Uncyclopedia:VFH/The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Cabal Cabal Decree #125/aaa! "No VFH Dramas" is now in effect.
Any further discussion on this page will result in wide spread bans and public flogging at dawn.

The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita (history, logs)

Article: The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita

Score: 0 innocent virgins trying to apply make-up through the birqas

Nominated by: Spıke Ѧ 02:30 19-Mar-14 02:30, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
For: 3
  1. Symbol for vote Nom & For. Please welcome new Uncyclopedian Alpalwriter. I have asked him to preserve our "encyclopedia" cover and consider the random reader and he has been receptive. You decide if he pulled it off. Spıke Ѧ 02:30 19-Mar-14
  2. For. If I may. Alpalwriter (talk) 18:51, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Anton (talk) 19:53, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Against: 3
  1. Symbol against vote Against. Lame and corny Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 13:54, Mar 19
  2. Per Shabidoo's comment below, the page is a long way from done. Some people work on their pages for years before they are satisfied, so if this one fails the author shouldn't be discouraged, but make it into a masterpiece with more of a slant towards positiveness if possible (some holy teachings and consciousness information wouldn't hurt) Aleister 00:37 20-4-14
  3. Against. I'm sure it will eventually make an excellent article. It's not quite ready. ChiefjusticePS3 20:11, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol comment vote Comment. This doesn't need a Pee Review, it needs a shit review Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 14:21, Mar 19
    How is god's name is that sort of feedback useful to a person thats been with us for less than a week? Either criticize it whilst providing useful feedback or don't criticize it at all. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 10:40, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a great topic and the ideas are there and there are a few funny moment. But as Funnybony said there are some fairly expected and over-used material in the article in my opinion. I'd recommend going over the article with a really sharp eye for content that is cheesy and the typical reaction people would expect to such events. Try give each player in the article a little more inviduality and somewhat more believability (even if it's absurd). If Shiva does something crazy it should be so off the wall and unexpected it will take the article in a new direction. Incorporate the cast list into the main boy of the article and I'd recommend cutting the dialogue section. --ShabiDOO 00:25, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether you guys are getting the pun in the Dialogues. Every dialogue is a satire of real verses in the Bhagavad Gita, which do cover some core holy teachings and consciousness information that are subjected to criticism in the Plot. Alpalwriter (talk) 01:55, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • For instance, the dialogue Lord Krishna: Yet these great makings, Christopher! involve Me not, Enchain Me not! I sit apart from them, Other, and Higher, and Free; nowise attached! corresponds with the line in the Plot The Lord serenely admits the fact of His resurrection, but denies any underlying attraction, insisting He was only doing His sacred duty as a detached Karmayogi. Alpalwriter (talk) 02:30, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry...we don't appreciate the nuanced satire because we don't really know what you're talking about. We're aware what's going on but cannot relate to it. You might have to rethink your strategy. By the way...welcome to uncyclopedia. Come to my talk page if you have any specific questions or whatever about this article. --ShabiDOO 03:26, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
    I suspect you don’t really know what I’m talking about because you don’t really know much about the Bhagavad-gita (in your previous comment you seem to have wrongly addressed Krishna as Shiva). A very good knowledge of the Bhagavad-gita would be the basic requirement to truly and easily understand a fine satire of it. If you hardly know anything about Salman Rushdie, for instance, it might be nearly impossible for you to truly appreciate an excellent humour or satire about him. And I believe many people in fact know very little about Rushdie just as many know very little or nothing about the Bhagavad Gita. A great number of visitors (perhaps the majority of visitors) would be quite uninterested in an article about An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, for example, but that does not stop Wikipedia from featuring it. Many thanks for the good general suggestions and the promise of help though. Alpalwriter (talk) 04:16, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
    First...If almost no one will appreciate it...then why would we feature it? On uncyclopedia the featured article is the object on the front page everyone cares about. We expect the majority of visitors to click on it. It represents the funniest and most worthwhile article of the moment to read. It's not the same as uncyclopedia's featured article.
    Second...there are many articles that talk about obscure topics people know nothing about. For instance I wrote: Mahjong. I've spent a couple months editing it to make it readable and understandable to those who think Mahjong is only a game that comes with your computer. --ShabiDOO 04:40, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
    How can it be that almost no one will appreciate it when quite a few people all around the world know quite a bit about the Bhagavad-gita? Maybe such people are not in the majority but still there are plenty of them. Alpalwriter (talk) 04:50, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
    And yet a lot many visitors, I reckon, won’t be interested in an article on a topic as specific as Mahjong. Alpalwriter (talk) 04:56, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
    The topic doesn't matter. It's the content. If you'd like to give me some examples or ideas of how you might broaden the audience...hit me up on my talk page. --ShabiDOO 05:23, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote Abstain. Mainly due to the fact this article is clearly still being worked on ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 10:42, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • As with another new user, Barbariandude, whose new articles even more clearly depend on a knowledge of Unix, even niche articles that are not featured have a duty to throw a sop to those not in the know. At least go as far as to make us see that what we are reading is humor. Funnybony (with more comments on his talk page) and Aleister both seem to be voting in part based on disapproval of the attitude expressed — Aleister would be happy to FA a comparable article that ridiculed the Bible — though Anton199 has been working with author to try to get him to stop stating the serious attitude less overtly. Alpalwriter, "any time you have to explain the joke" is a hint that more work is needed. Spıke Ѧ 11:02 20-Mar-14
    Could you please be more specific and tell me exactly what you don't find sufficiently humorous in the article as it stands now? Please give examples. That would really help. Thanks. Alpalwriter (talk) 11:27, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
    Spike once again, as he has done dozens of times, has put incorrect words into my mouth (GET THEM OUT! GET THEM OUT!). Alpalwriter, as you suggest with your explanations, which seem well on the right track for a very good feature, your knowledge of the subject can make this article into a masterpiece and not just an article. Maybe you can ask Funnybony for some advice, he is our resident expert on Indian Holy texts, and it may be nice if you and he could talk this out. But all in all, the page is on the right track yet is only leaving the station - masterpiece it imnho. And I disagree with those who say that noteworthiness or reader knowledge is needed for a feature - if it is good satire (uncy is a satire site) it is well worth the feature. Welcome here as well, and may we all learn in a two-directional flow of conversation and knowledge. Aleister 12:33 20-3-14
    Aleister is right. We're all here to make each other better writers and share funny articles. We'd love to see this article get featured and will happily offer help and suggestions. If you place this on the Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review list then users can give you all the feedback you like. --ShabiDOO 17:06, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • See the template. Suggestions/feedback on the article to the author's talk page, votes go here. --ChiefjusticePS3 20:10, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol comment vote Comment. I think you should either add more content at the end of the page or remove some of the images, as the article is overstuffed with them. Mimo&Maxus (Talk) 21:29, March 24, 2014 (UTC)


← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Personal tools