Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 14

Should FSMism be described as a 'movement' or a 'satirical movement'?

OK, I removed satirical from the first sentence as it's a repeat from the next paragraph and got reverted with the comment "it's been discussed ad nauseum". Well, not that I can recall. AFAIK, We have sources for "parody religion" but none for "satirical movement". Here's a google news search on flying spaghetti monster satirical movement. I clicked on the first several links, and searched for movement. The articles describe FSM as "religious movement", "pastafarian movement", "web-fueled movement", just "movement", but none as "satirical movement". Note also that a search of google news for flying spaghetti monster movement without 'satirical' yields about 10 times more hits than with 'satirical'. I submit that "satirical movement" is OR and violates V. LK (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 12#Satire. I'm about to be away from editing for a while, but when I get back, I'll try to explore this issue with you more thoughtfully. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I have no memory of that. I guess I did agree before, but I've changed my mind. LK (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely it's not an "idealology" - should this edit be reverted? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted. "Ideology" isn't even close to anything in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, not even close, and I just reverted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me get back to LK's opening question, which is a more substantive one. As one can see in the archived discussion to which I linked, we had previously felt that the way Bobby Henderson himself, at the FSM website, discusses the term "satire" justifies the use of the word by us. Should we reconsider that? I don't really see any WP:SYNTH in calling it satire, but if LK or anyone else disagrees, we ought to figure that out (especially before any FAC!). I'm not really persuaded by the Google results, because the very fact that FSM depends on a sort of performance art means that admissions that it's a joke will be avoided by its practitioners, and that probably gets reflected in the way those sources write about it. Once we have agreed about the sourcing for "parody religion", I don't really see it as SYNTH to also call the movement "satirical". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it in stylistic terms, it seems heavy-handed to link Religious satire twice in the lead section.

In my view, "...first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson..." is enough, and close enough to the top of the article to grab an appropriate slice of the reader's attention. I thnk it makes sense to let the first sentence call Pastafarianism simply "a movement that promotes a light-hearted view..." since the movement is then promptly characterized in the following text. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. And really, characterising the whole movement as satire when no external sources do so is a bit much.

Also, is everything in the movement entirely satire? I don't think so - e.g. FSM takes separation of church and state pretty seriously. And, much of the movement is about just having fun based on self-referential jokes - for instance, dressing up as pirates, pastafarian get-togethers and making FSM softies - not satire or parody directed at anyone. Describing FSM in the lead sentence as 'satirical movement' implies that pastafarians are just consistently contrary, and its all just done for laughs at the expense of others - an unduly limiting description.

So are we all OK with having the 'Religious satire' link at 'open letter'? LK (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I had been leaning towards keeping the link in the first sentence, and instead, removing it (as redundant) from the later one about the letter, but I'm persuaded by the stylistic argument that it isn't really necessary, because the first sentence goes on to "promotes a light-hearted view". Promoting a light-hearted view is pretty much the same thing as being satirical, give or take a little. I still don't really buy the original argument, that it was OR (they are serious about separation of church and state, and they express their serious views through satire), but the fact that we agree about having it covered by the "light-hearted" part means that the NOR argument isn't worth prolonging. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested improvements from another editor

Someone has made some suggestions over at [[1]]. I haven't had the time to evaluate them properly yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

National Academy of Sciences

Hey everybody. I've been looking for a policy guideline which I thought I had read, and which lead me to remove the NAS response to Jacoby's claim (later reverted by User:Tryptofish). [I even asked on the IRC channel but I think everyone was asleep.] I finally found what I remembered reading, and it's not a policy guideline, it's another editor's comment. It's at Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Controversial_content, and I'll quote it below:

I don't agree that this source [21] was written as a response to this source [22]. Doing so is an argumentum ad lapidem and pushes a position which did not originate from the source. It would have to state something to the effect of"LLDM has been accused of accumulating private wealth, but in fact it is not true because of such reasons". The article is an informative piece (i.e. not persuasive) and never went as far to establish that type of position, and doing so would be a WP:SYNTHESIS issue.

— User:Ridgal

I think a similar argument applies here. The NAS piece is not a response to Jacoby's claim, so it's not fair (or to be more precise, not neutral) to introduce it into the article as such. It would be like if (this is totally hypothetical) the Barack Obama article followed a claim that "Barack Obama has been said to be a good president" with a viewpoint that "Democrats are worse than Republicans at governing". Since the latter is not a response to the former, we shouldn't put it on Obama's page, not to mention on the page of every Democratic leader. Neither should we counter every defense of intelligent design with the NAS study - though the latter is certainly relevant and should be on the intelligent design page.

I'm aware that this is not a clear-cut derivation from the NOR guidelines, but I do think it's the most neutral approach. Others' thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 04:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You're correct that statements should generally be followed only by statements that directly respond to the statement made. But here, a statement 'creationism is science' is made in the article (paraphrasing). It's appropriate to include a rejoinder from an association representing scientists stating 'according to us, creationism is not science'. Also, I believe WP:Fringe applies here. We can't let fringe viewpoints be stated without noting that the mainstream viewpoint is different. LK (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Audacity, LK has basically described what my reasoning was. In the sentences in question, Jeff Jacoby is quoted as saying that intelligent design "isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science." So it's a direct statement that intelligent design is science. Then, for the NAS position, the citation footnote includes a quotation that "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." I agree with your observation that the NAS was not writing specifically in rebuttal to Jacoby. However, the page says of it that "This view of science, however, was rejected by [them]." Thus, we are not claiming that NAS rebutted Jacoby's comment, but that they rejected this view of what science is. As such, I don't think that we are misleading the reader (as we would have been if, hypothetically, the page said that the NAS "responded to Jacoby by saying..."). As LK correctly says, Jacoby's view falls under WP:FRINGE. Therefore, it seems to me that presenting Jacoby's view without the opposing POV ends up violating NPOV, whereas presenting the NAS view after Jacoby's view is what NPOV requires. (The hypothetical you offer about Obama deals, instead, with matters of public opinion where Wikipedia cannot really claim that one side is fringe and the other mainstream.) It occurs to me that we could shorten the quote from Jacoby by deleting the sentence "It's science" while retaining what comes before, and in that case, we could reasonably omit the NAS view. However, it seems to me that we lose a lot of relevant information by doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point, but I'm still bothered by the juxtaposition. To criticize the criticism seems like the "point-counterpoint style refutations" that WP:FRINGE suggests avoiding, and getting away from the main point of this article, which is not intelligent design but the FSM. Meanwhile, looking at the Jacoby article, I'm not sure whether he's even sure about equating ID to science - he has several paragraphs that do so, but he also concludes that "In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument..."

Tryptofish, I think your solution of omitting the "It's science" part (as well as the NAS rebuttal) might be the best way to go; yet at the same time, doing so would make the Jacoby quote pretty weak. I'm really not sure what to suggest. Maybe getting others' opinions from the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be helpful? Λυδαcιτγ 06:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to get more opinions, I have no objection at all. First, would any of the other editors on this talk page have any advice? Myself, I just don't have a problem with the point-counterpoint (and the FSM is very much about criticizing ID). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Jacoby may have credible deniability about calling ID science in the strictest sense, but his article is clearly teach-the-controversy apologetics. I do not object to including the NAS opposing view, as long as it is clear that, written years earlier, it was not a response to the Jacoby piece. I'm trying to think of a clear compact way to write that. The words "as previously laid out" come to mind, but I don't yet see it crystallizing.

Jacoby did explicitly claim that ID is not creationism. That stands in conflict with the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which stated "the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child." Perhaps that deserves mention alongside the Jacoby bit. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

the "Most Irreverend Minister" Tracy McPherson

This edit added quotation marks thus:

In 2012, the "Most Irreverend Minister" Tracy McPherson of the Pennsylvanian Pastafarians ...

The one reference that includes the honorific does not put it in quotations marks, so I don't believe that we should either. Possibly we should just remove the honorific completely, eg

In 2012, the "Most Irreverend Minister" Tracy McPherson of the Pennsylvanian Pastafarians ...

If the consensus is that we keep the quotation marks, logically they should also include "the" (uncapitalised, per the ref), eg:

In 2012, "the Most Irreverend Minister" Tracy McPherson of the Pennsylvanian Pastafarians ...

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the scare quotes as a revision of the original edit. I actually thought about, instead, deleting the honorific as per your second version, but I figured at the time that the title is funny and harmless. However, seeing your point now, I would tend to agree with you that the simplest and best solution would be to delete what you cross out here. Clearly, it's not important to include it. I'll fix that now. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics - humorous or not. That's in the MOS. LK (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong views either way on the main point at issue, but MOS:HONORIFIC is essentially about the titles and lead sentences of biographical articles, and wouldn't be applicable here. If a petition had been filed by an ordained Christian minister, there would be no objection to referring to the Reverend Joe Blow. GrindtXX (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC is not restricted to titles and lead sentences, and does apply here. Quoting (with my bold for emphasis):

In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: ... styles and honorifics related to clergy ... Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).

WP:Naming conventions (clergy) is equally clear:

Honorifics such as "His Holiness" should ordinarily not be used in naming clergy except when discussing forms of address

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I deleted it yesterday. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Pirates and Warming graph

I realize it is satire and all that, but is it worth also noting that neither the pirate nor the temperature figures in the Pirates vs. Global Warming figure are accurate? I suppose at least some people might believe the data was intended to be accurate (even if the point being made is silly). So it might be helpful to note that neither set of data is in fact accurate. Dragons flight (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(Not really serious reply) This being a religion, should we treat this the same way we do in the Jesus article, where we show him walking on water, ascending to heaven, and having a visible halo, all without any mention that those are generally considered to not be accurate? Or do we treat it like Young Earth creationism, where we make clear what the religious belief is and what the scientists think of it? How about this idea: add "(This being a religious document, numbers may not match reality)" to the caption? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the image used to have a caption that pointed out how the axis labels are non-arithmetic (to put it mildly!). There was some sort of objection to that wording, and it was removed. I'm going to modify what the caption says now, because the use of the word "illustrating" in Wikipedia's voice is, well, you know... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...

A chart, included in the open letter, comparing the number of pirates, on a non-linear scale, with global temperature

Instrumental temperature record of the last 150 years

Looks to me like not only is the pirate scale nonlinear (gaps of +10,000, -25,000, -5,000, -10,000, -4,605, -383) and the year scale is nonlinear (gaps of +40, +20, +40 +20 +40 +20) and the number of pirates wrong (there are more than 17 pirates in Somalia) but the global temperatures are wrong as well. But how do we convey all that in one caption while staying NPOV and encyclopedic? Adding "(numbers made up, as befits a holy religious text)" would convey the author's meaning perfectly, but completely fails NPOV.

BTW, I actually had to wipe a couple of drops of coffee off my monitor after reading the "unsourced and unsauced" edit comment. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I wish you a rapid recovery! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've consulted at the reliable sauces noticeboard, and discovered that Spaghetti & Coffee actually go together! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have references so WP:OR, but.... Wasn't the point of the graphs to illustrate (ha!) the faulty logic of those pushing creationism, and to show how nice looking but illogical graphics can be used to perpetuate utter nonesense? Discussing how to make the pirates/warming graph more accurate is about as useful as discussing how to make a young earth creationist timeline more accurate. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Challenge Accepted :) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. To revert to Dragons flight's original point, I have to confess that I, for one, hadn't fully appreciated quite how exquisitely meaningless the graph was, and I think that point could be highlighted a little more than at present, without implying it's a complete fabrication or breaching neutrality. I would suggest modifying the caption to include an "alleged" or two, or three, along the lines of: "A chart, included in the open letter, allegedly comparing the alleged number of pirates, on a non-linear scale, with alleged changes in global average temperature". GrindtXX (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That approach runs up against WP:ALLEGED, but I'm satisfied with the new edits that attribute it to Bobby Henderson. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks really good. Clearly His Noodly Appendage has touched our efforts. Praise The Pasta! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also quite happy with the further improvement made by Mitch Ames. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

While the original graph revealed to Booby Henderson may not be entirely accurate, and is probably just a symbolic representation of the actual numbers, other graphs acquired by more modern means indeed show a clear inverse correlation between number of pirates and global warming. For example, this one seems to follow the trend to the T. I have no idea how this can possibly work, but it does. • Maurog • 02:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FSM parodies ID?

This edit says, in summary, that "... Henderson parodied the concept of intelligent design by professing his belief that whenever a scientist carbon dates an artifact, [FSM] is there 'changing the results with His Noodly Appendage'".

I disagree. My understanding is that "changing the results with His Noodly Appendage" parodies some Young Earth creationists' belief that God puts things like fossils in place to "test our faith". ({{cn}}, but I can't find one just now.) But that is not the same as ID (although the two concepts may overlap), and I don't think it is defining characteristic of ID. I'm sure this text needs rewording, but I'm no expert on the matter so I'm not sure what it should say. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed "the concept of intelligent design" to, simply, "creationist ideas", which I think sufficiently fudges the issue (I'll leave the compatibility of fudge and tomato sauce to another discussion). I also changed "artifact" to the more familiar word "object". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Do the pastafarians respect religion in general or is it only critical towards ID? I don´t think pastafari at all should be called a religion, becaus it is proven, who has invented the spaghetti, so spaghetti didn´t create the earth. And none of the members does really believe in the spaghetti monster.77.13.145.8 (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Parody or Satire?

Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster Satire or Parody?

Consider the following:

From A Glossary of Literary Terms, 8th Edition. Ed. M.H. Abrams. Thomson Wadsworth:
"Satire can be described as the literary art of diminishing or derogating a subject by making it ridiculous and evoking toward it attitudes of amusement, contempt, scorn, or indignation."

From Oxford English Dictionary Online:
"Parody (n.) 1. a. A literary composition modeled on and imitating another work, esp. a composition in which the characteristic style and themes of a particular author or genre are satirized by being applied to inappropriate or unlikely subjects, or are otherwise exaggerated for comic effect."
Source: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/harris/GothicNovel/Handouts/SatireParody.pdf

Also of interest:
The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf
Parody
Satire
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parody
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/satire

From my reading of all of the above sources, I believe the the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more Satire than Parody. Agree? Disagree? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it a parody or a satire? The answer is: yes. If you consider the image in the lead, it's a parody of the Michaelangelo painting, and likewise for the parodies of passages from the Bible. On the other hand, LK was correct in his very recent edit to note that Henderson's letter was satirizing, rather than parodying. So it depends on the particular context of a specific event or saying. But, please, let's not get into whether there is such a thing as a "satire religion". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A Satyr or even Satyress religion, on the other hand, has some possibilities... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUMThe FSM is a parody, as defined above. The FSM might have been created with a satirical intent, but I wouldn't say it's a satire, as it makes no mention of the actual subject to be satirized (abrahamic religions, intelligent design, creationism). Regardless, I don't think this discussion can significantly add encyclopedic value to the article. WP:NOTFORUM 186.58.192.215 (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of 'self-described' in the lead

Is it appropriate to use the term 'self-described' Pastafarians in the lead? After all, we don't call people self-described Buddhists, or self-described atheists. Also, it's not in the cited source, so it's OR. And, according to WP:BLP, the way we ascertain membership in a group is that the person 'self-describes' as such, so it's kinda redundant. LK (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just did a google news search on 'self-described pastafarians polk county'[2] – it brings up only this page, so definitely OR, I'm just going to remove it. LK (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

HOLIDAYS

I request that the "Holidays" section, first paragraph, be updated as follows:

"Prayers are concluded with a final declaration of affirmation, "R'amen";[6] the term is a parodic portmanteau of the Semitic term "Amen" and "ramen", referring to instant noodles."

Reason for this: Source article [6] mentions ramen as an ending statement for prayers, but does not mention ramen being popular among college students. 186.58.192.215 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Per WP:V and WP:SYNTH, that's a good point. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not to include a particular analysis

I'm commenting principally about these two edits: [3], [4], although they follow earlier such edits. I've reverted, and have come here to explain in talk, a repeated addition by User:Clementvidal of an analysis critical of FSM and relatively supportive of Intelligent Design, sourced, he himself says, to his own work. First, let me say that I appreciate that the most recent version of the sentence was worded more moderately than were earlier versions that have been reverted (for example, [5]), and that I am sympathetic to including views here that are critical of the subject (per WP:NPOV). But nonetheless, I strongly question whether it is WP:DUE to have this particular sentence, in any form. First of all, please see the WP:SOAP section of WP:NOT, and particularly item 4 of that section, where self-promotion of one's own works is discouraged. Then, please consider the WP:COI guideline, which fleshes out that concept, and particularly points out that it is better to decide whether or not to include such material through a discussion on the talk page, like this discussion, where editors other than the author of the material can evaluate whether or not the material ought to be included on the page. I would argue that it should not be included, because we really have no evidence from secondary sources that are independent of Mr. Vidal that this opinion has had much influence. After all, there are tons of writings by proponents of Intelligent Design that are critical of their critics, and we cannot include every one of them here. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish for your detailed explanation. My aim in citing my paper was not so much self-promotion (I'm sorry if it looked like it), but rather an attempt to open this article towards a more comprehensive analysis than just a purely objective (or logical-analytical) one. Indeed, why is FSMism less popular than ID, if the logic of both is perfectly similar? To answer this question, you need to take also into account subjective (psychological) and intersubjective (social) areas of knowledge, as I analyzed in my paper. As far as I know, I think you are right in pointing out that my views have not had much influence -unfortunately IMHO. However, I deal explicitly with a comparison of FSMism and ID, so it remains highly relevant to this Wikipedia article. As you suggest, maybe you (or other editors) could have a look at my actual paper (especially section 6) and decide if it is worth inclusion or not? Thank you. Clementvidal (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two interesting questions concerning your paper (which, by the way, I found interesting, but Wikipedia is the wrong place for discussing that -- discussion here is always about building an encyclopedia); "Should we have a page about it?" and "Should we use it a a reference / citation?". I am not saying that you are pushing for either use, but still I think the following is worth knowing.

As for having a page about it, Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work, and we explicitly reject the basic idea behind looking at a paper and deciding if a topic is worth inclusion (having its own page) or not. Instead, we use notability (see WP:NOTABILITY for details of what the means in this context) to determine what to include in Wikipedia. Thus your best path towards having an article is to get as many independent third parties as possible to evaluate your paper and publish reviews. Which is something you probably want to do anyway.

As for whether we should we use it a a reference / citation, our policy on that is found here: WP:PRIMARY. This leads you to the same conclusion; get as many independent third parties as possible to evaluate your paper and publish reviews, and those will be the secondary sources we need.

In my opinion, you have a good chance of being able to accomplish this. I think that something that compares ID with FSM would be of interest to both groups and thus something that might get reviewed or written about. I wouldn't assume that what gets written is going to be positive, though. Then again, picking the best critical opinions and changing the paper to address those issues might be something you want to do anyway.

So the bottom line is that your paper isn't a lot of use to Wikipedia right now, but could be so in the future if you get sufficient coverage by reliable independent sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations and recommendations, Guy Macon. I was not asking for creating a page about my paper. Its existence is probably enough. I'm confused about how you and Triptofish interpret the policy regarding primary/secondary sources in this context. My paper is obviously a secondary source, as it contains "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (cited from WP:SECONDARY). If we want to cite primary sources, Bobby Henderson seems to be the only primary one. Now, if I read correctly what a secondary source WP:SECONDARY is, shouldn't a published paper dealing critically with FSMism and ID be considered as a secondary source? What you and Tryptofish are asking is actually much more, which is the existence of critique and influence from secondary sources. In other words, you ask for the existence of secondary secondary sources. I think it is an additional requirement which is neither mentioned nor required by WP:SECONDARY. What do you think? Please explain. Clementvidal (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is a conflict between what Triptofish and I write and a Wikipedia policy, believe the policy. We all try to be accurate when explaining policies, but we are all human.

That being said, the very first sentence in the abstract ("Philosophy lacks criteria to evaluate its philosophical theories") is primary. You aren't reporting that someone else said that, nor do you have a footnote pointing to your source. This makes that statement primary -- if it was you interpreting a primary source, I would be able to read it and identify that source. Of course primary sources are allowed in some circumstances.

On the other hand, near the end you write "although Big Bang models are a success of modern cosmology, the initial conditions remain mysteriously fine-tuned (e.g. Leslie 1989; Leslie 1998; Rees 2000; Davies 2008)." That's secondary -- you are reporting what those authors wrote and applying "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". So if you meet the requirements for being a reliable source, that can certainly be used.

So what I am saying is that most of your paper is not "dealing critically with FSMism and ID" but rather is a primary source for your theory which you then apply to a concrete example, comparing the Flying Spaghetti Monster deity with Intelligent Design.

I hope that I am being more clear and not just muddying the waters more. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for your thoughtful and courteous responses. (I think that a part of the reason that Guy Macon brought up the issue of a separate page (even though that isn't on the table) is that my own initial posting was a little vague about the application of secondary sources in each of these cases, so his explanation clarified how policy treats the issue.) Anyway, I've been wondering about whether we could restore the reference, but without anything that would smack of the appearance of promotion. Instead of naming Clement by name, we might say, "according to one analysis", and we would avoid any of the language that was used in earlier versions of the sentence, such as "shows", in favor of more tempered language, such as "suggests", "argues", or "proposes" (not assuming correctness, in Wikipedia's voice). If we use the material, I'd probably insist on wording it in those ways. The sticking point, however, is whether the view has had enough influence to be worth citing here, and given that Guy also has concerns similar to my own, I think that remains an impediment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In my personal opinion (and unless someone here objects), restoring the reference as described above would be acceptable. If this was a topic with a boatload of critical reviews I would say no, but in this case there is so little material that isn't outright advocacy for one side or the other, I think giving this one a bit of leeway this would improve the page. That's just my opinion, of course; a strict reading of Wikipedia policy would call for waiting until the paper gets more coverage. I just think that in this particular case it would improve the page enough that we can ignore a few rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes good sense to me, so let's give this a try, but make sure we have created an agreeable draft here in talk before putting it on the page. Here is my stab at a possible wording, with the caveat that I don't claim to have enough experience in writing about philosophy to be sure whether or not I understand the source paper adequately, so please correct me:

"According to one analysis, intelligent design and Pastafarianism are similarly lacking in objective validity, but intelligent design exceeds Pastafarianism in its subjective attractiveness as a world view.[cite]"

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Until this paper attracts serious, credible commentary, it doesn't seem appropriate to mention it, even in such brevity. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Guy for your clear explanation. I now see what you meant, and you have a good point, namely that my paper indeed contains both an theoretical attempt (proposing criteria for the comparison of worldviews; "primary") and a concrete application (Pastafarianism vs. ID; "secondary"). Thanks also for reconsidering including a reference to my paper. I indeed tried to recognize both the strengths and weaknesses of FSMism and ID. Tryptofish, if I may suggest a (necessarily somehow biased) rewording:

"According to one analysis, intelligent design and Pastafarianism are similarly lacking in objective validity, but intelligent design exceeds Pastafarianism in its subjective and social attractiveness as a world view.[cite]"

Regarding Bill's opinion, it seems we are back to square one, but I guess it's up to you, more neutral Wikipedia editors, to further debate and decide. Anyhow, I am impressed and appreciate your professionalism as Wikipedia editors. Clementvidal (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with implementing Tryptofish's suggestion if another editor opposes the idea. Clementvidal, might I suggest submitting your paper to various ID and FSM sites and requesting that they review it? As I said before, this is an area where very little material is available elsewhere, and thus is likely to be of interest to many people. After it gets significant third-part coverage, we can revisit this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My hasty reading of the paper left me wondering about its system of evaluating world views, which I am by no means able to assess. Hence, my inclination is to await further commentary from cognizant critics.

In my admittedly limited view, ID comes from earnestly held belief, and from a firm desire to influence public education in the US. Pastafarianism, on the other hand, had its beginnings in open mockery, and may be happily characterized as a "party religion," where "party" refers to the social gathering, not the political organization. Comparing the worldviews associated with those two ideologies could easily slip into apologetics for metaphorical ID apples, based on the fact that their peels are easier to eat than those of FSM oranges. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should not matter what we think about the theory or what the theory may lead to. Our only criteria should be whether inclusion improves the article. I think the limited usage suggested by Tryptofish does improve the article, but given the lack of coverage, I would not include it unless everyone here agrees with me on that. --Guy Macon (talk)

It doesn't matter what I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks of the Vidal paper. That much I think we can all agree on. Without it having been vetted by acknowledged experts in relevant fields, I cannot agree that mentioning it improves this Wikipedia article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A question: what are the submission/review/acceptance rules for Metaphilosophy? Does it utilize academic peer review? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)