage or in any way detract from this article makes it seem as though you are using this article to promote one idea above another.

For me personally, this movie just highlighted that there are people who believe in evolution and defend it as fanatically at creationists defend creationism. Then there are the rest of us who are open to all possibilities and do not like to be forced to believe something.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbplett (talk • contribs)

I politely suggest that this thread is closed now per WP:NOTFORUM. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbplett: Intelligent design is a religious belief THAT IS PUSHED AS IF IT WERE SCIENCE. It's completely dishonest to pretend that that's not happening.

Macroevolution is proven by fossil records and is yet another reason why Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

the use of the word "pseudoscience" and "scientific" does create an ambiguous notion -- Ok, fine, we'll just label ID as "scientifically false" and evolution as "factually true." Is that less ambiguous? No, seriously, removing those two words creates ambiguity, a lack of clarity between what is true and false. Evolution is a scientific fact. Intelligent Design is not merely the suggestion that God is the ultimate source of the universe (a belief also held by Theistic evolution) but a rejection of evolution and ultimately YEC pretending to be science.

look at the facts -- Get an Amazonian deforestation crew to do something about your eyes before you go pointing out the motes in the eyes of others'.

Again, this is not the Evolution article. This is not the Intelligent Design article. Trying to change those articles through this page is nothing but disruptive. Stop trying to use this article as a WP:POVFORK to civilly POV-push for creationism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is an attempt by creationists to invent a "creation science". So yes it is pseudoscience, as plenty of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Totally biased article!!!

This article is completely biased, and it is in itself a proof that the documentary has a point in arguing that darwininists do not accept any discussion. The article should not declare one side of the discussion as the "truth" and disqualify the other side from the beginning as "unscientific". This is ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:AC0:9E0:318A:564C:5F44:DBD7 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased? Ooh, that's a new one! You know what, nobody noticed that before. Congratulations for paying attention!

No, actually. The discussion has happened, in the 19th century. Creationists still use the reasoning refuted back then, and when scientists refute it again, they just do not listen. Go to talk.origins to spout that same old tired old bullshit. This is Wikipedia, which is about the knowledge of humanity and not about its ignorance.

You should really read WP:GOODBIAS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

side conversation

Wow, that was constructive.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Hob pointing out that OP's objections were considered and rejected over a hundred years ago, and then presenting an essay that helps explain why WP writes the way it does? Yes, that is a very constructive response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Sure it is. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Did you have anything constructive to add? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Yes, but I've decided not to engage with the tag team again. For the record, I don't think the OP approached this correctly either. Good day. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC) So you decided to just come here and give Hob some well-deserved praise? I'm sure Hob appreciates that, but it really isn't constructive, so in the future, you should probably congratulate editors in this way at their talk pages. You may also want to check your indent- ahh, nevermind, I'll fix it for you, per WP:INDENT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) If you saw praise in that response, then I will compliment you on your vivid imagination. Well done sir. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC) No, I saw childish petulance and sarcasm, but I decided to respond with equal sarcasm. I left out the childish petulance because that's not my gig. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC) You left it out? Don't sell yourself short. You successfully multi-tasked. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Niteshift36: If you are talking about {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}}—they were added by me, not MjolnirPants. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC) I was not. I can see in the edit history who did it. Thanks for offering to clear it up though. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this response does not sound tendentious at all. Scientific discoveries increasingly point towards a God-Creator, not against one. The odds against life, let alone intellectual life, are so staggering that atheist scientists are now positing the nonsensical, let alone non-provable, ideas (e.g., a multiverse, etc.). However, the original comment did not argue this. All it said was that one side does not accept any discussion, which the response proves is the truth. 2600:1700:7F08:4200:507F:97FE:4E3:7881 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We go by what wp:rs says, not wp:fringe sources. When god is shown to exist in a paper published by as reputable peer-reviewed journal we can accept the idea as valid, until then we follow what actual scientists say, not your OR. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The odds against life, let alone intellectual life, are so staggering This is exactly the same old tired old bullshit I was talking about. See [2] for a refutation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hob, creationists do not perform research and have nothing new to offer. Repeating "tired old bullshit" is the full extent of their intellectual capacity. I would not expect a dog to provide a lecture, and I would not expect a creationist to have an innovative thought. Dimadick (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete objections/sugestions we can discuss?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, this article is biased. But that's only because evolution is essentially proven, whilst creationism is largely discredited. This makes any accusations of bias pointless. 71.221.194.121 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda Film?

Look, if Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 and others like it are not listed as "propaganda" by Wikipedia, then I am unsure why Expelled should be. 2600:1700:7F08:4200:507F:97FE:4E3:7881 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You would need to ask on their pages, RS call this propaganda, so we do. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Who is RS? If you mean "real scientists" (why can't you just type it?), then I suggest your sampling is quite narrow or consists of people who have formed an opinion without seeing the movie...or both. 2600:1700:7F08:4200:507F:97FE:4E3:7881 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources we use for the claim. Again if you want changes made to those articles, make the case there, and what is done there has no relevance to what is done here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

When people use an abbreviation on Wikipedia, try putting "WP:" in front of it. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone thinks this article is supposed to be NPOV. That's cute. -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It cute that someone thinks we do not accurately reflect what RS say about this film. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple critics say it's propaganda (or like propaganda, which is actually saying it isn't propaganda, but let's not let that bother anyone) and Wikipedia decides to take it as gospel, despite the fact that the vast majority of sources do not make this claim. What's especially funny is that one thing just about every reliable source does say about it is that it's a documentary (not a good one, but a documentary nonetheless), but this article can't even bring itself to say that much, and has labelled it "documentary-style" or whatever they've decided to call it. Just admit that a handful of editors have staked their claim on this article to reflect their POV. Pretending otherwise is unbecoming. -R. fiend (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

So find a source that says its not propaganda, as that is how we determined if something is disputed. But I agree it is a documentary. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it a documentary? It doesn't provide facts or information about a subject, it provides the opposite in the style of a documentary, and is described by reliable sources as propaganda. Propaganda in the style of a documentary, As opposed to a dramatic propaganda film or comedic propaganda film, summarized in the lede as "documentary-style propaganda film." It's quite possible that more films would accurately be similarly described, but that's a failing in the reliable sources that apply to them. -tronvillain (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The entire article comes across as very biased. Could have a rewrite in at least a more neutral tone. Not sure that the adjective "propaganda" is necessary. Even Birth of a Nation isn't listed as a propaganda film in the first sentence. 2001:F40:943:874:5891:AE84:D812:C027 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree - the entire article is loaded with biased wording, which is meant to sway readers toward a certain bias. So the wording of this article itself is propagandistic, written not to inform but to persuade. This kind of wording and biased approach has no place in a public encyclopedia. Solarjetman (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You should also read those links. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Documentary film or propaganda film?

Expelled is a documentary film. It's unfair to describe it as a "documentary-style propaganda film" unless every documentary film listed in Wikipedia is described in similar fashion. Whether or not certain Wikipedia editors like the film's premise or content, they should be open to describing it with words that are not loaded with preconceived bias. Therefore I propose changing the description to "documentary film" instead of "documentary-style propaganda film." Solarjetman (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there is not need to say Propoganda, there are other ways to say what kind of documentary it is. Psedoscientific is one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No, pseudoscientific is a loaded word that is inaccurate and instantly suggests bias against intelligent design. Encyclopedias are supposed to be as free from bias as possible. You are not making an attempt to do that. Just because critics of a theory have called it pseudoscientific in the past does not mean an encyclopedia entry does the same. Otherwise, it would merely be reflecting one side of an important debate and not the other. At the very least, the article should be reflecting both sides. Charles Darwin himself was intellectually humble enough to recognize this. In the introduction to his Origin of Species in 1859, he wrote "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question..." Solarjetman (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@ Solarjetman, see Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes, TalkOrigins Archive, #Quote #2.3 - by omitting "and this cannot possibly be here done" and the context, you misrepresent what CD wrote. . dave souza, talk 19:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And what does Charles Darwin have to with modern science? Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Nor can we give WP:FALSEBALANCE and imply this is any other than a one sided twisting of the facts. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on what random users say who have seen a propaganda film and believed what it said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

We've still got a fair number of people hung up on the idea that the movie where Ben Stein selectively misquotes Darwin to call him a Nazi is documentary-style rather than a documentary. Should we just move some of the ample criticism of the film's falsehoods into cites in the lede to make them stop with "uncited"? I'd prefer not - it's bad form to over-cite in the lede - but this might remain a headache otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Or just move then cites there. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well that's kind of what I'm asking. We have two whole sub-sections of the body about this film and its producers using dishonest tactics and false information to support their claims. Best practice is to keep the relevant citations in the body. But if we have to go and fix the lede every couple of weeks maybe we do need to link some of the cites higher. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If you need citations describing it as a documentary there are no shortages (this doesn't mean it's a good documentary, but that's beside the point). This "documentary-style" crap is POV weasel wording. The same people who are saying "it's a propaganda film!!!! A critic said so!!!! Follow teh sources!!!!!" reject any source (which is just about all of them) describing it as a documentary. The POV pushing here is pretty egregious. -R. fiend (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This is inappropriate - you have now hit the WP:3RR bright line with your POV pushing. The dishonesty of this film is well established across multiple citations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There may be citations describing it as a documentary but only from the same dishonest anti-science subculture that spawned this dreck. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"The anti-science subculture" like IMDB, the New York Times, and the Library of Congress? This is the most pathetic argument I've heard in a long time. Jesus Fucking Christ. -R. fiend (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. The others it would depend entirely on context and WP:DUE weight. Primary sources like a library catalog category are not going to be due over reliable secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope you didn't throw out your back making that stretch. -R. fiend (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Please be wary of WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And read wp:rsp. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To a degree, it can be both, but it is really only a propaganda film full of dishonesty. So it is hard to now see it as as just a documentary. We need to say it is not honest in some way, "Like" was a compromise.I said before we need to say "Pseudoscientific documentary", as "Documentary propaganda" read disjointed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Calling it a "Pseudoscientific documentary" would be an improvement, I guess. Though I would probably argue it's still a bit off because the movie really even try to make a case intelligent design. Its thesis is more that universities and scientific institutions are prejudiced against intelligent design. And, in that respect they have a point, because since IT is not science so scientific institutions are not going to allow it to be taught. So in a way the movie makes a somewhat decent point, just not the one they were hoping to make. But pretty much every source I've found categorizes it as a documentary (again, this does not mean its good), so for Wikipedia to bend over backwards to try to say otherwise is disingenuous and POV pushing, regardless of any insular "discussions" or "agreements" or "compromises," none of which can override the NPOV policy. -R. fiend (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

1. This source refers to Expelled as a caricature: [3]
2. This article doesn't define Expelled explicitly but is entirely about its dishonest framing. That's something documentaries are supposed to avoid. [4]
3. This article describes statements made by the producer, supporting claims in the film, as "both incorrect in detail and spurious in spirit." [5]
4. This article says of the film, "his film’s arguments are a rhetorical mishmash of straw men, red herrings, guilt by association, quote harvesting, gotcha interviews and post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) associations that may cause your head to pop. It’s a propaganda form" [6]

Considering we have multiple sources calling the film caricature, dishonest, incorrect and propaganda I don't know why we should be calling it a documentary. Documentaries are generally assumed to not be dishonest, incorrect, propaganda caricatures. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So what you admit to doing is taking various statements by critics and using them to create an argument that this is not a documentary film, despite most sources calling it that. That's textbook Wikipedia:synth right there. Find me a reliable source calling it a "documentary-style film" and you'll have something of a start, but still a minority view that should not be given undue weight. So far you haven't even done that. -R. fiend (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I literally provided you with a source calling it a propaganda film and a second source calling it a caricature. Neither call it a documentary.

We could say, "Expelled is a propaganda film" and that would do away with any synth concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Works. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So is the argument here that something can't be a documentary and propaganda at the same time? -R. fiend (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying calling it a documentary in the lede would be dishonest. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

But we have many sources saying it is a documentary, and, as far as I can tell, not a single one saying it is a "documentary-style" film. How is saying something nearly all sources agree on dishonest? -R. fiend (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We also have many calling it a propaganda film. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A few do, though far from a majority, as far as I can tell, and those are opinion pieces as well, which don't hold so much weight, being opinions. I looked over the ones linked in the article and you know what they all also call it? A documentary, if you can believe it. Now, I know the editors here would prefer to open the article with "this movie is stupid ball of crap for dummies made by a bunch of poo-poo heads" but realize that is going a little too far, so they've instead made an effort to remove any and every word that might even slightly hint that it isn't all those things, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. I've had trouble finding sources that don't call it a documentary (and certainly not this "documentary-style" babble), so I find it rather disingenuous to hear all these arguments about how referring to it as such is dishonest or POV or whatever. -R. fiend (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I provided an example of four sources, none of which call the film documentary and two of which call it something else. You keep asserting the majority of reliable sources call the film documentary. From the sources I've reviewed the majority of sources call the film "a film". And I removed documentary-style from the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What sources are these? And keep in mind just because a source doesn't use the term "documentary" that doesn't mean they're saying it isn't a documentary. The vast majority of sources categorize it as such. -R. fiend (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So you keep saying. You have not demonstrated this. As for the sources I provided, they're in a numbered list, with links, above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What, you want to me list every source that refers to the movie as a documentary? I've mentioned a bunch from actual reliable sources (unlike "Expelled Exposed"). The goalpost moving here is laughable. For years I've been saying calling it a "propaganda film" is POV, and the phrasing should be reverted to the previous version that pointed out (right there in the lede) that it's been referred to as propaganda by various sources, but every time I do a bunch of POV pushers say "we HAVE to call it that!!!!1111 The sources say so!!!! To do otherwise would be POV!!! Find me an article that says 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is not a propaganda film'!!!!111" When I haven't been able to do so (because that is not how human beings speak) I get dismissed. But the exact opposite approach is now being used for the word "documentary," despite its near universal categorization as such. The Library of Congress classifies it as a documentary for chrissakes [7]. And now you're saying because a couple of sources don't use that word (many of which are of very questionable reliability anyway) it therefore isn't a documentary. This makes no sense. -R. fiend (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That is one WP:PRIMARY source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a primary source. Want others? Here, these all refer to it as a documentary: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. These are a few I found quickly in this article's sources section. There are certainly more. -R. fiend (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor is Metacritic. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And yet we use them as sources in the article. -R. fiend (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

For opinions, not facts. Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not oppose the removal of any information cited to rotten tomatoes or metacritic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

OK lets do it, as they are not RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "universities and scientific institutions are prejudiced against intelligent design" makes as much sense as "the police is prejudiced against crime" or "cleaning women are prejudiced against dirt". It is the job of universities to reject bad reasoning. The whole approach of E:NIA is wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• It should be called a documentary in the lead. Whether you agree with the film or even if parts of it have been disproved, it is still a documentary in the same way the Academy award winning Bowling for Columbine is a documentary, despite having staged scenes and parts that were later discredited. The documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has so many discrepancies, the topic was spun off into a separate article. Yes, I understand that if I wanted to make a case for "propaganda" to be added to those pages, that discussion is done there. I'm not arguing that they should. I'm pointing at examples of community practices. That's not saying WP:othercrapexists, it's evidence of a consensus about how the topic is normally treated. Other examples include What the Health, Super Size Me, Zeitgeist (film series) and others. It should be called a documentary up front. The rest of the article deals with any controversies. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just because other propaganda films are incorrectly called documentaries does not mean we should compound the error here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• If that was the only reason I gave, your comment may have meant more. Thanks for essentially ignoring the fact that I said I'm not making an "othercrap" argument. And for letting your opinion on the content let you ignore the fact that it's clearly a documentary film. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• It's clearly not a documentary film as defined as 'a non-fictional motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for instruction, education or maintaining a historical record".' That impression at the start of the lead is misleading, and fails to comply with WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy which requires that any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such, particularly at the outset. . dave souza, talk 18:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• So you use WP to define it? Ok, so let's look at your claim. did the producers INTEND to document reality etc? It looks like they did. You can argue about the accuracy, but I have seen absolutely no evidence that disputes their INTENT. Do you have evidence of that from a RS? Let's look at a source within the article you are citing. Univ of Californian says "a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents." This film provides an opinion and a specific message along with facts. Sounds like a documentary. Or this: Scholar Betsy McLane asserted that documentaries are for filmmakers to convey their views about historical events, people, and places which they find significant." Expelled seems to meet that criteria. The same article that YOU introduced as evidence (so this isn't me using WP as a source, you did it) says "Documentary filmmaking can be used as a form of journalism, advocacy, or personal expression." This film is being used as advocacy and personal expression is it not? Do you dispute that reliable sources have called the film a documentary? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Sources say otherwise, and your argument violates wp:synth. Everyone is all about sources until they don't like what they say, then suddenly it's all "well we can't really trust the sources on this." Even some of the most critical reviews still refer to it as a documentary, and certainly more sources call it a documentary than propaganda. Classification of a movie is not a scientific matter, so this pseudoscience argument doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Sure, intelligent design is a sort of pseudoscience, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to how an encyclopedia with an NPOV policy categorizes a movie, especially since this movie's argument is about the politics of what should be taught in institutions of higher learning, rather than the actual scientific merit of the subject itself (which this movie barely addresses at all). There is quite the double standard here, with the same people arguing that it has to be classified as propaganda because some sources say it is, then ignoring all sources that call it a documentary because they don't agree with it. -R. fiend (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sources call it a propaganda film. What we put in the lede is a matter of WP:DUE and, in this case WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Jesus Fucking Christ, sources (more sources) call it a documentary film. By your own logic that should be in the lede as well. -R. fiend (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Presented as a documentary film promoting conspiracy theory

It's against policy to give equal validity to this film as though it were a reputable documentary, reliable secondary sources support that "It is presented as a documentary film promoting the conspiracy theory that academia oppresses and excludes people who believe in intelligent design." Have tried that, citing Shermer. . dave souza, talk 08:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to give undue weight to a single person's opinion over many other sources who simply call it a documentary (and a person with an axe to grind as well). Besides, are you suggesting academia welcomes people who teach pseudoscience in their science classrooms? -R. fiend (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you really should get around to looking at WP:PROFRINGE we don't provide equal weight to actual experts and cranks with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you think only fringe cranks refer to this as a documentary then I don't know what to tell you other than maybe read something outside of your bubble every now and then. The sheer amount of contortion presented here to deny that this is widely classified as a "documentary film" is astounding. -R. fiend (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, for fuck's sake, the latest edit to the article has the following quote: "one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry." -R. fiend (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• To say something is 'a documentary film' is to suggest that it fits into the thematic genre of documentary films, which this film does not. This is because the narrative presented within is entirely fictional and this was known to the producers at the time. It would not be inaccurate to claim that this fits into the stylistic genre of documentaries, but then, so does This is Spinal Tap. In that case, we have an established thematic subgenre of documentaries in which to properly categorize the film. Namely, 'mockumentaries'.

In this case, this is not a mockumentary, because it was not made for the purpose of entertainment, but rather, to further a particular world view and convince the audience to accept the arguments presented therein. As it so happens, we have a genre for precisely that: 'propaganda film'.

With that being said, I see nothing wrong with the article as it stands. Do not ping me in any replies, as I have little wish to continue to engage here beyond what I've just said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Now the we got WP:OR out of the way, would someone care to explain why we should ignore each and every source that refers to this as a documentary? -R. fiend (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• We don't. Second sentence, "It is presented as a documentary" .... dave souza, talk 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Which is obviously not the same thing, so the question stands. Not that I expect an honest reply. -R. fiend (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• If you want to propose other wording which fully meets WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy and the WP:FRINGE guideline, please present it in a new section, making it clear exactly which specific sources you propose citing. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with pseudoscience, but classification of a film. I'm not sure how you have so much trouble understanding this. Many of the same sources that are cited in this article to disparage the movie also call it a documentary. It's well established. The Library of Congress has it categorized as a documentary (someone dismissed this as a primary source, which it isn't). The double standards here are laughable. -R. fiend (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  You've had something like five different editors disagree with you regarding how to categorize the film as well as providing reasons why it should not be categorized as a documentary. I understand you vehemently disagree with these arguments which is why dave souza invited you to propose a lead that respects WP:FRINGE expectations. However instead of that you've just continued complaining that everybody except you is wrong.

  I would suggest you should consider there are two courses of action available to you here: either propose an alternative lead that we can discuss at article talk or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with pseudoscience, but classification of a film It is amusing that this comes from someone who accuses others of dishonesty.

  The film defends pseudoscience by attacking its opponents and comparing them to Nazis. Of course WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Categorization

• Is the categorization of a film a science? That is the issue here, not the contents of the film itself. So pseudoscience has nothing to do with it. This is a summary of the discussion here:

"I see this film is labelled propaganda, why is that?"

"Sources say it is, and we have to go with what the sources say. It's beyond our control."

"But most of the same sources call it a documentary, as do many others, yet you refuse to label it as such."

"We don't care about what the sources say."

The double standard here is laughable. So here's my proposal for an alternate lead: the same as it is now, but with the words "documentary film" in there, which is its genre. The gatekeepers of this article seem to think doing this is some sort of endorsement of its contents, and give the implication that "documentary" = "100% factual," which isn't the case. It's just the type of film it is, and there are no shortage of reliable sources saying so. Ignoring them repeatedly and pretending they don't exist is pretty hypocritical. Some of us actually think that articles on topics we don't like should still be NPOV, if you can believe it. -R. fiend (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Different sources have different reliability for a given subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Are film reviewers a reliable source on this subject? Because I've been told since a few call it "propaganda" it is ipso facto propaganda. So when the same sources call it a "documentary" how is it not a documentary? Is the Library of Congress an authority on the classification of media? It would seem like they are, despite some people's decision that they are suddenly unreliable or a "primary source". There is no shortage of reliable sources which refer to this movie as a documentary. The effort put into the owners of this article to ignore or dismiss those sources on this one point alone is ridiculous, and smacks of desperation. -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"Is the Library of Congress an authority on the classification of media?" As far as I know, no. Where is the reputation for fact-ckecking? Where is the indication that their classification involves any research and is not arbitrary? Dimadick (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@R. fiend: Please be collegiate and constructive, you will of course assume good faith. The Library of Congress cataloguing as "Form/Genre" is not the same as classification, and not a reliable source for a question with some similarities. You can try checking WP:RSN. . . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Film or Video, Expelled, no intelligence allowed". LC Catalog. Retrieved 16 November 2024. . . . dave souza, talk 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)