Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Touched by His Noodly Appendage

Touched by His Noodly Appendage
Iconic image illustrating the FSM. Well drawn, making the appearance of the FSM look as if it were part of the original painting, down to the style of art and the cracks running along the image. Also uses the Sistine Chapel ceiling to great effect. This drawing has become the "typical depiction" and has achieved an iconic status among those who recognise it.

This image also adds value to Parody religion, as it illustrates perhaps the most recognised such (supposed) religion.

This image uses the Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat copyright tag, with the provision that "a link to Bobby Henderson's site remains". This tag appears in WP's list of Free licenses and the provisions are no more onerous than CC-attribution. For this reason, I don't think there is a copyright issue preventing FP-hood.


 * Nominate and support. - Billpg 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom Seano1 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - would be nice to see some humor on the main page as well. Debivort 02:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - granted that it is uniquely appropriate in one or more articles, I can't support an FPC that gets its merit from being a very young political "meme". Beyond the meme, what is this picture, really? – Outriggr § 04:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Lol!Nnfolz 04:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I must admit the whole thing is quite amusing, but not yet of Historical significance -Glaurung 05:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, historical significance is not a requirement of an FP, and historical novelty is not a disqualifier. Debivort 06:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support though quite unique and different from the below and above, that's why I support. —Jared Hunt September 14, 2006, 08:32 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an image that was so puzzling and bizarre that I couldn't help but read the article. If that isn't the purpose of FPs, then I don't know what is. ;) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Quite a unique image, and surprisingly free! ♠ SG →Talk 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Diliff. I'll always support a good cause... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem significant, nor is it striking. PPGMD 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not sure it illustrates the subject of Parody religion clearly, or any subject for that matter. I am familiar with the image, but I don't think it has the historical importance that would offset the difficulty in determiining it's meaning(yet). HighInBC 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again does an image need to have any historical importance at all? It illustrates Parody religion as a representative of it. For example, national flags illustrate their nations by association and definition, rather than by content. Notice also that the nominator stressed its technical quality as an image, and pertinance to the article, rather than anything having to do with historical value. No one is judging Angel of the North based on its historical value, or "what the sculpture is supposed to mean;" the image is being judged on its photographic merits primarily. Debivort 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I made it clear when I said any historical importance would offset the fact that it's meaning is not apparent to the casual viewer. It would also establish notability. As an image alone it does not pass, historical importance would have offset that. I only mention it becuase it has the potential to have historical importance. Dig? HighInBC 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Although I'm not convinced that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is significant enough to warrant a featured picture, it's a great image -- well executed, funny, and illustrates Flying Spaghetti Monsterism well.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Is this meant to be a mockery of Michelangelo? Also, is nudity allowed on the main page? AndonicO 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a mockery. And yes, nudity is allowed on the main page. Nauticashades 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Diliff and Howcheng. I don't see why everyone is complaining about Historical Significance, as this is not a must for Featured Pictures. Nauticashades 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments: Re: "Is this meant to be a mockery of Michelangelo?" No, it's meant to mock religious belief. Re: Nudity -- Wikipedia is not censored.  Re: "Iconic status amongst those who recognize it" -- Anything that requires "amongst those who recognize it" as a qualifier has not achieved iconic status.  An icon is an icon because even those uninterested or without much knowledge of a given topic recognize it.  Santa Claus, Albert Einstein, the golden arches, the Mona Lisa -- all iconic.  "Touched by his noodly appendage" -- not iconic. -- Moondigger 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Creation of Adam is a Christian icon. A parody of The Creation of Adam illustrates religion parody in a general context. Seano1 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Outriggr. Also, it seems to me that an image designed to mock atheism or agnosticism wouldn't even be nominated, no matter how fine it might be from a technical perspective. Featuring this picture would (I think) make it the only FP that violates WP:NPOV.  Comments above about "supporting a good cause" support that contention -- "causes" are not the business of an encyclopedia. -- Moondigger 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I disagree with some of those points. I don't think Janke necessarily meant that he was supporting the mocking of religion, I believe he was supporting a picture that raised curiosity of the article and encouraged further reading. Also, I don't think it violates NPOV - it is just representative of an idea that is not NPOV - there is a big difference. Otherwise it would be violating NPOV to feature an article about ANY topic that is controversial in any way, such as the Holocaust, or Palestine. As long as the article is factual, cited and NPOV, it would be censorship not to feature a technically worthy picture (as judged by peers) that represents that article. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. I think that featuring this image would be a violation of NPOV.  That wasn't clear in the way I worded my previous comment. As per Janke's comment -- I think it's pretty obvious what he was referring to -- not necessarily the mockery of religion, but support for the cause of promoting atheism or agnosticism.  (I should say here that I am not personally offended by this image or anybody's comments.)  Also, the difference between a featured article about a controversial topic and featuring this image is that featured articles are carefully edited to achieve NPOV -- this image isn't.  It clearly takes sides in a controversial topic.  Featuring it would result in a non-NPOV featured picture. -- Moondigger 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder how reasonable it is to expect that images be NPOV. If we look through the collection of FPs we might conclude that sunsets are pretty, the Warsaw Ghetto was oppressive, Hell is an unpleasant place, suburbs are monotonous, slums are tragic, or President Grant was very stately. Strictly speaking all of these are not neutral POV conclusions. If a picture illustrates a topic that is potentially non-NPOV, it is unreasonable to insist that the picture not convey a POV. Furthermore, if you would insist that FPs be NPOV, would you also insist that non-featured pictures be NPOV (as it is a general wikipedia requirement)? Should we flag this image for deletion because it is not NPOV? Debivort 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasoning. The vast majority of neutral observers have concluded that the pictured Warsaw ghetto was oppressive -- it's not like there's a significant contingent of people claiming that conditions there were happy and pleasant. The hell described in Dante's Inferno is unpleasant -- that's a fact and is undisputed. Where is the controversy in any of your examples?  This nominated image takes sides in a fierce debate about religious belief.  Where's the controversy in the sunset, suburb, or Grant images?  None of those images mocks a controversial belief.  With the examples you gave, it is possible for a given person to interpret them in a non-neutral way.  With the Flying Spaghetti Monster image, there is no way to interpret it any other way -- it is clearly and unambiguously non-NPOV.
 * To answer your other questions, no -- I do not believe individual images necessarily have to be NPOV, as they serve the purpose of documenting a given topic. But as I explained previously, elevating such an image to featured picture status serves the purpose of promoting one side of a controversial topic.  It would be "supporting the cause" as Janke so accurately pointed out. I would be equally opposed to the promotion of an image mocking athiest beliefs. -- Moondigger 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding Moondigger's statement that "it seems to me that an image designed to mock atheism or agnosticism wouldn't even be nominated." I would draw his or her attention to the Christus Ravenna Mosaic nomination which presented a positive icon of christianity, and therefore, indirectly, an anti-atheism (and anti-judeism, anti-islam ...) image. Please note that all of the supports, opposes, and comments are justified with comments about the image, rather than its content. Debivort 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, that image doesn't mock athiest beliefs. It documents a work of art.  That the subject is a Christian icon is irrelevant -- the image doesn't make a statement about belief (or a lack of belief) in the Christian god.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster mocks Christian belief, and its promotion to FP status would be an endorsement of one side in a controversial debate. -- Moondigger 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my, how my little tongue-in-cheek comment - did anybody notice the ;-) ? - generated a heated discussion! IMHO, it is definitely FP-worthy: a great spoof of classic art (religious connotations aside), well executed, eye-catching, and, as Diliff said, it definitely makes you want to read the article. That's enough FP criteria for me - I think the NPOV discussion is rather moot, since we're talking parody here - hey, the Wikipedia front page needs some humor, too! --Janke | Talk 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a FP that was a parody of a controversial belief? The "oh, don't let it bother you... it's only parody" or "we need more humor" explanation doesn't negate the fact that the image mocks religious belief.  Imagine a picture that depicts athiests as goofy-looking blind apes worshipping Charles Darwin's gravestone.  No matter how technically excellent the image might be, and how funny/humorous religious people might find it, there's no way in Wikidom it would ever become a featured picture.
 * Again, I don't have a personal issue here... I believe evolution is valid and backed by overwhelming evidence, oppose creationism, and am appalled at the Kansas Board of Education decision that sparked this whole meme. But that doesn't mean that a photo mocking the personal beliefs of all Christians and most religious people should be a featured picture. -- Moondigger 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All I would like is that the image be evaluated based on the explicit FP criteria. And as far as I can tell ... illustrating a POV topic with an image that illustrates that topic in a neutral way is fine, and has been done before. The topic being illustrated here is not "Christianity versus Athiesm" (if it were, the image would certainly not be NPOV). The topic is "Parody Religions" which it does illustrate objectively. I feel like your objection would have been analogous to opposing the Warsaw Ghetto image because it "negatively portrays German people"; If it had been nominated as illustrating an article on "German People" it would have implied a POV, as an illustration of the Warsaw Ghetto, it was NPOV. Debivort 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see your point of view on this, but still don't think the example applies. The Warsaw ghetto image's purpose isn't to mock German people; the primary purpose of Bobby Henderson's FSM was to mock belief in the Christian god as a protest against the Kansas Board of Education's decision to teach evolution in science classes.  (Side note: his aim's a bit off, IMO -- I think he had a better shot at changing minds if he attacked the idea of teaching non-science topics in science classes, rather than attacking the core religious belief of the vast majority of Kansas residents.)
 * PS - I'd like to add that I think your hesitance is completely reasonable, and I'm only challenging it because I don't think follows from the FP criteria. Debivort 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that criterion #9 in the featured picture criteria says, Be neutral, An image should not put forward a particular agenda or point of view, but instead should illustrate the subject objectively. Specifically images of maps should be uncontroversial in their neutrality and factual accuracy" It doesn't make exceptions for views we may find agreeable, and it doesn't make exceptions just because it might be an accurate portrayal of a given side in a debate. Put this image into featured pictures visible or make it POTD on the front page and see how much more criticism Wikipedia garners in the press and from the Britannica folks.  Again, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to take sides in a debate. -- Moondigger 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're getting at here. (I've edited my comment above to include the entire text of criterion #9).  You're saying that because this is an illustration on the article Parody religion, and it objectively illustrates that topic, it's compatible with the NPOV rule.  I disagree, for a couple reasons.  First, because I fail to see how any image could ever fail criterion #9, if this is a valid counterargument.  A middle-eastern map that failed to show Israel would be a blatant violation of NPOV according to the quoted rule.  But wait!  This map that doesn't show Israel on it can still be a featured picture because it's being used to illustrate an article about the Palestinian political philosophy.  Wait! This image that depicts abortion doctors as serial killers can still be a featured picture because it's being used to illustrate an article about the beliefs of extreme Right-to-Lifers.  Make it POTD!  Wait!  This image that depicts some political figure in an obviously biased manner can still be a featured picture because it's being used to illustrate an article about Rush Limbaugh's or Michael Moore's beliefs.
 * (haha 10 asterisks!). With the rules as they stand, I would say yes, provisionally, to all of these possible examples. If this is so bothersome, then the rules should be clarified. A simple way to do this would be to say that the article the FP illustrates needs to be NPOV. That would eliminate all of these as legitimate nominations, as well as the FSM. Debivort 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to answer your question, in my view an image would fail criterion 9 if it inaccurately represented the article, i.e. Warsaw Ghetto to illustrate "German people" or frankenstein to illustrate "Abortion doctors." I really do think fixing the rule to say that the article linked by the image must not be about a POV, would adress your concerns, which in this case seem to be that the image would bring attention to the FSM articles. Debivort 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The second reason why I don't think it can work is because an image can be applied to any article now or in the future. You're saying it's 'kosher' as an FP because it's not being used in an article about Atheism vs. Theism.  But it could very easily be applied to such an article, now or the day after it becomes featured.  Do we delist it then?  My point is that when it comes to NPOV concerns, the article it's currently used in is irrelevant. If the image itself clearly takes a side in a controversial debate, then it's not a valid FP image. -- Moondigger 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is simple to address. When a POTD appears on the main page, it is linked to a primary article. That is the article it illustrates, and should illustrate without POV. Other links that come later could be treated the same way we already to with FPs. A picture (such as ) promoted because it illustrates pollination wouldn't be delisted as an FP if someone linked to it from an article on flower whorls, even though the image wouldn't have survived nomination if the latter was the only article it linked. Debivort 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Moondigger's comments. The ensuing discussion is why I emphasized the recency of the image and its theme in my objection. Other images that might imply a POV have at least passed a historical test. Again, I ask, beyond the FSM meme, what is this image? It doesn't stand on its own. Evaluating it on aesthetic criteria alone, an important component of the FPC criteria, I would have objected even faster. (I'm not saying it isn't executed well, because it is.) – Outriggr  § 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm backing out of the indentation frenzy... eleven asterisks just seems like too much. ;^)  Debivort, your latest posts boil down to changing the rule in such a way that NPOV images could be FPs as long as some outside agent -- namely, the article(s) they're used on -- are NPOV or objectively describe a given topic.  It just doesn't work for me. I'm back to the question I asked earlier: how could any image ever fail criterion #9, especially if it's changed to read as you suggest?  Consequently, what's the point of even having criterion #9 in the first place, if there isn't an image that could ever fail to meet the criterion?  NPOV is one of the four key policies of Wikipedia -- and as such, it shouldn't be tossed aside casually just because we're talking about an image instead of a block of text in an article, or just because many of us find this particular NPOV image important or amusing or compatible with our personal beliefs.  I find it hard to accept the idea that an image portraying the opposite POV (mocking Darwinists in a way that religious people might find amusing but would surely offend most Darwinists) could ever have a ghost of a chance of achieving FP status here.
 * See my comment 4 bullets above yours. Debivort 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since pictures are not chained to articles, and featured pictures are presented in several galleries all on their own, without an accompanying article, it just can't work. The article can be NPOV, but when somebody's browsing Featured Pictures Visible, they're going to see it standing alone.
 * Anyone active on the featured article page? How do they deal with articles about a POV written in a NPOV way? Debivort 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I've covered my opinions on this topic about as thoroughly as I can... we're to the point of repeating ourselves. Therefore I probably will not chime in again, unless some truly new aspect of the discussion arises.  I understand and appreciate your opinion on this, but I don't agree with your conclusion.  Thanks for reading and thinking about what I wrote -- that's not something a lot of people do in debates like these.  Cheers... -- Moondigger 04:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and think any conclusion would most likely follow from an infusion of outside perspective. In the mean time I think you should humor me and oppose because of "bad composition" and "blown highlights." Debivort 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think of it as that offending. It is just a joke, after all. If this image was nominated, I would support it (provided it met the other criteria, of course). Both images illustrate a point of view, but within a NPOV artcile. In my opinion, neither are offending. Nauticashades 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Agree with Moondigger. Not to mention the fact it's a horrible defamtion of a great painting. I mean what would Michelangelo think if he so this thing!! And what will people looking on the mainpage think of Wikipedia when this gets up for POTD! The shame! It will make Wikipedia look like a joke - and not a very good one either. I look at it and shudder. I mean it's tantamount to sticking Garfield into the mural on the sistine chapel! Enough said! --Fir0002 06:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nurse! Quick! we're losing him! I need a syringe with 50cc of A-Sense-Of-Humour NOW! Prepare the vein for immediate injection! (Suffice to say, I disagree with Fir0002's sentiments and think he needs to consider the context and the fact that it is a parody, and not intended solely to deface art.) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Diliff is right. By your logic, Fir0002, this painting is a shameful joke and horrible defamation, as opposed to an important ouevre of dadaist artist Marcel Duchamp.
 * Well I would describe that as a "shameful joke and horrible defamation" not to mention unimaginative and tasteless. I hope I can say that I have a good sense of humour, but there is a line, and that's just not funny. --Fir0002 08:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - good image quality. NPOV can't be applied to individual images. And if it was possible to agree on "objective point of view", it would be better than NPOV.  It is enough if pictures, like individual statements, are correctly attributed, and the description provides context, and relevant links. So the viewer may judge on his own. I won't oppose featuring the image that depicts abortion doctors as serial killers, if it was correctly attributed to Right-to-Lifers, and was good image/photograph. I also don't nominate  Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg for delisting, because it isn't just an 'objective' photo of a plane, but photo of the Air Force One from very patriotic point of view, literally. Created by US Air Force. Yes, it may hurt the feelings of some terrorist bubbling with anti-americanism... so? --Wikimol 09:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "NPOV can't be applied to individual images" - Then why have criterion #9 at all? Why specifically mention disputed borders on maps as an example?  By your reasoning, such maps could be featured despite being non-neutral simply by placing them in an article about a border dispute.  Images like this one, even if correctly attributed to an article, are not NPOV.  But then, I'm repeating myself.  It's all been covered previously. -- Moondigger 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "NPOV can't be applied to individual images" - Then why have criterion #9 at all? Why specifically mention disputed borders on maps as an example?  By your reasoning, such maps could be featured despite being non-neutral simply by placing them in an article about a border dispute.  Images like this one, even if correctly attributed to an article, are not NPOV.  But then, I'm repeating myself.  It's all been covered previously. -- Moondigger 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Bias against noodles! NegativeNed 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User only has votes on his or her user page, talk page, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. See Special:Contributions/NegativeNed. -- Tewy  23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I find the FSM hilarious I think it is too POV, just like the atomic bomb pic from the other week. "Featuring" items like these is just not a good idea. Maybe we should ask Mr.NPOV himself, User:Jimbo, to see what he thinks. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done on his talk page. Wonder if he'll chime in. Debivort 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ravedave and Moondigger. Although I can see both sides here, I too think it is POV. Featuring stuff like this would take us down a path that I don't think we want to follow. It's not that unique of an image anyways and I don't believe we need more controversy than we already have. --Nebular110 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't get it. Are people truly so out of it that they can not understand the difference between presenting a subject which is inherently pov in a factual and unbiased manner (not a problem) and an inherent pov of the author/presenter of such material (problem)?--Deglr6328 07:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Try reminding yourself of WP:CIVIL. Disagreement with your opinion does not make one "out of it." The answer to your question is that an image is not chained to an article -- it can be applied to any article now or in the future.  That necessitates consideration of the neutrality of an image taken on its own, divorced from any article it may be used in.  Otherwise it would be impossible for any image, including (for example) a map of the middle east lacking Israel, to fail criterion #9.  Featured pictures are presented in various galleries divorced from the articles that might put them in context, with a link to such articles that one might or might not follow.  All of this has been covered already (and in greater detail) in the long discussion above. -- Moondigger 14:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm unswayed.--Deglr6328 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  Weak Oppose. Too controversial and POV for featured pic. The image doesn't excite me in any way. I don't find the image either funny or offensive, just strange. Royalbroil 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed to full oppose based on criteria 7: I don't find it "pleasing to the eye", but instead I find it too dull and uninteresting to be a FP. The community can do better than this for a FP. Royalbroil 03:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Featured pictures should help to bring clarity. This image doesn't clarify the image.  Instead, you have to read the article to understand the image.  Also, since the copyright permission was given with the provision that "a link to Bobby Henderson's site remains" it feels like a commercial rather than a legitimate attempt to explain something. -- FloridaJosh 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Well, could you explain what "This image doesn't clarify the image" means? ;) Featured images contribute to an article, they don't 'clarify'. There are very few featured pictures that you can look at and immediately identify the location/species/whatever from the image alone, so I don't think you have the right idea about what a featured picture is. As for the provision, it sounds like normal attribution to me. A link to an external site isn't necessarily the norm, but I don't think it is explicitly disallowed, either. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that FloridaJosh made a typo on the second word "image" and Josh meant "article". Then Josh would be commenting on criteria #5: "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." Royalbroil 03:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for immediate viewer appeal. What a fabulous icon. Aye-Aye 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for technical quality and concept. mstroeck 23:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is the problem with featuring something controversial? Nobody would oppose the Darwin/Ape-carricature brought up earlier "because it wouldn't be popular with evolutionists". If you think your religion (or a dead white man who made pretty pictures, for that matter) must never be mocked, not even in a good-natured way, you just might deserve to be mocked for your somewhat childish beliefs ;-) mstroeck 23:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * However, I think we'd better not feature any Mohammad cartoons... --Janke | Talk 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The ones I've seen are pretty lacking in both execution and concept compared to this one. If there was one of comparable quality and somebody sumbitted it on its artistic merits, I would probably support it. mstroeck 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem here for me is not controversy. The problem is that this is a flavor-of-the-month subject that I'm sure will see a featured picture review within a year or two. Does this mean that everyone who does a cute Photoshop job can submit it for FPC? I think we should be thinking a little longer-term. I would be embarassed to see this on the front page, not because it's not well done, but because the featured page of an encyclopedia is not the right place for it. – Outriggr § 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support:This is devastatinly funny.And well made.--Pixel ;-) 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Well made image. Iorek85 05:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Diliff. BeSherman 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support particularly given the arguments made by Debivort in long discussion above with Moondigger. Dylan 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Moondigger.This is a terrible mockery of Michelangelo, but especially, of Christianity. Would the Mohammed Cartoons achieve FP status? Would a racist statement (not something of the past like the Nazis, but of the present) be publicly announced as, "The Best of Wikipedia"? Remember, Wikipedia is, "The free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". We should not be insulting "anyone" unless they have repented, (as the Germans, who will probably never commit genocide again). If the Christian Churches would accept the theory of evolution, then this could be featured. In the meantime, is Wikipedia meant to undermine others? Certainly not. Should this Image be featured, it would be a disgrace; it would have to be unfeatured before it is POTD. We are on the brink of becoming the most widly visited web-circus on the Internet! Another Uncyclopedia! Imagine that! | Luita 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "If the Christian Churches would accept the theory of evolution, then this could be featured." I'll point out here that the Roman Catholic church has already done so; Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is more than just a theory and that it is compatible with Catholic doctrine. (Catholic doctrine holds the story of creation as figurative -- 6 days of creation not actually being six 24-hour days, etc.)  My opposition is not based on any question of evolution vs. creationism.  My opposition is because this image is an obvious violation of featured picture criterion #9, in that it is non-neutral on a controversial topic -- belief in a deity. -- Moondigger 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no such thing as a neutral picture. Good pictures say something. When was the last time you heard someone say of a memorable picture, “That image shows all argument in an equal way.”? If we applied a strict NPV to all pictures, we would have to effectively disallow pictures about controversial topics. Your not going to find interesting pictures that tells all points of view. Seano1 23:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral does not mean "shows all points of view equally." This image fails criterion 9 for the same reason that a map of the middle east lacking Israel fails criterion 9 -- because it takes sides in a controversial debate, equating belief in Michelangelo's (Christian) God with belief in a flying monster made of spaghetti and meatballs.  Whether you think a belief in the Christian God is equivalent to belief in the FSM or not, you must admit that an image equating them cannot logically be considered "neutral."  None of the current featured pictures takes sides in such a debate, and even though some of them might depict certain subjects in a positive light, they do not actually denigrate opposing viewpoints.  If no picture can be considered more or less neutral than another, then what is the purpose of criterion 9?-- Moondigger 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't address this: "If we applied a strict NPV to all pictures, we would have to effectively disallow pictures about controversial topics." We don't apply strict NPV to all pictures.  We are actually pretty casual about it.  My point here is that this isn't subtly non-neutral.  It is a rather obvious/extreme example of non-NPV.  So images that might portray a given subject in a positive light might be slightly non-neutral, and we may let them slide because the topic they're slightly non-neutral about isn't particularly controversial.  Or perhaps we let slightly non-neutral images become FPs because even though they portray a given subject in a positive light, they don't actually mock or denigrate the opposing viewpoint.   This image mocks and denigrates theist belief.  That's not slightly or subtly non-neutral -- it's a blatant example that clearly and unambiguously violates the neutrality criterion.  If you can show me another FP that is so blatantly non-neutral, I'll concede the point. -- Moondigger 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this debate is proliferating again! Debivort 06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A failure on my part to resist rejoining the discussion. FWIW, I got back into it to point out the Catholic Church's statement on evolution after another poster implied that Christian churches don't support evolution. That's at least a new topic, but of course it reverted to the original discussion before long. -- Moondigger 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume we didn't get any feedback from the powers that be? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None that I am aware of. -- Moondigger 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yah. A not so helpful 4-paragraph thread on Jimbo's talk page, but nothing from him, or any other bigwigs I recognize. Debivort 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a non-neutral FP, just look at this one []. It is a picture of the Lindisfarne Gospels, a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, nothing less. It's interpretation and depiction of "homosexuality" have been a real debate, as illustrated in this article: []. PYMontpetit 19:15 20 september 2006 (UTC)
 * That image is nothing like the FSM image. The image itself simply documents how a particular book looks.  The image itself does not mock or denigrate opposing viewpoints.  The FSM image does.  It baffles me that people might genuinely not understand how these images differ.  More likely they recognize the difference but will not admit so. -- Moondigger 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The real problem here is not NPOV, it's systemic bias. There is no "debate" about evolution in any part of the educated world except for the USA. Once the people of the US have a government grounded in reality again, one that does not actively support pseudo-science, the entire "controversy" you have over there will hopefully go away. Even the catholic church has long confirmed that it thinks Evolution and the Big Bang are reconcilable with religion and most likely an accurate description of reality. If anything, all of you should SUPPORT this to battle systemic bias. Creationism is regarded as utter bullshit by the vast majority of people visiting this website, and there is absolutely no need to be neutral on this topic. I'm actually beginning to think that a more professionalized fork of this project is a good idea. How many energy is wasted here every day fighting idiots? (Yes, I mean you, creationists, no need to ask. This debate is over for me.) -- mstroeck 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)mstroeck 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good grief. This image says NOTHING about evolution.  It equates belief in the Christian concept of God with belief in the flying spaghetti monster.  The controversial issue is atheism vs. theism, not evolution vs. creationism. -- Moondigger 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The image was created as a reaction to the Kansas School Board's decision to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory, as I'm sure the POTD capture would have pointed out. -- mstroeck 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that's why it was created, but the image itself doesn't address that topic. The image itself equates the FSM with the Christian (actually, Catholic) concept of God.  As funny or biting as some might think it is, Bobby Henderson's reaction to the Kansas school board decision is off-target.  First, because it says nothing about evolution vs. creationism; second, because it parodies a Catholic icon, and Roman Catholicism is one of the few Christian religions that recognizes evolution as valid. -- Moondigger 13:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Quite clearly illustrates the subject in a striking and dramatic fashion. High-quality image that sparks controversy. What more could we ask from a featured image? FCYTravis 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually we do not want an image which sparks controversy (see point nine in FPC criteria). Being controversial is a good reason against it becoming a FP --Fir0002 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - nice picture. i can't see any reason why it could not be a feature picture. Period. PYMontpetit 19:15 20 september 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to meet all of the FP criteria to me. Kaldari 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Answer mstroeck. I personnaly think that comment broke WP:Civil. I personally am not a creationist, and if you do not want to waste "energy", DON'T! As for NPOV, I agree with Moondigger. Also please do not call us fellow Wikipedians "Idiots" if you can resist the temptation. | AndonicO 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for once I couldn't. mstroeck 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(+21/-12, ignoring vote/comment by NegativeNed, and considering everybody else's comments carefully.) I realize that as a vocal opponent to promotion of this image, closing the nom myself might be seen as fishy. Therefore I would encourage anybody who is concerned about it to review the vote count and my reasoning here. We can discuss it on the FPC talk page if there are any concerns.

By straight vote count, this falls short of a 2/3 supermajority by 3 support votes. Also, many of the comments accompanying the support votes advocate ignoring the NPOV requirement in the FPC criteria, for various reasons. I can understand why some want to ignore that criterion, given their comments above. However the fact is that Featured Pictures are supposed to conform to the FP criteria whether we might personally disagree with those criteria or not, especially if no consensus to overturn all or part of those criteria was reached. -- Moondigger 03:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)