Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 11

Chrifsmas
Related to the Happy Holidays controversy, some people (so far 7 on this page) have said that there should be a movement to put the FSM back into Merry Chrifsmas: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chrifsmas/108769445820061 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBrewer (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012
Please change "internet phenomenon" to "Internet phenomenon". Internet is a name and thus should always be written in capitals. (I have not checked the remainder of the article for other occurrences of "internet".)

Ngarcia (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is actually controversial, and the lower case "internet" is increasingly common. Believe it or not, we have an entire article devoted to the correct capitalization of this one word.  But regardless, a given article ought to be consistent, and this one was not.  So to make you happy I've changed all instances of "internet" to "Internet".  Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mis-categorization and offensive statements, 8 November 2011
Hello Wikipedia,

I went to look up some information about FSM and I was disturbed to see that in the first sentence of the article FSM is referred to as a "deity of the parody religion". As I read on I found more disturbing references that this religion is not a real religion such as "Pastafarian "beliefs" are generally satires of creationism" and the fact that this article was stored in the categories of Fictional deities and Religious parodies and satires while being left out of catigories such as Monotheistic religions or even having its own category like Christianity.

I have always found Wikipedia to be a place of openness and understanding. That is why I was so shocked to see that a certain religion is being treated like it is not a "real" religion. Pastafarianism is as much a Monotheistic religion as Christianity or Judaism. I am not asking for anyone to be forced to believe in this religion, I am only asking that it should be treated equally and that references to it being a fake religion be removed from the article. By this I mean removing references of it being a "parody religion" and its deity being listed under Fictional Deities. Also, I believe that moving it to the Monotheistic Religions would be more accurate and easier to find.

I am sure that this was an honest mistake and there was no intention of signaling out and treating a select group of people unfairly and I look forward to hearing that you have resolved this issue. I would also like to thank you for providing the world with a place to gather and share all sorts of information and beliefs in a safe and friendly environment.

Thank you,

Nickwilmes (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review question 1 in the FAQ at the top of this article. It's listed as such because that's what sources describe it as.  DP 76764  (Talk) 22:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe those two sources are misunderstanding the word of Bobby Henderson and it made them conclude pretty fast about the parodic aspect of our saint religion. It is as offending to us as writing on the Christianity page that it's a pure invention. Please do something for equity. MisterFox  (Talk) 06:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.214.196 (talk)
 * This is a perennial complaint at this page, and, no matter how many times people do this comedy routine, it doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for performance art. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The description of FSMism as a 'parody religion' should stay in the lead as it has been so described by reliable sources. However, Bobby has denied this description quite vocally and prominently, see the venganza.org about page: "Pastafarianism is a real religion.

Most of us do not believe a religion – Christianity, Islam, Pastafarianiasm – requires literal belief in order to provide spiritual enlightenment. That is, we can be part of a community without becoming indoctrinated. There are many levels of belief.

Q: Is this a joke? A: It’s not a joke. Elements of our religion are often described as satire and there are many members who do not literally believe our scripture, but this isn’t unusual in religion"

This probably deserves some space in the article. Something along the lines of "Henderson and the Pastafarian community reject ...." Perhaps in the 'Positions' section. LK (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, an uncredited FAQ section on a non-reliable source. That'll do the trick!  DP 76764  (Talk) 16:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This gets to be like a ride through the fever swamp, but it may actually be WP:OR to quote that passage as supporting the statement that Henderson et al. "reject...". Is he actually rejecting? Or is he making a satiric statement in deadpan? It takes a pretty big leap of, um, faith to take his statement as a profession of religious belief, as opposed to a criticism of religion as – in Henderson's view – something where people talk themselves into being "indoctrinated", into believing things that are laughable. Is there any real evidence that "It's not a joke" is not, itself, a joke? That said, I wouldn't object to adding some material reporting that many supporters of Pastafarianism state that it is just as much a serious religion as any other. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If the founder of a faith movement asserts that it is BOTH parody AND a genuine belief in divine truth, consistency with the principle of religious freedom and the sovereignty of individual conscience requires requires that such claims be treated with the same respect as doctrinal claims of other religions. There are no valid criteria for objective outsiders to distinguish between for example, the claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin and that Brahma created the universe. Likewise, there is no valid criteria for objective outsiders to question the Pastafarian belief that it is a real religion. Who can presume to say that someone's beliefs are not a real belief?174.91.146.116 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not in the business of judging whether the belief is real or not, it just needs a reliable source which does the judging for it. Find a good source, like a published interview with Henderson, for his position on the pastafarian movement, and I'm sure edits can be made to the "positions" section... WP:RS will help you decide whether a source is reliable or not. Gorton k (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Name - coincidence or something more?
The name Flying Spaghetti Monster abbreviates as FSM - same as Finite State Machine. Since Finite State Machines are graphically represented as graphs, ofthen with a lot of interconnections and sometimes not planar, they appear tangled and resemble "spaghetti". Moreover, excessively interconnected software structure is often described as "spaghetti code". Has anyone done any research into where the name actually came from? It sounds much like an IT student's joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.252.115.250 (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012
Hello. The introduction section contains a statement that Pastafarianism has been 'generally praised by the media'. Although I myself am Pastafarian, I think that claim is too sweeping, is unsourced, and probably unverifiable. I would suggest changing it to say something like 'has had favorable attention in media'. Thanks.

174.91.146.116 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, basically saying the same thing, generally does not mean universal & it's media coverage is detailed with sources in the Critical reception section-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ??? Really? You can't see the difference?  Consider the difference here:  "Generally agreed by science" vs. "accepted among many scientists".204.92.65.10 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ per jac16888. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 12:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the change requested would improve the precision of the article without any negative impact. Why not do it?174.91.146.116 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The edit request can only be used to make edits which have consensus or an assumed consensus. It can't be used to make changes about which there is disagreement. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

lead sentence syntax
The current form fails to create a proper appositive and punctuate it correctly. I suggest changing from "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion,[1][2] the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism." to "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,[1][2] a parody religion also known as Pastafarianism." 66.75.247.17 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --HGK745 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012
Please edit the line that says "anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose" to say "anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution." because it would accurately reflect what he actually said. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000

Computerguytony (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That "Dr. Dino" link no longer goes to Hovind's challenge. Fortunately, talkorigins has kept the text of it, "in case of a later change in URL". It appears that the present wording accurately reflects the sense of Hovind's offer. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done The challenge is included in the current citation. I think the request is fair, based on that source. I removed the parenthetical and instead linked to the article on Empirical research, though. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I read your source, Just plain Bill, and even if it were reliable, the offer wouldn't summarize that way. The rant about the offer has some hyperbole whic comes close, but he also says what the offer was. Please revert your change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read what Hovind has to say in Appendix 1, particularly where he says, "How to collect the $250,000:" you will see "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."
 * Also in Hovind's own words, you will see that he conflates cosmology, abiogenesis, descent with modification, and speciation into a rubric which he calls "evolution," which has little to do with the current scientific understanding of evolution.
 * You seem to imply that the TalkOrigins archive is an unreliable source. Do you mean that they have falsified the text of Hovind's statement? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." is different than ""anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose." The difference is that one is the condition Hovind set down and the other is a hyperbolic conclusion. (Is it even a conclusion from the source, or is it your conclusion? I didn't see it in there, but I admit I didn't read too closely after I got the tone of the post.)
 * Yes, I'd say that http://www.talkorigins.org is an unreliable source for facts. It is an archive of an old usenet group, so the contents are equivalent to a chat board.
 * Please revert your change while we discuss this. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording 'prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose' stood for over five years until your recent change. The part in quotes, "is the only possible way", comes directly from Hovind's own text. (Since you seem to mistrust TalkOrigins, I've linked to an independent copy at Reflections Magazine of the Candlelight Christian Fellowship. It is available at many other sites as well.) The rest of that wording is a fair paraphrase of Hovind's challenge.


 * The "tone" of the Pieret piece has something to do with Hovind's idiosyncratic definition of "evolution" to include all of the following:
 * 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
 * 2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
 * 3. Matter created life by itself.
 * 4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
 * 5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
 * Those are Hovind's own words, and form the basis for "the Universe and life arose" wording in this article. Compared to a Boing Boing article, Hovind himself is a better source for what he said. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that the hyperbole is your own conclusion? Each detail is sourced, but the "conclusion" is not something which Havind or anyone else reached, it is your own interpretation of those unrelated details? That isn't the way we do things. The content needs to match the conclusons reached in the source. And if you have a source which is clearly mocking the original author, you can't say the original author said XYZ if only the critic said XYZ. You could only say "so and so, a critic of the author, characterized the offer as XYZ." But if I understand you correctly, you should be saying "Blah de blah, a Wikipedia editor, interpreted the author's offer as XYZ, based on the details mocked by a critic."
 * Considering the context in our article, I don't see why you want to reach past a neutral expression of the offer. It is just being used to explain the background of the whimsical offer. The change requested in the SPER is a neutral expression of the offer. Expanding it to include a comment about how somebody interprets the offer which was the basis of the whimsical offer seems like giving undue weight to that interpretation. While Havind is easily mocked, he is not asking for proof that everything is caused by evolution, he is asking for empirical (observed) proof of some detail of evolution. His challenge has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, it just makes the point that no one has observed the process of evolution. It is like asking for empirical proof of the Big Bang!
 * What's it going to take to get you to back out the revert? Two editors, the requester and myself, feel that the change was an improvement to the article. You feel otherwise. Shall we take it to one of the boards to get a broader opinion? Celestra (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've limited the cite to the text of Hovind's offer itself. If you actually read it, you can see that he is indeed asking for proof of everything being caused by evolution, where "evolution" is defined in his own terms. I wouldn't characterize his offer as "whimsical." It may be deluded, disingenuous, or both. At any rate, it is now moot, since it is unlikely that he has a quarter of a million dollars available.
 * Consensus is not a vote. The one who made the request has made one single Wikipedia edit. You admit that you hadn't read the source that closely. No doubt there are others watching this, who have not felt the need to comment. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read Hovind's offer. I couldn't say that I feel the requested change was a more neutral expression if I hadn't. What I skimmed over was the rant in the talkorigins "source". You haven't responded directly to my question about whether the current text is from the rant or is your interpretation, but I guess the implication is clear.
 * The whimsical offer to which I was referring was Boing Boing's offer. That belongs in this article, as does some explanation of the original offer which he was satiring. What doesn't belong in the article is some Wikipedia editor's interpretation about Havind's offer.
 * No one claimed consensus was a vote. Neither is it related to how long the interested editors have been involved in improving Wikipedia. I was pointing out that no consensus exists for the content we are discussing and asking you what path you feel would help in reaching a consensus.
 * I'm at work now, but I'll take it over to the OR or NPOV board this evening. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't put that wording there, but I see it as a straightforward reading of Hovind's challenge. It stood that way in the article for years, implying a degree of consensus. We do not have consensus for the requested change that you made. Saying that Hovind "promised $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution", without explaining his non-standard definition of evolution, does a disservice to readers of this article. This article is not the place for a long-winded explication of Hovind's idiosyncratic views on evolution; a simple accurate synopsis of the challenge, such as what now stands, is enough.
 * A newcomer requested a change to some long-standing wording in a protected article; a helpful editor made the change without much discussion, and the change got reverted. Now the onus to gather consensus for that change is on the ones that want it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We agree that the "article is not the place for a long-winded explication of Hovind's idiosyncratic views on evolution." That would be a problem with WP:UNDUE. We simply disagree on whether the current text is a neutral summation of the source. It seems to me that it is neither neutral nor a conclusion reached in any of the sources. You appear to be arguing "if you take all the details in his offer, the only way to satisfy the offer is to prove...", but that is not for us as editors to conclude. We can only have a source which says something and summarize what the source says for the article. Clearly, you have some strong opinions in this area and rather than continue going back and forth, I'll just take the source and the current text over to WP:ORN and get some other opinions. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put in my two bits there. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we didn't get any feedback at WP:NORN, I copies it over to WP:NPOVN, with your two bits. Regards, Celestra (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your posting at the OR notice board has now been archived after two weeks without response. No response at the NPOV board for a week now. The requesting editor appears to be a quintessential SPA with a single edit, and has not reappeared to join this discussion. I call that "drive-by concern trolling," not worth all this discussion. I believe there are plenty of eyes on this page, as well as on those two noticeboards, and if there were any support for the requested change, it would have appeared by now. See WP:Forum shopping.
 * Since the recent entry at the third-opinion board points here, it will be useful to include a link to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10. I believe that in this case an archived talk.origins FAQ page is a reliable source providing useful, notable criticism of Hovind's "challenge." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

From looking at the edit request above and the challenge in question, it seems the current wording is not quite accurate. A few of the important words are being left out. Specifically the challenge calls for "empirical evidence" that proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that evolution is the only possible explanation. Leaving out those words makes it seem like the challenge was asking for absolute proof in any form, which does not appear to reflect what was actually being sought. Still the edit request above seems to make the challenge seem less demanding in contrast as it leaves out the words "only possible way" that are clearly an important aspect. I think a combination of the old wording and the requested wording would more appropriately represent the nature of the challenge.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd be fine with strengthening the requested text, my key concern is the Douglas Adams interpretation of the scope of the thing which must be proven. Hovind says "evolution", then disqualifies what he calls "micro-evolution", and enumerates five "major events", the last of which is evoluton from one class of animal to another. In the section on how to collect, he refers to "the observed phenomena", he doesn't say all observed phenomena. "All" one would need to do to collect is to gather empirical (observed) evidence of a reptile evolving into a bird. That is clearly outrageous, but less than "life, the universe and everything." Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the requested edit would have made the challenge seem less demanding. Still, the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes from US criminal jurisprudence and is ridiculously out of place in scientific discourse. Celestra's amusing HHGTG allusion notwithstanding, "life, the universe, and everything" is not what this article says. In the relevant words of young-Earth creationist, former theme park operator, and convicted tax cheat Kent Hovind, incarcerated in Federal custody since 2007, a man who is willing to lie, who has been caught lying, when it serves his purpose, although this article treats him far more gently than that:

How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.
 * Option 3:

3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
 * The "observed phenomena":

1. A highly ordered universe exists. 2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms. 3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
 * All of those must presumably be explained, since Hovind doesn't say "some of the observed phenomena." This horse was dead a while ago. If you would like to suggest different wording, that falls outside the scope of the edit request, and should have a fresh discussion started. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your misinterpretation of forum shopping above. Forum shopping is taking a question to different venues because you dislike the answer, not taking questions to different venues because there was no answer. And now you mischaracterise the question as being about the edit request when we have been discussing the fact that the existing text is not supported by the source since my first responce to you on March 14th. The edit request was reasonable, in large part because the current text goes way past anything that is said and instead pieces together the most extreme, unrelated portions of the rambling discourse into a "neutral summary." It is amazing to me that anyone would defend that level of bias! I will be following the dispute resolution process until we correct this text. Regards, 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You do make one good point, though, the back and forth we have had since you reverted the edit request change has the same effect of discouraging input by others that you "two-cents" did on the noticeboards. I'm going to start a new discussion below in which you and I can agree to the nature of the problem, which we will then resubmit to the notice boards or use for an RFC here. Celestra (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2012
"In July 2011, an Austrian atheist, Niko Alm"

He's not an atheist if he is a Pastafarian!

204.4.131.140 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you consider that maybe he is just a cultural pastafarian? That is not incompatable with atheism. Also FSM isn't really a god, more of a magic monster really. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 14:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add that the sources we cite identify him as an atheist, and we don't second guess the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to agree on wording of the disagreement to present to others
Just_plain_bill, we need to agree on a simple statement of the problem which we can present to others in order to get their input. Let's start with the wording I used when I took our problem to the noticeboards, which I felt was fairly neutral, with some changes to improve further on that neutrality:


 * We have a disagreement over whether the text currently in the article is a neutral summation of the source or a non-neutral bit of original research. Neither of us are the original author of the content nor did either of us initiate the process of changing the text. I was brought in by a SPER which seemed reasoanble and the other editor is defending what he consideres to be a neutral status quo.
 * The current text reads:


 * It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose.


 * and the request was to change the latter part to:


 * ...anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution.


 * Three sources have been brought into the discussion:
 * http://boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing-boings-250000.html, which was there originally,
 * http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html which is a rant by some critic of Hovind, and
 * http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html#appendix1 which appears to be the original offer Hovind made.
 * http://www.candlelightfellowship.org/Reflections+%20Creation+%20250,000%20offer.htm might be an easier read of the same content.


 * The sources have some RS issues as well, but that's moot since they don't summarize the offer in that way. :Hovind rambles a lot, but the part which seems the most meaninful is:


 * How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.


 * The offer is clearly disengenuous - there is no way to supply 'empirical' evidence of something which occurs on such a large time scale. (Hovind specifically disqualifies small variations.)


 * At this point, the other editor pulls in an earlier, and what I think is an unrelated, section titled "Observed phenomena".


 * As far as I can tell, the current text is a conclusion the original editor reached about Hovind's offer. Please read the sources and see if you feel the content is neutral or biased and OR or not.

Please sugegst how you would present our disagreement, then we can work on an agreeable summary. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I watchlist this page, but have stayed out of this discussion, because the discussion appears to me to be very lengthy and about something that is not really the main subject of this page (not that we shouldn't get it right!). My suggestion: each of you should put your preferred wording for that part of the page here in talk, and – succinctly! – explain why you consider it a better representation of the source material. And please keep WP:TLDR in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tempest in a teapot indeed. In my opinion, the text in the article is fine as it now stands:

...promised $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is     the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose.
 * It is an accurate compact summary of Hovind's "challenge."


 * Hovind's offer is not that long nor difficult to read. He lays out three "observed phenomena":

1. A highly ordered universe exists. 2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms. 3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
 * He then provides some "options" regarding "choices of how the observed phenomena came into being":

1. The universe was created by God. 2. The universe always existed. 3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
 * He then explains "How to collect the $250,000:"

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.
 * The part about "observed phenomena" is not an "earlier, ... unrelated, section" but is plainly Hovind's definition of what must be proven to be the result of (his own non-standard version of) "evolution."


 * The requested change amounts to Hovind's misrepresentation of his own challenge. There is no reason for Wikipedia to give it any weight. The rest of what I have to say is up there for your perusal. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tryptofish: Thanks for the suggestion, but my key concern is removing the current text which I see as biased and not supported by the sources. I find that sort of obvious hyperbole to be a sign that the author is unable to present both sides fairly, which leaves the reader with a poor impression of the article and Wikipedia in general. I think most of our readers are smart enough to understand how meaningless Hovind's offer is without our resorting to describing it, in his voice, in such a ridiculous way. Especially when the description is just part of an explanantion of the similar offer about Jesus and FSM. As far as I'm concerned, we would be better off with nothing after Hovind's name than with the current content. Regards, Celestra (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Just plain Bill: If you consider this to be too minor an issue, revert your change and we can end the discussion.:) We disagree about whether Hovind was referring to the section above when he laid out what was required to claim the prize. The fact that that is open to interpretation is why we need a source which draws that conclusion to avoid OR. We could argue a bit about why it is or isn't obvious, but after all we have already discussed and your previous vitriol, I don't hold much hope for either of us convincing the other. Do you want to try to agree on a succinct expression of the disagreemnt, or not? Celestra (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We won't convince each other. It is up to the (silent til now) onlookers. Here is my take on it, which you, Celestra, have seen before:
 * A newcomer requested a change to some long-standing wording in a protected article.
 * A helpful editor made the requested change without much discussion.
 * The change got reverted.
 * Now the onus to gather consensus for that change is on the ones that want it.
 * __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you both. (As for a tempest in a teapot, might that be a Russell's teapot, perhaps? Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.) Anyway, here is my (fourth?) opinion, following after the 3O that came before.

The text in dispute is the last sentence of the second paragraph in the "Other developments" section of the page. There are three proposed versions of that sentence:
 * 1) "It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution." (put on the page by Celestra, in response to an edit request)
 * 2) "It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose." (the version now on the page, reflecting Just plain Bill's reversion)
 * 3) "It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind." (suggested by Celestra as a compromise, above)

A problem I see with #1 is that it implies the award would be given for "any" evidence, now matter how slight, which I think is inaccurate. Whether #2 is accurate or not strikes me as an argument not worth having on a page that isn't even about Hovind, only mentioning him as background to the Boing Boing challenge, which is, itself, a minor part of this page. I propose something that gives a bit more detail than #3:


 * "It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, a critic of evolution."

Would we be satisfied with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your intent and your effort to find a compromise. I do not believe a compromise is appropriate here. The editor who requested the change appears to be a drive-by concern troll, and has not come back to join the discussion. Celestra appears to have a bias towards creationism, saying, "there is no way to supply 'empirical' evidence of something which occurs on such a large time scale." That betrays a misunderstanding of the empirical method, which does not require a direct observer to be present for the entire duration of a process. (Creationist apologists are fond of asking, "were you there?" when shown the evidence, the massive voluminous overwhelming evidence, for life's evolution over unimaginable stretches of deep geological time.)


 * The Boing Boing challenge may be a minor footnote to Pastafarianism, but it seems to have been weighed and found notable enough for passing mention here. Reducing mention of Hovind's offer to "a similar challenge" gives the reader much less context than the existing text does. That text stood for at least five years in its present form. It is not hyperbolic as Celestra claims. It is sourced, and should remain so. It makes no sense to water it down to appease creationist sensibilities. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the problem with extremists: if you don't agree with them, you must be an extremist of the opposite flavor. I am 'not' a creationist. I believe in the Big Bang, spontaneous creation of life from the "primordial ooze" and evolution. I say that I "believe" in those things because I'm aware that other possible explanations exist and, barring the invention of a time machine, we will never know for sure. One cannot "prove" what occured in the past; one can only look at what one knows and find theories which fit the evidence. I don't know which is worse for science, people like Hovind who promote a legitimate lack of certainty into a falsehood, or pseudo-scientific zealots who deny the lack of certainty and embrace dogma. The evidence we have which supports evolution is abundant, but it is not empirical evidence.
 * @Tryptofish: "Young-Earth creationist" and "critic of evolution" seems redundant. How about:
 * "It was modeled after a similarly unattainable, and meaningless, challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind."
 * I think that would be supported by the rant on talkorigins.org, or we could try to find a better source at the same time. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill: as a disinterested and somewhat irritated observer, I have to say that Celestra is making a more sympathetic argument than you are. That said, I think the stuff about meaningless etc. will set off other arguments. How about:
 * "It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can provide what he considers to be empirical evidence for evolution." It differs from #1 above in deleting the word "any" and in acknowledging Bill's concerns about the misrepresentation of empiricism.

Celestra, does that seem fair to you? Bill, does that satisfy your concerns that we not water it down? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that, although I think "unattainable, and meaningless" gets the point across better. Could we merge them?
 * "It was modeled after a similarly unattainable, and meaningless, challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who offered a prize to anyone who can provide empirical evidence for evolution, as he defines it."
 * I think it is important that we get across both the fact that the offer is unattainable and that the fact that it is unattainable is meaningless. Unattainable is directly suppported by the rant and meaningless is easy to support. Celestra (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can be persuaded that Celestra was boldly acting in good faith, and not trying to whitewash this article in aid of a creationist agenda. To satisfy my concern, we could go with something like:
 * "It was modeled after a similarly unattainable, meaningless challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can provide what he considers to be empirical evidence for time, space and matter coming into existence, the formation of planets and stars, the formation of life capable of reproducing itself, and major changes leading to the present diversity of life forms."


 * The last bit is a pretty direct paraphrase of Hovind's "general theory of evolution", but it could be overly bulky. How about this, instead:
 * "It was modeled after a similarly unattainable, meaningless challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can provide what he considers to be empirical evidence to prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose."
 * I could accept either one of those, or something along those lines. "Unattainable and meaningless" may be over the top, and could attract further arguments; I'm not hugely attached to them. Your thoughts? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Overthinking this, but here is another one:
 * "It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can provide what he considers to be empirical evidence to prove that Godless evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose."
 * The "Godless" is supportable with Hovind's text, is key to understanding his challenge, and helps relate it to the subject of this article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are entirely missing the point. You and I disagree on whether that is a fair, neutral interpretation of the source. There is no way that expanding your interpretation three different ways is a move toward compromise. I'm still fine with Tryptofish's version, or with either of my "unattainable, and meaningless" variations, but you're moving the opposite direction, making it more objectionable. Celestra (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not missing the point. My concerns are not so much with the misrepresentation of empiricism, but with Hovind's misrepresentation of the definition of "evolution" (moving the goalposts) which is plainly exposed in his text. What else do you think he means by "observable phenomena" "observed phenomena", other than the short list labeled with those exact words? Can you deny that "any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*" points at a footnote calling evolution everything from the formation of "time, space and matter" to "diverse life forms"? Your objection seems rooted in an unwillingness or inability to read and understand Hovind's offer, which only amounts to about seven hundred words. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restating, yet again, your interpretation. And let me, yet again, share that I find your interpretaion to be hopelessly biased and obviously hyperbolic. What else do I think he means by "observed phenomena"? Well, let's see, I think he means observed phenomena. I do not deny that there is a footnote, but what I read is a clarification of what Hovind means when he says evolution. He has an odd way of defining evolution, but what do you expect from a person who believes everything is only a few thousand years old?
 * I understand your interpretation of Hovind's offer, but I disagree with it; I think it goes past the objectively valid points and into the realm of strawmen and hyperbole. Do you understand that different people can interpret things differently? Do you really think that you know some basic truth about that rambling document which everyone must agree with or be damned? This sounds like WP:TRUTH and it is no more reasonable than a bunch of people thinking the world is only several thousand years old because the bible lists that many begats.
 * We're not going to agree with one another about the interpretation, so let's agree on content for this article which does not include either interpretation, or which attributes the interpretation to someone other than Wikipedia. Considering how tangential this is to this article, I think it should be shorter than it is now since it already borders on WP:UNDUE. - Celestra (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to throw terms around like "straw man" and "hyperbole," it makes sense to back them up with more than just your say-so. We have sourcing for casting the odd definition of evolution as moving the goalposts. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read through what both of you have written, with my earlier comment about tl;dr in my mind. I've decided I'm going to make what I consider to be a fair revision to the sentence, and that's the limit of my patience with this discussion. If you are still dissatisfied, please feel free to seek advice from other editors, but my sincere advice to both of you would be to simply let it go and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This ain't consensus, and your "fair revision" does not account for Hovind's misrepresentation of the definition of "evolution", which the previous long-standing version did, without wasting words on it.
 * That sound you hear is the scraping of goal posts being moved. ...in the United States today, in light of at least three-quarters of a century of conflict over the issue, "evolution" is almost universally understood, even among Hovind's own flock, it would be fair to say, to refer to "biological evolution"
 * Too bad you're impatient with this; that doesn't usually lead to well-considered decisions. What we've just seen is a micro-example of the Overton window being moved. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. As I said, please feel free to ask for advice from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a few sourced words pointing out the odd definition. Are we done with this nonsense yet? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Onwards...
@Tryptofish, I'm fine with your wording. I would prefer fewer words, but it just isn't worth the effort. Thanks for getting involved, Celestra (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I've been watching and editing this page a long time, and will continue to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Splendid. The more eyes on the article, the better. Without adding bulk, I've changed it to reflect the view that Hovind was trying to fashion an entirely new and idiosyncratic definition that links vastly dissimilar processes under a single rubric. It makes sense to describe what prompted the parody in the first place. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The current version does not actually "reflect the view". Instead it presents the "idiosyncratic" editorial opinion as an established fact written in Wikipedia's voice. Special care should be taken when splitting up a direct quote and inserting descriptive text in the middle of the split quotation. The descriptive text needs to uncontroversial and must be sourced if there is significant chance of the reader not agreeing - even if the only non-agreeing readers are creationists. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "idiosyncratic" comes from John Pieret's critique of Hovind's offer, published at the TalkOrigins Archive. How about:
 * ... promised $250,000 to anyone who can provide "any empirical evidence" for his idiosyncratic "general theory of evolution".


 * We may not need the second ref there, since it is Hovind's own text in an appendix to the first reference. If that still seems too burdensome or controversial, we could drop the "idiosyncratic" and let Hovind's words speak for themselves. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Even with a ref, "...for his idiosyncratic..." is still putting it in Wikipedia's voice. It would have to be "...for what John Pieret calls his idiosyncratic..." and of course John Pieret would have to meet the criteria for being a reliable source. I am with Just plain Bill on this one; we should give a full quote with no editorialzing and let Hovind's words speak for themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pieret is the editor of the TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project, and is cited regarding Hovind's "general theory of evolution" in Wikipedia's article on Kent Hovind. He is also cited prominently in articles on the Fallacy of quoting out of context, the Creation-evolution controversy, and its history. IMO that strengthens the case for him being a relevant reliable source for this page. Naturally I don't own this article, but I would prefer to see the editorializing stay. Removing it to help forestall further dispute strikes me as giving undue weight to fringe theories. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon is correct. Really, I don't think that there is any danger that anyone reading this page is going think that we are presenting it in a manner that is biased in favor of young-earth creationists. There simply isn't a need to make this passage a flashing neon light alerting the reader to the controversial nature of Hovind's position. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but can we put it back to: Those are Hovind's own words, directly supportable by his own text. The specifics don't take up any more space than the more general, less informative "his interpretation of..."
 * ... promised $250,000 to anyone who can provide "any empirical evidence" for his "general theory of evolution".

No need for strobe lights, but no need to sweep it under the rug, either. Isn't Hovind's controversial position what prompted the Boing Boing challenge? ___ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that it's best to avoid what will look like scare quotes (even if they are verbatim quotes), and that readers unfamiliar with the topic will understand that "his interpretation" means that it differs from the scientific consensus, whereas they won't really understand what is meant by "general" unless they delve into the source material. One could think something like: oh, this Hovind guy is the author of a general theory that reconciles all the ideas about evolution – or something like that, and actually be misled. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I suppose. The general reader cannot be expected to see it as Hovind's grandiose attempt to sound all sciencey, with a grand unified theory of everything, which is what it amounts to. (I know what scare quotes are (a.k.a. dick quotes in some online venues) and I agree that this could look like an example of them, even though it isn't. I like it when different possible readings of ambiguous text reinforce each other.)
 * Whew. It's been almost a month. I hope we can all walk away from this in good conscience now. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your saying that, very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The new wording...

"It was modeled as a parody of a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can provide 'any empirical evidence' for his interpretation of the theory of evolution."

...nicely avoids the prior editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. I still see two problems with it.

First, it is ambiguous. it could be read as him demanding evidence to support his view on evolution, ( Kent Hovind ), rather than his interpretation of his opponent's views.

The second problem is that it is still editorializing, just not in Wikipedia's voice. In the paragraph above above it, we document Boing Boing's challenge without adding an explanation that the challenge involves Boing Boing's interpretation of who Jesus is. We don't have to point out that Boing Boing's interpretation of who Jesus is probably differs from a fundamentalist Christian's view, and likewise we don't have to point out that a young-earth creationist's interpretation of evolution differs from a scientist's view. We can solve both of these problems by simply reporting verbatim and in context what Kent Hovind wrote:

"It was modeled as a parody of a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who wrote 'I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.' "

I see no justification for not simply quoting Hovind and letting his words speak for themselves. It isn't our place to guide the reader into a particular opinion about what Hovind wrote. We need to simply report what he wrote and report that it was what the Boing Boing challenge was modeled after.

We could, however, make the phrase "standing offer of $250,000" be a link to  Kent Hovind so that the interested reader can easily find out more about the offer. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No dispute that what you suggest are his own words. Picked out from the context of the challenge, they misrepresent what Hovind was really demanding. How about this, which avoids choosing some of his words but not others:
 * It was modeled as a parody of a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind.
 * It would be interesting, but over the top, to point out that both challenges mentioned in that paragraph require proof of a negative. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, just when we thought we were done with this! How about simply linking "similar challenge" in that way, within the sentence we currently have? (I didn't even realize that we had such a description to link to.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Compressing an honest supportable description of the offer into a succinct form suitable for this article is liable to result in something vague, awkward, and suboptimal, resembling a race horse designed by a committee. Better to chop it entirely, IMO. Linking "similar challenge" sends the interested reader to a more complete explanation. With the other links in that minimal sentence and the existing cites, I think that is enough. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "similar challenge" link is really good. I say go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll do that now already done! . And I hope that this will close this issue for the time being, and that we can all now move on, and feel satisfied about it. Happy editing, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)