Talk:Parodies of the ichthys symbol

Merge with ichthys?

This is mostly non-notable stuff. Anyone up for reducing it to bullet points and merging into ichthys? - mholland 16:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

These were originally bullets of information at ichthys, but User:Fastfission removed them from the article, noting them as "remove everything non-notable and NPOV the heck out of this thing" and "rm dup link and irrel link".

That action was the instigation for my creating a separate article. — THOR 17:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I read the discussion page on ichthys. It's a bit of a bible-bashers v. nerds skirmish over there. Maybe when they calm down, this sort of thing should go back in. I still don't think it's worth its own article. It belongs in ichthys. - mholland 21:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Here, here. Let's get rid of this article and merge it with something else. This is just too petty. 209.55.80.148 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to keep it separate, to avoid edit wars with the Bible-thumpers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article just completely disappeared, without a banner or redirects to anything. It's just the title of the article, and then no body. What's the consensus on this article? Patricia the Bassist (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Darwin fish

Okay, yesterday there was an undiscussed redirect from Darwin fish over to here. While looking at these two pages indicates that they are redundant, simply turning one into a redirect without discussion isn't the way to do it.

Personally, I think that the merger should go in the other direction due to simpler title, but that's my opinion.

As for the above discussion, I think a reference from there to here is appropriate. The Darwin Fish is popular enough to possibly have its own article. Besides, on its own, this article(s) are less likely to be bashed as they would be as part of the core article. Donovan Ravenhull 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken some of the information that is on this page to augment Darwin fish to show how a possible merger would look. As for my opinion of the merger direction, I will firmly put my opinion that the article with the simpler name and older age be kept. Please discuss. Donovan Ravenhull 15:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I went deeper into this discussion on the Darwin fish talk page. As the progenitor of this article, I favour it over Darwin fish. Transposing my argument:

I was deciding whether or not to amend Darwin fish with the other information, or to combine all the information under the same heading. As I felt that the DARWIN fish is no more or less significant than the satires which came after it, I decided that levelling the field and including all of the information under one more-encompassing title would be more appropriate.

As this discussion is functionally identical to the one also held at Talk:Darwin_fish#Undiscussed_redirects; which do you feel should be maintained and continued with? — THOR ^=/\= 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Moved from Talk:Darwin fish:

Alternate uses

It seems to me that some people also use this fish to proclaim their disdain for religion (possibly but not necessarily Christianity specifically). Should a note be made of this for informational purposes? User:172.159.182.37

It says so in the introduction. — Omegatron 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Undiscussed redirects

Okay, I'll buy that this article could be merged with the other, and I'll tag it as such, but to change to a redirect without warning is not couth. Donovan Ravenhull 15:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am the contributor who made the changes yesterday to ichthys, Darwin fish, and parodies of the ichthys symbol. I took the satirical information our of ichthys because it was initially removed by another contributor (Fastfission) and I felt it was significant enough to not simply be lost to the astral plane.

The DARWIN fish information which had been on the ichthys page was also on a separate page (this one). When deciding to reintroduce the information to the wiki which had been culled by Fastfission, I was deciding whether or not to amend Darwin fish with the other information, or to combine all the information under the same heading. As I felt that the DARWIN fish is no more or less significant than the satires which came after it, I decided that levelling the field and including all of the information under one more-encompassing title would be more appropriate.

I removed the information from Darwin fish and transformed it into a redirect w/o trepidation for two reasons. Firstly, the information had originally been duplicative anyways. Secondly, I was taking heart in the policy of being bold and presumed that nobody would take the changes I made to the community effort personally. — THOR ^=/\= 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with talking about the parodies but I don't think we should be a laundry-list for every parody on the planet, only the notable ones. The ones which are self-described as "lesser known" should not be featured in an encyclopedia. I don't think a whole separate page is needed for this, personally, but I'm not really interested in an edit war over something as stupid as a "Trek fish". --Fastfission 14:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

External links?

External links to where these can be purchased really should be provided. And not only because I want the FSM one on my car. :-P BorgHunter (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We gotta be careful, though. Don't want this to become the Wikizon shoping portal. Donovan Ravenhull 15:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Collaborative paying for items isn't a bad idea, though! Especially for those of us lacking in funds. ...So, who wants to send me a few Wikibux? BorgHunter (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Comprehensive listing of all Ichthys parodies known to humankind"

I removed an external link with the above description based on the following

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example).

I doubt I need to argue against the definition of "http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html" as a "major corporation". I also removed an image (Image:Procreate.PNG) from the page for the meantime as it has a copyright status of {{don't know}}; should it be proven that it falls under one of the allowed Wikipedia image copyright licenses, it could then be re-placed. — THOR ^=/\= 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

notability

With the gout of heretofore unknown differing iterations of a recurring theme, I no longer agree with my previous belief that the existence of these individual derivitives from the original theme (the ichthys fish) need an article devoted to them.

The ichthys fish itself is a notable phenomenon which I believe deserves note somewhere (either its own article, or as it was — a note within the ichthys article). As none of the subsequent parodies has no more or less significance than another either, the article must be expected to have every iteration of this theme documented with a note of text and an accompanying image; or I/we should know when not to expect restraint on the part of contributors' contributions and deep six the article as a whole and thereby relegate it to a footnote on the ichthys page.

As such, I am nominating the article for deletion. — THOR ^=/\= 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins

I, together with John Edwards, can answer this question. The Darwin Fish was created by us as a satire on the Christian fish symbol. At the time (1982), John and I were writing freethought leaflets for Atheists United, and we thought the freethought movement needed their own fish. At first, I thought the whole thing was a failure, because, when i put the first paper bumper sticker on a car, the first reaction that I got was "Are you a Christian for Evolution?" So, I thought the whole thing was a flop. It was just a joke, and John and i never thought it would turn into a multi-million dollar business, who would??? We gave out the rights to reprint the fish freely throughout the 1980s, and in 1990 Evolution/Design misapproprated the fish (mirror reversing it and placing a copyright date of 1990 on it, claiming in some newspaper article that the cofounder of Evolution/Design Terry Gilliam had created the fish in 1990. Later, a lawsuit was started where it clearly came out in the discovery phase, that it was incontrovertible that we were the creators, as they had no source material to back up claims that the emblem (already on many cars throughout the 80s) came into existence in 1990. There is no dispute about the origins of the fish, which are discussed in depth in the two newspapers articles on listed on this page, which discuss not only the lawsuit, but also interviews with people who were familiar with our design in the early 80s. This point was settled in our court case and admitted by Evolution/Design's own attorneys to avoid continuing a massive lawsuit against their firm.

So, I have removed the sentence about the origins of the fish being in dispute. John and I had no involvement with other versions (paradies of the Darwin fish) and think that it is healthy. Though, on a final note, we do believe that it should be under the entry of Darwin Fish.

Al Seckel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Seckel (talk • contribs)

We should also have the picture of that T-rex eating the ichthys

Can anyone find a valid picture of it for uploading onto Wikipedia? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Link spam

It looks like this article is suffering from link spam. Almost all of the variations listed are available at http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool. We need to link to a more scholarly website as our primary source. Theshibboleth 09:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Trek Fish

The section on the Trek Fish does not describe what it looks like, and there is no accompanying picture. Can someone in the know please add either a picture or a description? -- Pennyforth 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Phish Fish

I am sort of surprised that Phish isn't mentioned in this article. It seems to me that they have one of the most common parodies around. Anyone else agree that it should be mentioned here? CharacterZero | Speak 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

would it be alright...

...if I linked la:Piscis Darwinianus to here, until we have a proper page describing all the parodies?--Ioshus^(talk) 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Last Supper

Click the link, and you'll see what the problem is. Please fix it. Shinobu 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which Last Supper movie has the Darwin Fish? I am thinking it is probably the 1995 or 2006, but since I've not seen either one, I have no way of fixing the link... I'm thinking that unless we can verify which one has it, that this link be removed? --VikÞor | Talk 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiktaalik

Under "Darwin Fish", there is a subset about the resemblance of said fish to Tiktaalik. While it does resemble it, the actual section, being such a minor detail, and only a few sentences, should be merged with the rest of the Darwin Fish article. 207.7.176.179 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of Evolution Design case

I've just added a {{fact}} tag to the end of the paragraph describing the resolution of the Seckel and Edwards vs Evolution Design lawsuit, as it claims the case was settled "when it became apparent that Seckel and Edwards had not copyrighted their design", but since the Copyright Act of 1976 all copyright is automatic in the United States, so that claim makes no sense. I would like to know how the case was in fact resolved; if anyone has a reference to back up (or contradict) that claim, I would like to see it. -Pfhorrest (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:71.155.236.180 recently added the following unencyclopedic but true and cited statement to the article. I have changed my {{fact}} tag to a {{dubious}} tag pointing here, and redacted said IP-user's statement, but include it here for reference:

“

Which doesn't make sense because it was after January 1, 1978 and copyright registration is no longer necessary. It happens automatically; authors don't have to "copyright" anything in order for their works to be copyrighted.

”

I can personally answer to how the case was settled. John Edwards and I, as stated at the time, and in news articles at the time, wished to receive no royalties from the use of the Darwin fish symbol, but we did want Evolution/Design and Chris Gilman to stop threatening other manufacturers of the fish. During the discovery phase, we easily proved the timeline of the creation of the fish, as it existed on dated and postmarked material from 1982. Furthermore, there were scores of witnesses to our freely promoting the symbol on literature. Gilman, who lived in Hollywood at the time, and with no relation at all to the freethought movement, was unable to provide any evidence at all that he had created the Darwin fish. Interestingly, newspaper articles originally quoted Gilman as having claimed that he created the fish in 1990, and we had examples of Evolution/Design's plastic Darwin fish with a copyright stamp date of 1990. Only after, John Edwards and I came forth with the evidence, did Gilman switch his date to coincide with ours, although he offered no evidence whatsoever. Their only argument was to argue that the symbol fell into public domain, because we had not properly protected it. This is why the case was settled by us. We wanted the symbol in public domain so that their threats to vendors would cease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.57.14 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious?

While users frequently explain the symbol as a rebuke against Creationism, they also attach religious meaning to it as well.

I find this sentence is questionable. While the article referenced later may make this assertion, it's likely a misuse of the word "religious", if it is simply as the article describes, "In this latter sense, the emblem gives voice to a mythologized interpretation of biological evolution in which the material development of biological organisms operates as a metaphor for cultural Progress.[1]"

That's not "religious meaning", that's just meaning. It seems that this is an attempt (as is often made) to associate evolution and supporters of evolution with the term "religious", so that evolutionary theory can be treated simply as beliefs, rather than the result of scientific inquiry, and in doing so places evolutionary theory beside religious ideas like creationism and cdesign proponentsism. --Synaptophysin (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right, if you do some research about the author who is cited here you will find he has been interviewed by many ID proponents, and has made a name for himself trying to assert that scientists adopt "priestly rhetoric" when they discuss their knowledge. I had a look at the reference for the religious slant to the darwin fish, and there is no supporting evidence to justify the claim on this page. Someone tried to remove this paragraph, which i completely agree with, but it was reverted (perhaps because there was no discussion beforehand). There are appropriate places to discuss the authority of scientists, and their approach to proclaiming what people might perceive as "truth" about the world, but the mention here is extraneous. Ninahexan (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninahexan (talk • contribs)

It's obviously "cited POV-pushing". It's one guy's editorial opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not enough fish pics, darn it!

Where are the pictures of all those Truth, eating, evolving-competing etc fishes? Methinks it's a pretty important aspect of contemporary ephemera that should be displayed and preserved in the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.104.52 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiktaalik- Ironically, Tiktaalik was found long after the invention of the Darwin fish.

Ummm, the Darwin fish stylistically resembles Ichthyostega, which was well documented by 1932. Stating that discovery of Tiktaalik after the creation of the Darwin fish as being ironic is pointless, since the darwin fish wasn't based on it... obviously. I am removing the reference to Tiktaalik, and replacing it with Ichthyostega, since otherwise a complete removal would leave no comparison at all. Ninahexan (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone else found the citation from Thomas Lessl a little out of place, here is a link that will give his name context (he seems to be on a nickname basis here!) http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mblr22698.htm - enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninahexan (talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Need a new and separate article on Darwin Fish

Someone needs to start up a new entry for pastor Darwin Fish. That is his real name and he is the founder of a cult called "a true church." formerly known as "God's Word Fellowship." You can see this from [[1]] and [[2]] Some refer to this pastor's followers as "Fishites." Darwin Fish claims to be exposing false teachers, which turns out to be everyone in the world but himself. 214.27.58.97 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)r3hall

That name is better than fiction, but there would have to be secondary sources to establish enough notability for a page about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cthulthu

Is most of the information in the Cthulthu section relevant? It seems to me that it could be cut down to "Cthulthu also has been depicted in a parody of the Ichthys." If readers wanted all of the background information about Cthulthu, they could click on the link and find out. Mr. Granger (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Linux fish

Should add a section for the Linux fish (aka Linux shark). Urban dictionary had a half-way decent description. See: pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.97.136 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)