User talk:Merzul/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/rewrite

Show me the NPOV version :)

Ok, let's see what an "NPOV version" would look like... I will check this and I'm willing to help make this conform with Wikipedia policy, but mostly I suggest we let people, who feel the main page is a gross NPOV violation, show what a fair article would look like. I'm waiting to be impressed, Merzul (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I love the length! ;-) The article does need to mention, and clearly, that it is controversial, and that reviews are bad. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the main article, which requires TWO references for the word "film" in the first paragraph, and one of them is negative. It's a theater of the absurd over there. - Nhprman 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it very much now :) Now, I have also suggested a basic structure, but that's just my suggestion. It might be totally useless. Merzul (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote "yes" on the pre-screening issues, but "no" on the Background header. The article, as it stands now, has become a battleground over ID, rather than a film-ONLY article as it should be, IMO. A link to the ID article is sufficent, or should have been, or at the very least, a small description of what ID *is*. But we saw where that went over there at the article.- Nhprman 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very rough draft structure, feel free to change it. I think some background would be useful, setting the stage for the film itself. It doesn't have to go on for more than one paragraph of key events leading up to the film and then specific pre-release promotion. I'm not even sure this should be before the synopsis, but I thought some information for self-containment about what the film is about could be useful.

Anyone is welcome to edit and experiment with alternative structures. Since this isn't live, we don't have to be quick to revert. Merzul (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Importing content

I wonder if it wouldn't be best to start with a blank page, or with just the templates. If the text is staring you in the face, you'll tweak the text, you'll write with the text in mind. My suggestion would be to strip it down to maybe the top level headers and the template (maybe also the lead) and the the writing start from there. Otherwise, you'll always have the original text looking over your shoulder. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is of course a very good point. If anyone wants to import some section from the main article, that can easily be done. I will probably strip it down. Merzul (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An alternate Synopsis

The current version is a complete WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB & WP:UNDUE violating whitewash. Here's a version of it re-written from the majority view of movie critics & scientists (per WP:DUE):

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a film described by film critics as heavy-handed propaganda. This heavy-handedness includes making frequent use of vintage film clips to conflate evolution with totalitarianism (specifically Nazi Germany and Stalinism), in a manner derided as employing Lord Privy Seals. It alleges barriers to intelligent design being accepted as science — barriers that the majority of the scientific community consider to be self-imposed due to ID's inability to offer testable predictions and unwillingness to engage in primary research. In Ben Stein's opening scene he gives a staged talk in a lecture hall to an audience of extras, and throughout the film he provides narration. He interviews those claiming to have been victimized and makes factually misrepresents their cases, and several scientists who are atheists, selected by the producers to misrepresent those supporting evolution (many of whom are in fact religious), culminating in an interview with Richard Dawkins. Intelligent design proponents are also shown, including David Berlinski, a self-described "crank" and an expert neither on evolution nor history, who raises the claim, widely derided in the historical community, that Darwinism influenced the Nazis. Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities emotively describing the nightmare he implies was due to Darwinism — an implication emphatically condemned by the Anti-Defamation League. After a further heavy-handed scene of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, he returns to the lecture hall for his closing statements.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

True, that is accurate and reflects reliable sources. If we were only allowed to write one paragraph about the film, we would have to write something similar to that. What I'm wondering is whether in a full-length article, we could perhaps appear less biased in our tone and in our exposition by shifting the very critical material to sections discussing the film, rather than in the section giving an overview of the film. This would silence the critique that we are not writing enough about the film itself, while still allowing us to reflect reliable sources, maybe... Of course, I'm no longer sure, if it is possible; but I think it is useful to try this approach. Especially, when people come and complain about POV of the main page. Well, now you can send them over here and let them prove that something better is possible. Merzul (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, not true, and not acceptable. A little refresher course on NPOV, guys:

• "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."
• "One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. (That's what I *thought* was going to happen here. "Gee, a biased, hateful lead para. is great" is NOT what I expected from you, Merzul.)
• "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." That rather bullsh*t contribution above violates that.
• "Fairness of tone: If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view."

One more point: Obviously, the Intelligent Design theory is NOT mainstream, and wouldn't get more than a few mentions (negatively) in the Evolution article. But what people on the Talk page of the film's article don't seem to "get" is that THIS IS ABOUT A FILM, not about the ID topic itself. If you want to trash ID (and no, I actually don't believe in it, either) then go to the ID article or the Evolution article. A mention of evolution in the film doesn't give us the right to spend 12 paragraphs defending Darwin's view of evolution against the IDers. It's just illegitimate. But what is, is fairly presenting the film here, and without whitewashing the facts - including the poor reviews and overwhelming critical reaction - but doing it in the same way other documentaries are presented here. The bottom line is, just because we disagree with a film, doesn't mean we can lard it up with negative commentary aobut the SUBJECT of the film. And the pissy little suggestion above that we use this to vent, editorially, our views of the subject, is NOT ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA. Period. - Nhprman 14:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A few "obvious" things for Nhprman:

• The Film's claim that there are (illegitimate) "barriers to intelligent design being accepted as science" is NOT mainstream
• The Film's claim that people have been victimised is NOT mainstream
• The Film's claim that "atheists ... represent those supporting evolution" is NOT mainstream
• The Film's claim that "the claim that Darwinism influenced the Nazis" is NOT mainstream

These are all legitimate issues to be discussed "ABOUT A FILM" with WP:DUE weight to the majority's viewpoint, when they are raised, and not with that viewpoint relegated to the "article's Criticism or Controversy section(s)" (per prohibition in template:criticism-section). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to "'Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.' That rather bullsh*t contribution above violates that.":

• "described by film critics as heavy-handed propaganda"
• "barriers that the majority of the scientific community consider to be self-imposed due to ID's inability to offer testable predictions and unwillingness to engage in primary research."
• "widely derided in the historical community" (see Richard Weikart‎ for a bunch of quotes & citations)

My version merely presented the majority positions and attributed them to the expert communities in question. It is "rather" your accusation that is "bullsh*t".

I'm afraid not. You see, I have no problem with mentioning in the article that the film's assertions are not mainstream. My problem is with the idea that one would use a film article to list ALL of the problems with the concept the film is about. That is not allowed here. Nor are lengthy discussions about what sceintists believe about ID. That's not the point of the film article, any more than it would be legtimate to add 500-word summaries of the 2008 presidential candidates' views on healthcare to the Sicko article. Discussion of the film's SUBJECT belongs in the Evolution or ID articles, or, alternately, in the "Reaction to Expelled" article, which actually is a good article outlining the film's problems and the reaction to it. It's also always, always, always wrong to call something you don't like "Propaganda." It's simply editorializing, which, you'll notice in the NPOV article, is forbidden. That label is for military films, posters and other media. Not to a film about an issue, unless ALL such political/socialally motivated films are so labelled here. (And I'm sorry I swore.) - Nhprman 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Without having compared them in detail, my first issue with Hrafn's version is the second sentence, starting "This heavy-handedness...." Even if we wanted to state as fact that it is heavy-handed, this wouldn't be the way to do it; repeating and adopting loaded phrases like that is always going to sound opinionated rather than descriptive. A small thing here, but this is one of the main problems with some of the writing in the main article needing more attention. Mackan79 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nhprman: these are not "problems with the concept the film is about." They are claims that the film itself makes. Their truthfulness is intrinsically an issue in evaluating a film that purports to be a documentary.
• Mackan79: that can easily be solved by running the two sentences together (with a bit of shortening) e.g.: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a film described by film critics as heavy-handed propaganda, particularly in its frequent use of vintage film clips to conflate evolution with totalitarianism (specifically Nazi Germany and Stalinism)."

However, I will now leave you to work on your version of the article. The above 'alternate' was merely an exercise to point out that citing only (the minority) favourable sources at the top and "ghetto-ising" the (majority) unfavourable to 'criticism' sections at the bottom is in violation of WP:NPOV. The majority viewpoint must be given WP:DUE weight throughout -- which mean that if there's room for only one view in a 'summary' or 'synopsis', it is the majority view that gets in first (and left out last). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are maybe right, but I have not yet seen how the "ghetto-ising" of the discussions about factual validity would actually work. So if some of the discussions about the validity of the film are postponed, will it compromise the article? I'm honestly not sure about that. You say the majority viewpoints must be given due weight throughout, but that's probably where I currently disagree, I think we look more trustworthy as an encyclopaedia, if we first describe the film itself and then discuss its relation to reality.

My intuition is that people will first look whether we got the film right, and if they see that we are describing the film correctly, then there will be more trust in what we say afterwards about the factual validity. I fear that if we mix the two, people just think we are biased, and wont trust our presentation of the facts, but I really don't know. Here is the relevant bit of policy from WP:DUE:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

I think this is very important policy. The question is how we interpret "wherever relevant". Will it really hurt our presentation, if we spell out the film first and only then present the majority view? I'm not sure, which is why I would like to see how it would actually look. Merzul (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Background sections

As a quick thought, I think we should aim to make the rest of the article, including the lead, such that the background sections aren't necessary. I think we can do this while starting with the synopsis, by pulling in these things about ID generally in our other discussions. This would really be ideal, if possible, to make people understand the ID debate (if it can be called such) at the same time as they understand the film. I didn't remove the headings since others may have another view, but I thought I'd throw that out there.Mackan79 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible. But I'm not sure how you give a neutral overview of the context of the debate, if you start with the film synopsis? Don't we then end up basically like the current (main namespace) article, if we try to clarify issues at the same time as describing the film?? I'm not sure, but let's go ahead and remove whatever subsection titles. It's not hard to move things around later, if what you suggest doesn't work. Merzul (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

True, that's a concern. I think there are other ways to do it though. One aspect that I tried starting was to outline the arguments and criticisms up front, so people know what they are, which should then allow for a more organized discussion below as I think you would like. Where I disagree with the main article is I think we should still outline this in the context of the movie, first in the lead, and then second in the section on controversial/contentious issues in the movie (see my first attempt here). My hope would be that this kind of approach could satisfy the various sides if we managed to do it well. Mackan79 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the section you wrote is quite nice. As an intro to a section laying out the controversial issues, it describes things very well. The main question is then whether the overview section before it should be expanded at all. Is it better to have an extensive synopsis of the film where some of the arguments are expressed without rebuttals, or should the arguments in the film be discussed together with the mainstream reaction? Merzul (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the synopsis, since it doesn't really get into arguments so much, and assuming we'll be able to discuss the arguments in detail below. Mackan79 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I added now a section on the ID/Evolution issue, based on the corresponding section in the main article. Before I do more, maybe people would want to comment on that. This is basically an example of what I've had in mind, by doing what I think is a little better job of presenting more complete ideas from each side and then response. Nice or harsh criticism are both welcome, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins of life...

I'm not sure, where this text comes from, but of course criticizing evolution as a flawed theory for the origin of life is straight form TOP10 misconception lists. Does the film make this claim, or was this accidentally introduced? Merzul (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This was my attempt to capture their view, though you're right it may not be perfect. One of the commercials features Ben Stein sitting in class and saying something like "Yeah, but where did life start?" before being "expelled" from class. As I think you imply, they present this as a flaw when perhaps that misses the point. I'm certainly open to rephrasing it more accurately to avoid suggesting otherwise. Mackan79 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's mistake they make, then we repeat it here too... Let's see what someone in favour of the film has to say. Are they fine saying the film criticizes evolution as a flawed theory for the origin of life? Merzul (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but very interesting essay.

I found this very interesting essay by atheist computer scientist Aaron Sloman:

"Why scientists and philosophers of science should teach intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution"

It's a fairly long essay, but the basic idea that one should attempt to refute the strongest case for intelligent design is something I think most of us (on this subpage at least) agree with. Merzul (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Darwin quotation issue?

I'm wondering how much of that we really need here... I would actually prefer rather something like:

• State that the film represent Darwin as ...
• Say that this has offended many people.
• Give the mainstream in Darwin scholarship on his views on Eugenics.

This is of course much more difficult than just copying the Scientific American piece, but I think something like this would be more useful. Opinions? Merzul (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on this, given we limit ourselves to sources who link this film/darwin/eugenics/offense-against-scientists and so forth. The quote side/by/side there now is polemical, not NPOV, at least in its present form. It's the unintended consequence of MoS abuse I think. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)