Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Reviews by atheists

Nobody should be removing reliable sources, that are film reviews specifically, on the basis of bias. They're reviews. In all cases a reviewer is reliable for their opinion. And I'd caution that pulling such reviews as a WP:DUE concern is probably a path to AfD since reviews are required to establish the notability of a movie. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Main point

I found this gem buried several paragraphs down:

• The film directly addresses intelligent design only superficially, focusing on how it is treated in academia rather than on issues involving the concept itself. It makes almost no attempt to define intelligent design or show any scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design. Instead, the film deals with the subject almost entirely from a political, rather than scientific, viewpoint.

Couldn't we move this up to the first 5 or 10 paragraphs, where people would be more likely to actually read it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It was in the first paragraph when the above was written and it is still there, but more clearly worded. Nothing to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Not an article, this is an opinionated review

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.

---

This page is not an article, it clearly reads like a review. It is one thing to factually describe the contents of the documentary, but it is something else entirely to start and continue with negative criticism exclusively of the subject of the page. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a review site but that's all this page is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skere789 (talk • contribs)

Hello @Skere789: Ok, so what change are you proposing? and what source are you citing to back up that change? --McSly (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2026 (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.

The 'Propaganda Film' Issue

I am discussing this again since there have been two back-and-forth edits changing this movie's classification from documentary to propaganda film. Despite the debate above, this issue clearly wasn't solved.

I, personally, would like see it classified as a documentary; there's a precedent for angled films on Wikipedia to receive the documentary moniker, most notably (as Niteshift36 referenced above) Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie, and the rest of the article, especially in the introduction, can serve as a proper reference to its bias. Retaining it's 'propaganda' classification because of a line used in two contemporary movie reviews is asinine since it those same reviews called it a documentary, and it has received its proper delineation across other sites, including streaming platforms.

Thanks. ExtraBeans90 (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue certainly was solved. There was some discussion about alternatives using terms like pseudoscience that didn't gain traction, but the overwhelming consensus was and is that it isn't in any way shape or form a documentary. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)