Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article.

Bobby Henderson link

Bobby Henderson's name leads back to this article. The hyperlink should be removed or an article relating to his name should be created.

Belivers

Me and many of my fellow Pastafarians are very offended by the fact that you call pastafarianism a parody religion! I propose changing the article to be dont so offending! --80.221.26.59 07:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Calling Pastafarianism a parody religion is not neutral or fit for an encyclopedia. And, for the record, I am NOT a Pastafarian. I simply wish to speak out against this injustice/religious descrimination. 70.144.190.159 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)A disgusted individual

See the extensive discussion below and in the archives, please follow consensus not your heart.86.3.142.101 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be discriminatory and intellectually dishonest to insult the genuine real faith held by countless people by calling Pastafarianism a "parody religion". The sources cited offer absolutely no proof or basis for these insulting accusations. Would it be acceptable to call Protestants a "parody" of Catholics simply because a writer implies it without evidence or argument? I think not. To insult the very real faith held by many by calling it a "parody" while defending the validity of any other faith is religious discrimination. I firmly believe that Pastafarianism should be given the same respect as any other religious belief. Krymore 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of proof. This is a matter of attribution. Multiple A majority of reliable, third-party sources describe FSM as a parody. Whether those sources are accurate or not is no business of ours. Welcome to an encyclopedia! Kasreyn 21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put in that it is "widely considered to be a parody religion"? Obviously, (no offense to Pastafarians), a lot of people see it as a joke, so we need to mention that. However, there also seem to be some believers. If we say that it is widely considered to be a parody religion, it leaves it fairly neutral. Comments? Questions? --User:crazydrunkhobo

Except that "widely considered" is an essentially meaningless weasel phrase. Also, there are no actual Pastafarians, only bored college students and trolls. Shoehorn 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, in an encyclopedia format "widely considered" might want to be replaced, but you get the idea. And what evidence do you have that there are no real Pastafarians? Even if we were to say that they didn't exist, I think we'd still need to mention that there are some self-proclaimed believers in that area of the article --User:crazydrunkhobo

As Kasreyn said: "This is not a matter of proof. This is a matter of attribution."

Find a serious, reliable source describing a serious event held by sincere believers in Pastafarianism, and we'll be happy to add it. Find a serious, reliable source that interviews a sincere Pastafarian on thon's faith, and we'll be happy to add it. Until then, realize that it's really very, very likely that anyone claiming to be a "real" Pastafarian on these Talk pages is just someone taking the parody a bit too far into role-playing as the folks the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is meant to be mocking. Which is admittedly fun at times as far as this Pastafarian is concerned, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Sparky Lurkdragon 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

self-published sources

This article currently contains several self-published sources. As I understand WP:RS these are inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Specifically, any reference back to http://www.venganza.org/ (3 of them in total) would only be appropriate if the article was about Bobby Henderson. Since the article is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (presumably the FSM did not write the text at venganza.org) and not Bobby Henderson I think these references are invalid. They may belong on the Bobby Henderson article, but not this one. Further, there is a reference to blogger.com that is clearly not a RS. Others are questionable as well but this comment is getting long. If no consensus can be reached on these I'm considering that the article have its GA status reviewed.MikeURL 17:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for following up to my own comment but it seems to me that this structural issue could be dealt with by having Flying Spaghetti Monster redirect to Bobby Henderson. On the Bobby Henderson page the references from venganza.org would be appropriate and would also better conform with WP:NOTE since the non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself are about Bobby Henderson and his battle with Intelligent Design in general and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, per se. OK, I'm done until I hear other thoughts. Thanks.MikeURL 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree http://www.venganza.org/ can be seen as the self-published source of the FSM (via its creator/prophet) as self published sources can be used for other non-corporial entities such as Corporation's. Hypnosadist 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but if the consensus remains that this is a parody religion then it follows that it is not a real church either whereas a corporation IS a real thing. With this being the case it is clear, to me, that self-published sources regarding the FSM do not belong on this page. I think it does WP a disservice to have this page be a blend of items that come from reliable sources and items that don't. Forgive me for saying so but it is a mess, IMO.MikeURL 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether FSM is a parody or not has nothing to do with this at all. http://www.venganza.org/ is the self-published source for info on the entity's of the FSM and the Church of the FSM. If you think that mis-identified sources is a real issue here then sections that discribe FSM ideas could be clearly marked accordingly. PS all the http://www.venganza.org/ quotes were part of this article when it got its GA status. Hypnosadist 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the article without requesting a review of GA status first. When the article got GA status is had only 2 not three references to venganza.org but that is a trivial point. Also, GA status is only one editor's opinion. If the article passes GA review then I'm not going to do anything further. If it does not then we'll see where the discussion goes.MikeURL 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We aren't looking for reliable information about the reality of the FSM; we're looking for an example of a social phenomenon. Neither of us would claim venganza.org is reliable depiction of the real world, but it is informative as an example of the skeptical meme that is "the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Interesting to compare with A Million Little Pieces (talks about an unreliable source as a social phenomenon) or O RLY (references video games, etc. to describe a meme).69.224.16.171 08:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting misrepresentation of WP:RS above. The site does pass a a suitable link if you read it properly. I have removed the article scare tag accordingly. Sophia 11:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - venganza.org is the official website of FSM. If it isn't a reliable source then vatican.va could not be considered a reliable source on Catholicism. --h2g2bob 12:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If consensus forms up that venganza.org is to be considered a reliable source then the removal of information in the article from http://www.venganza.org/about/ (as was done to Glen_S http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flying_Spaghetti_Monster&diff=106278575&oldid=105917762) would be inappropriate and violate WP:NPOV.MikeURL 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree MikeURL the edit does not conform to WP:NPOV as Hendersons and hence "Pastafarian" POV needs to be represented in this article. Hypnosadist 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So for you to accept a work of parody as a work of parody, the parodist must say "hey, this is a parody" within the text of the original work itself? That's completely ridiculous, and I've never heard of anywhere else that has such a standard. Nowhere within Swift's A Modest Proposal does he admit to it being a work of satire, and yet no one is in doubt about its satirical intent. What people do with a satire or parody after it is written can have no effect on whether the work was originally intended as a satire or parody. Unless you believe present events can alter events in the past.

Naturally, since venganza.org is itself the text body of the parody, it is nonsense to expect anything but conformity to the satirical "position" from it; venganza.org is thus a source for factual content on what the content of the parody religion claims (and thus its wider political goals to those who recognize its nature), but cannot be a source for its veracity or genuine intentions. Kasreyn 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are secondary sources that describe, in detail, the satire of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its relevance (if there weren't then this whole article would be suspect). The selective use of only certain pages on venganza.org and not others (all written by Bobby Henderson) is really a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV and I still hold that venganza.org is not a WP:RS. This is a really outstanding example of why primary sources are not to be used as if they were secondary sources.MikeURL 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, now I see. I thought you were one of those protesting FSM's description herein as parody, when in fact you were concerned about confusion of primary and secondary sources. You're quite right about that: the text body of a parody of course can't be a reliable source on its own veracity! My apologies for jumping on you like that. Kasreyn 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you agree "venganza.org is thus a source for factual content on what the content of the parody religion claims" which is what it is used for in this article. Venganza is also an appropriate source for Henderson quotes. Swift's work is called a parody in wikipedia because notable sources say its a parody (many books have been written on who, what, where and when was being parodied and how this was done) this is the principle of verifiability and is the basis for this project. What i have asked for is that notable sources (james randi is atleast that) are found to say FSM is a Parody, thats all! Hypnosadist 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might want to start with this section I added to the talk page some time back, which was recently relegated to the Archive along with a lot of ongoing discussions. It's only a start, but my intention was to compile third-party (ie., outside venganza.org) secondary sources describing FSM as a parody. I think I've got several noteworthy ones in there already, but it could always be expanded. If you're interested in researching or adding to these sources, feel free to restore the section from archive to this talk page. Kasreyn 19:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The blogger link references "They asked Australians to record their religion as "Pastafarian" in the August 2006 Australian Census" - I guess the decision for that is more one of notability or trivia. Can't find any official statistics. --h2g2bob 13:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I think this article suffers from the wrong title. The notable entity here is Bobby Henderson, not a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bobby did conduct a notable campaign in opposition to the Kansas decision to include Intelligent Design. His story is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. However, what has happened is that since this article is titled 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' we have an article primary about that "deity" with Henderson thrown in. I think that is the reverse of what it should be. The article should be titled 'Bobby Henderson' and be about his battle with the Kansas school board with some bits about pastafarianism thrown in for background.MikeURL

The article needs very few changes. I've created a page for discussion at Bobby Henderson (Intelligent Design). I think FSM, Pastafarian, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc should redirect there.MikeURL 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Henderson_%28Intelligent_Design%29&oldid=111371946 it has already been redirected.MikeURL 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MikeURL i think you are wrong, which of Bobby or FSM is the most famous and thats the FSM? Many people will know of the FSM and that its a counter to ID/anti-science but much fewer know Bobby's name. Also much of what is on this page would not fit neatly into a Biog of Mr Henderson. Hypnosadist 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypno is correct. Many people have heard of the FSM, almost no one has heard of the name of the guy who came up with it. The notable thing is the FSM, not Henderson. JoshuaZ 18:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources discuss Bobby Henderson as the main character and the FSM as a vehicle for him to make a point. It is probably true that the page would need a lot of revising to be a suitable biography. As written, this page uses the self-published venganza links in a POV way. If it is a reliable source for the phenomenon of FSMism then it should be taken in its entirety--including the pages that assert this is not a parody religion. This page should probably redirect to a Bobby Henderson bio. If I can find the time I'll see if I can make a decent bio at Bobby Henderson (Intelligent Design).MikeURL 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have requested a review of this article at Good Article Review. I don't believe this article meets the criteria for the reasons discussed immediately above this section.MikeURL 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this page reach FA status. It would raise awareness of FSM and it's just a fun article to begin with. RAmen, Demosthenes 18:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

New page: Science humour

Greeting all. I am in the process of writing the page Science humour, and am trying to decide whether to add a section on "Anti-anti-science humour". If I do, FSM, etc., would be listed, as a humorous attempt to combat anti-science/luddism (I know, I know, it's not a humorous attempt, may His noodly appendages touch you). Granted, there is a fine line between anti-anti-science (FSM) and anti-religion/anti-dogma (Discordianism). Hrm. Well, anyway, could you pop over to the Science humour talk page, and tell me what you think? Cheers, samwaltz 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kansas State Board of Education

The board never mandated the teaching of intelligent design. The resolutions it passed were aimed at including what it deemed 'the problems' with evolutionary theory in science class. It was supported by ID advocates, but it was not an ID resolution. I have changed the line in the first paragraph to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FelixRex (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Um, it was ID for all intents and purposes. See our articles on the subjects. Just because it wasn't called ID, doesn't make it not ID. JoshuaZ 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reliable sources DO call it ID.MikeURL 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore mini-billboard

There is a mini-billboard of the FSM somewhere in Baltimore, MD. I think it was off of Falls Rd. or Cold Spring La. Every time I go by, I forget to bring my digital camera. If some other WP editor is out that way please try to snap a pic before it goes away... and under it it says "BELIEVE" which is Baltimore's motto lately. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lovecraftian?

Anyone else think the spagetti monster is Cthulu-esque?

It's not eldritch enough.--Alf ^melmac 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting to Good Article status again

I think this article needs to be about Bobby Henderson. FSM or Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism can point to Bobby Henderson (Intelligent Design). I think having an encyclopedia article about a Flying Spaghetti Monster is silly. If this page remains about the FSM then I think there is going to have to be some serious pruning of the article because the venganza references are self-published and cannot be used to document anything other than details about Henderson.MikeURL 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that self-published references could only be used to document details about Henderson? If anything, they are less appropriate for documenting details about Henderson than they are about the FSM; the doctrine of the FSM is pretty much whatever Henderson claims it is, but the same is not true of details Henderson might claim about himself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sourcesMikeURL 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are in fact the policies we have regarding self-published sources, and I see nothing indicating that they "cannot be used to document anything other than details about Henderson." -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to use an "I didn't see an exact quote so you are wrong" argument? Those are very tiresome.MikeURL 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then publish the exact bit of the wikipolicy that you are refering to, as i still do not see anything,and Antaeus Feldspar is right with "the doctrine of the FSM is pretty much whatever Henderson claims it is, but the same is not true of details Henderson might claim about himself". Also you have not answered the fact that FSM is vastly more notable than Bobby. Finally why can we not have two articles if you feel so strongly about this. Hypnosadist 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An article on a Flying Spaghetti Monster must use sources that follow WP:ATT. Specifically, we cannot use self-published sources regarding what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. The venganza site is self-published and therefore inappropriate. However, this problem goes away if the article is about Bobby Henderson because of WP:SELFPUB#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources which allows for an exception to using self-published sources if the self-publisher is also the subject of the article.

Each of the reliable sources that ARE in the article refer mainly to Bobby Henderson and his activities (really, I promise, but go read them if you like).MikeURL 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very unfunny. Please go read WP:POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how that applies here.MikeURL 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It applies here because this is the real point you're getting at -- because the satire claims Pastafarianism is not a satire (a claim which, by the nature of satire, means nothing) you want the article to also claim it is not a satire. Failing to get your way on this point, you attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by insisting that the self-published sources on venganza.org are insufficient to support the non-extraordinary claims about themselves, if you are not allowed to insert the extraordinary claim you find in the self-published sources that "the Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science" and "anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental." That is how WP:POINT applies here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at but POINT is not meant to be a shield for not following ATT and NPOV. This article was one of the first that I became active with editing and at the time I didn't know too much about WP guidelines and procedures. If anything, this article confused me because it is written in a way that looks to me like a mix of properly sourced material and improperly sourced material. My interest at this time is NOT adding back bad edits but to get the article to a point where it actually conforms to ATT and NPOV. At this time I believe that means removing all references to venganza and any blogs. And to set your mind at ease I'll say in advance that if this is not agreed to I am not planning to reinstate Glen's edit.

It was not me that delisted the article. My only interest is in helping the article get to GA status again. Please assume good faith.MikeURL 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All material about the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism which are supported by the official material of venganza.org are well-referenced. I do not think there is any way that anyone could be plausibly misunderstanding that point anymore; one might as well claim that an article on a self-published book may not contain anything referenced to the self-published book because the book is self-published. That would have the same amount of plausibility, i.e. none, which is why I can no longer assume good faith. However, there is a distinction between the doctrines and the followers. Venganza may declare that the doctrines of FSMism include a "strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster" and we can accept that claim. When it claims that there are over 10 million followers of the FSM who seriously, truly believe these doctrines, however, this is an extraordinary claim for which Venganza is not a sufficient reference. I would appreciate not having to explain this again, since it should be manifestly clear by now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to read ATT very carefully. A questionable source can be used if the article is about the source. Is this article about the venganza website? No, this article is about a Flying Spaghetti Monster and, believe it or not, that monster did not write the text at venganza. Do you see the problem?MikeURL 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same MikeURL who repeatedly tried to remove the word "parody" from this article on Feb 2 2007? Is there any reason we should take you seriously? Shoehorn 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact there is. I was a newcomer to editing at the time and I've since familiarized myself with the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. As it turns out I really think they make a lot of sense. You'll note that I have not touched the article in quite some time. If my case is not accepted here then I may take it to DR but I don't plan to edit the article myself.MikeURL 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Parody religion? Why are you mocking something I truly believe and base my life on? --CrimsonSun99 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I can feel His Noodly Appendage tingling in my fingertips, without a doubt. He is real, and thankfully, the first "I'd Really Rather You Didn't" says that it's ok for Wikipedians to express their disbelief...there will be no (otherwise baseless) wars fought to defend The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. If indeed the F.S.M. began as a parody, the truth is, the central force of the universe has since chosen to inhabit His form, and has perhaps even travelled back in time to rearrange all historical facts to this circumstance. I know it to be true, and thus stated, should be respected with at least the same integrity as Christianity and the other false religions. Oh happiness!

While I don't exactly believe the religion of Pastafarianism, I think that all religions should be treated with respect. Refering to it as a "parody religion" is disrespectful and not in the neutral form that an encyclopedia should be given.

Nonsense. It has been described as such by impartial third-party sources, as well as by Bobby Henderson himself (who one would think would be an authoritative source!). This has nothing to do with WP stating an opinion; we are citing the verifiable, NPOV facts as known to us. Kasreyn 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you making that up? Bobby Henderson does not consider his religion to be a parody, nor has he even mentioned it in an authentic interview. Look, there are people who seriously believe this, and by putting it as a parody, you're offending people and not being neutral. Is this religious prejudice, or something? Cuz that's the last thing Wikipedia needs.

Considering myself an outsider to all religions, I have no personal preference for one religion over another. I have no problem with FSM, I think nothing is more wonderful than the way it pokes fun at dogmatic would-be theocrats. My problem is as follows: Henderson deliberately created what seems to me, to the majority of editors here if I reckon correctly, and to quite a few third-party sources, to be a fairly effective reductio ad absurdum argument against allowing individual religions to affect governmental policy - in the form of a parody religion. My apologies for the personal speculation, but no matter how hard I ponder, I have been unable to come up with more than three possible explanations for why someone would oppose the use of the adjective "parody" in this article. The three are:

• They get the joke, but are taking it too far, either in a spirit of fun (which is a big part of "Pastafarianism") or as a deliberate troll. This is not malicious but is dangerously irresponsible given WP's (probably unjustified at this point) credibility. News stories abound of college professors catching their students cribbing essays and papers from WP; therefore what we write here matters and should be kept to the highest quality. Not even in an article on a joke religion which we all enjoy and appreciate, should we ever stoop to playing tricks on WP readers.
• They failed to get the joke, and have been essentially tricked by Henderson. This is regrettable, but no shame or moral lapse could be laid at their feet. Persons believing in a religion which even its own founder does not believe in seem to me as harmless, and as worthy of being ignored, as the Flat-Earthers. (I hold as given that Henderson deliberately created a parody religion, which he himself does not believe in.)
• The worst option: They are disingenuously seeking to counteract Henderson's parody by pretending it is no parody at all. To put it more bluntly, this third possible motive (which I assume and hope no one here holds, and which I put last to indicate my belief that it is the least likely) is one of malicious direct misinformation, originating in a partisan desire to dissipate the social impact of Henderson's politically subversive act.

I sincerely hope and trust that you and any other editor opposing the description of FSM as "parody" are merely "taking the joke too far" as in possibility #1. This is the mildest option of the three (as it assumes neither ignorance nor malice) and so I will assume for now it is the actual one: I like you, Hypnosadist, and would hate to think the worst of you. So I am asking you to relent in taking the joke too far. It's a fun game, but WP is not the place for that sort of thing; Unencyclopedia would be more appropriate. How about we go back to editing some part of the article on which the public consensus is not clearly defined, so we can make some actual improvements? Sitting here arguing (or joking) all day about "parody" is getting no work done. Kasreyn 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

self-published sources (examples)

An article about a self-published book may use that self-published book as a source.

• Suppose a self-published book, gains great notoriety in the press. Many articles are written about it. It would be acceptable to use that book as a source because the WP article would be about that book. Example Mein_Kampf

As an adjunct to this it is important to note that Hitler's self-published musings on his notable book would not be an acceptable reference.

An article about a self-published website may use references from that website.

• Suppose a self-published website, gains great notoriety in the press. Many articles are written about it. It would be acceptable to use that website as a source because the WP article would be about that website. Example Yahoo

An article about a person may use references from that person.

• Suppose a person gains notoriety in the press. Many articles are written about him/her. It would be acceptable to use that person's self-published works as a source because the WP article would be about that person. Example Bill_gates

However,

• Suppose that same person uses a parody religion and many articles are written about it. It would be unacceptable to use that person's self-published website as a source because the WP article would be about that parody religion and not the person or the website. Example Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.

Henderson's self-published musings on the notable parody religion he started do not pass WP:ATT.

MikeURL 23:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"As an adjunct to this it is important to note that Hitler's self-published musings on his notable book would not be an acceptable reference." False. As long as we could confirm that they were indeed the musings of Hitler and not of some other person pretending to be Hitler they would be relevant and valuable. It is amazing that you keep pressing this very artificial and unrealistic distinction under which the creator of a parody religion is not a reliable source for the contents of the religion and the author of a notable book is not a reliable source for the contents of the book but you ignore the much more crucial distinction, which unlike yours addresses a realistic possibility for abuse, which is the distinction between those things the creator/author is the only expert on, and those things on which he is not only not the only source but not necessarily a reliable source. Please stop this absurdity, it ceased being funny long ago. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's self-published thoughts would be appropriate as a reference on Adolph_Hitler but not Mein_Kampf. There is a real distinction between the two and there should be. I don't think this is a silly point but I'll abide by the consensus of the RfC. I am, in fact, rather curious to see what the comments will be.MikeURL 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: venganza.org

This dispute is about whether venganza.org can be used as a Reliable Source to describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other items related to the parody religion.00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• A self-published source may only be used if the article is about that source. Bobby Henderson is the progenitor of a parody religion, of which the Flying Spaghetti monster is a part, but this article is not about Bobby Henderson so his self-published website ought not be used as a reliable source for this article. MikeURL 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is an obviously silly interpretation. Could the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, by themselves, create a website to describe the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Clearly not; the idea is absurd. By the same logic, we could not ever include anything from any self-published book, no matter how notable the book might be, because it is not the book that wrote the book. Can we have a quick end to this silliness, please? The prohibitions on self-published works, like all Wikipedia rules, exist to serve a purpose, not to be slavishly followed to ridiculous extremes. The prohibitions on self-published works exist for one purpose and one purpose only (and this is shown in the exceptions spelled out to those prohibitions) and that is to keep people who have no expertise in a subject from being treated as experts merely because they self-published. But, pardon my shouting, no person on Earth is more of an expert on what the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are than Bobby Henderson is. Insistence on pedantically and artificially separating FSMism from Henderson, for no other purpose that I can see other than to try and disallow Henderson as a source on FSMism, is of no benefit to the encyclopedia.
    • Thanks for the refactoring. I'm sorry but including content regarding this parody religion from a self-published website is original research. I really don't think there is any way around that. I addressed your objection regarding a self-published book being used as a reference in detail immediately above this section.MikeURL 02:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please read the bolded sentence above. No person on Earth is more of an expert on what the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are than Bobby Henderson is. If you disagree with this sentence, explain who is more of an expert. If you agree with this sentence, explain what benefit Wikipedia could ever possibly get from barring the official word coming from the expert on a subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        • This sounds a lot like an appeal to authority. Maybe we should start writing verbatim everything Bill Gates says about Microsoft? After all, who is more of an expert on Microsoft than Bill Gates.MikeURL 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
          • All right, I refuse to address this farce any longer. There are, indeed, grey areas on which issues the word of self-published sources is sufficient, and on which it is not. In fact, I've already addressed this very issue, by pointing out that we can take venganza.org as the authority on what the doctrines of FSMism are but not on how many of the "followers" of FSMism, if any, actually take it seriously. But this is nowhere near such a gray area and in fact if MikeURL were to acknowledge such grey areas it would ruin his attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
            • ATT is one of, if not the, most important policies on Wikipedia. The allowance for the use of self-published sources is very narrow. Following what you are suggesting would open up every article on wikipedia to self-published sources with the argument that the source is "the expert" on <insert subject>.MikeURL 01:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• All material about the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism which are supported by the official material of venganza.org are well-referenced. I do not think there is any way that anyone could be plausibly misunderstanding that point anymore; one might as well claim that an article on a self-published book may not contain anything referenced to the self-published book because the book is self-published. That would have the same amount of plausibility, i.e. none, which is why I can no longer assume good faith. However, there is a distinction between the doctrines and the followers. Venganza may declare that the doctrines of FSMism include a "strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster" and we can accept that claim. When it claims that there are over 10 million followers of the FSM who seriously, truly believe these doctrines, however, this is an extraordinary claim for which Venganza is not a sufficient reference. I would appreciate not having to explain this again, since it should be manifestly clear by now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Glad you agree "venganza.org is thus a source for factual content on what the content of the parody religion claims" which is what it is used for in this article. Venganza is also an appropriate source for Henderson quotes. Swift's work is called a parody in wikipedia because notable sources say its a parody (many books have been written on who, what, where and when was being parodied and how this was done) this is the principle of verifiability and is the basis for this project. What i have asked for is that notable sources (james randi is atleast that) are found to say FSM is a Parody, thats all! Hypnosadist 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  You know, I hate to harp on this one point over and over, but we already have such sources. I added them to the talk page more than half a year ago here, and they have been ignored ever since. I don't know whether the WP community considers these sources notable, since no one has ever responded to their addition and AFAIK they were never added to the article proper. Kasreyn 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whether FSM is a parody or not has nothing to do with this at all. http://www.venganza.org/ is the self-published source for info on the entity's of the FSM and the Church of the FSM. If you think that mis-identified sources is a real issue here then sections that discribe FSM ideas could be clearly marked accordingly. PS all the http://www.venganza.org/ quotes were part of this article when it got its GA status. Hypnosadist 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Not a reducio ad absurdum

Look up reducio ad absurdum before trying to revert my edit. It clearly does not fit the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

That's "reductio". Or have IBT? Care to explain why it's not? Kasreyn 05:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a reductio ad absurdum, or at least meant to be (and in fact, the whole creation of Pastafarianism is part of a reductio ad absurdum argument against religion, isn't it?). The argument is as follows (compare the examples on Reductio ad absurdum:

• School science classes teach Darwin's evolutionary theory.
• Kansas Board of Education: "We should also allow teaching creationism as an alternative explanation for where man came from (since evolution is just a 'theory')."
• Pastafarian: "Well, then we will also have to add Pastafarianism as yet another alternative (and, following Henderson's argument, equally plausible) explation (although this would be the pinnacle of being absurd, tracing the origins of man to flying pasta and meatballs...)."

Naturally, you can critize Henderson's argument that, essentially, FSM is just as valid as creationism, but there should be little doubt about the logic of his argument. (By the way, I don't think the term "strawman" argument applies here. A strawman argument criticizes something which isn't there, e.g. by misrepresenting someone's intention, but this doesn't apply here). -- Semper discipulus 08:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You left out that creationists have tried to change the definition of the word science. That is partially why it would be considered absurd.

The story of FSM follower Bryan Killian

I removed the following part from the main page, section "History and Developments":

In March, 2007, student Bryan Killian of Weaverville, North Carolina's Buncombe High School was suspended from school for wearing an eyepatch in class as part of his stated religious beliefs. [1]

The part doesn't really seem to fit in, at least not in this form and in this place (Killian apparently claimed that he was a follower of FSM, that wearing an eye patch was part of his belief, and that his personal religious freedom was being curtailed by not being allowed to wear that patch -- But this is not really part of the development of FSM). It might fit into a separate section like "FSM followers". I'm personally not convinced that such a section would be important for this article, but if someone feels up for it, please go ahead. -- Semper discipulus 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is something that (made the news) then I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of a one or two line entry. If it became its own spin-off article I would vote to delete on an AfD but we aren't there yet (of course, if it made it to a few higher courts, that would be a different case). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Chalk up another third-party, impartial source which describes FSMism as a "parody religion". Thanks for the link, Semper! I'll add it to the Sources describing FSM as Parody section immediately. Oops, looks like one can't edit the archive. I'll restore it here, then. Kasreyn 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources Describing FSM as Parody Religion (reposted and revised)

• The New York Times
• USA Today
• Scientific American
• The Oregon News-Review
• The Daily Telegraph
• The Kansas City Star
• The Orlando Weekly
• The Asheville Citizen-Times
• The James Randi Education Foundation

Some choice bits (in my opinion):

"Henderson said he's merely using the time-honored tradition of satire to illustrate his personal views. ... 'Originally it was just a letter, and it was sort of a joke,' Henderson said in a telephone interview Monday."

The Register-Guard, Eugene, OR

"'It was actually a very clever satire, really getting at the heart of the argument why creationism probably should not be taught as a science,' Rod Henderson said of his son's letter."

and

"'I am not too worried about the angry religious people who e-mail me,' Henderson said. 'Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of religious people are not nuts, and most of them understand that the FSM project is not an attack on religion, only on dogma.'"

The Oregon News-Review

"...Bobby Henderson’s satirical Web page (www.venganza.org)..."

and

"'I think it’s weird that it’s still going on,' Henderson told me in a phone interview."

and

"Henderson thought, if Kansas was open to teaching nonscientific theories, then why not his: that the world was created by the 'noodly appendage' of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. So to mock the decision, he asked the Kansas board to also teach his theory."

The Kansas City Star

and

"...a satirical attack on the teaching of Creationism in American schools."

The James Randi Education Foundation

Note to editors: These sources are intended as justification for the article's flat description of FSM as a parody religion. (Ie., for reasons of notability, verifiability, and NPOV.) This single adjective is one of the most frequently disputed single pieces of the article, with at any given time typically a single editor challenging the strong consensus that FSM is a parody. It's becoming quite a waste of time reinventing the wheel every week by writing another whole section on this just to reassert the consensus. Some highly contentious articles have FAQ pages (for instance, Evolution) to deal with frequently-disputed issues, in order to avoid pointless timewasting. I suggest that this section could help in a similar time-saving fashion here. Please, if you agree, do not archive this section. Thanks, Kasreyn 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I might want to point this out- NONE OF THOSE SOURCES SHOW BOBBY HENDERSON SAYING IT IS A PARODY. Others call it a parody, but that doesn't mean thay can be cited.

The NY Times source says "Long before that, Bobby Henderson, a 25-year-old with a physics degree from Oregon State University, had a divine vision. An intelligent god, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, he said, "revealed himself to me in a dream."" yet does not mention parody till the end of the article and NEVER claims that FSM is a parody religion just implies it. Clearly a much better source to say that this is a TRUE religion divinely revealed.

I also continue to dispute this claim to concensus and to this only one person against the parody part. It is needlessly insulting! Hypnosadist 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Eris has revealed that Discordianism holds all the rites on being kinda parody kinda religion. Thus FSMism is a stright parody.Geni 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You've made your point. We're up to two at once now: a new record for this talk page. As to the consensus, I really don't think putting this to a vote would serve any useful purpose. WP's editors' opinions are just OR anyway. The consensus of verifiable third-party sources, by comparison, is clear. Kasreyn 23:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the NYT article, it does not merely "imply". Consider:

will ... Pastafarianism do what it was intended to do - prove that it is ridiculous to teach intelligent design as science?

This is NYT clearly stating that the intention of FSM is political and temporal rather than religious.

Parody is a lot of fun. And parody begets more parody, especially on the Internet. It's contagious. But has anyone ever converted to a parody religion?

All right, so the NYT is being coy. So what? How about we have a vote on which parody religion we each think the NYT was referring to in this paragraph? Get real, and get a grip on Occam's Razor. The reality of the situation is, the NYT clearly considers FSM a parody. Only the most unlikely legalistic chicanery could hold otherwise: that for some unknown reason, in the middle of an article on FSM, the NYT would suddenly interject a paragraph referring to some mysterious unspecified OTHER parody religion - and then go back to talking about FSM! Because that is what you would have to propose in order to claim that that paragraph is not a description of FSM as a parody. Are you really prepared to go out on that thin branch? Think hard now. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 23:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"The reality of the situation is, the NYT clearly considers FSM a parody." thats just your OR (oh what a good way to dismisss any comment you don't like, i'll have to remember it!). What an article says is much more important than what you think it says. Also as i say again this source is not notable because its an arts reporter not an expert on religion. Hypnosadist 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, nonsense.

• If the article had been in the religion section, you would have used that as evidence that the NYT clearly considered FSM to be a religion - why else would it be in the religion section? FSM's place in the arts section instead clearly indicates the NYT does not consider it to be a real religion. Thank you for that point, by the way - I hadn't noticed it!
• As to the former: so you are saying that you hold that the NYT was talking about some other unspecified parody religion in that paragraph, rather than merely being coy in referring to FSM? Just trying to make absolutely sure, because once again I would hate to misinterpret or assume the worst of you: you are taking that position? If so, out of curiosity, and with no real relevance to work on this article - what parody religion do you speculate the NYT may have been randomly referring to for no reason at all in that paragraph? Because I'm really not an expert on parody religions, the only other one that immediately comes to mind is the Church of the SubGenius. Perhaps you know of some others which you could enlighten me about? I'd be delighted to learn about them.

Cheers, Kasreyn 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you know what? I'm taking this too seriously anyway (which is exactly the sort of thing His Noodleyness would most disapprove of, now that I think of it). We've managed to inform each other of what we believe, and at this point it doesn't seem likely that either of us are going to convince the other, so I'm going to bed unless some other party wants to weigh in. Somehow I doubt we two are the only editors of this page, though sometimes it feels kind of lonely in here. :P Sorry to get so worked up. Kasreyn 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article the other day while reverting some vandalism. Just to add my two cents as a non-noodly lay person (but as someone with a good background in the humanities and textual research): The beauty of parody, irony, and satire is of course that it is presented as real and serious, with its message being subtle rather than all too obvious. In order to 'get it', one needs to read between the lines and recreate the author's intention while carefully considering the context in which it was produced. Some irony is plain as the day while some is more hidden -- and of course there is always the chance that the irony and its message are missed entirely. Detecting irony is based on interpretation and human understanding, and I don't there are easy, formal criteria for 'proving' that something is irony.

That being said, FSM seems like a very obvious case of parody to me; I think there can be little debate about Henderson's intentions, given his statements and the context in which he came up with it. So I don't quite understand why this issue can't be put to rest... Well, two possible reasons for this suggest themselves:

(1) FSM has developed a life on its own and has brought about genuine believers who are offended by what they see as 'their religion being ridiculed'. If that were really so (and I think in that case, we would need very solid evidence to show that claims of 'believing in FSM' are actually based religious intentions), this should probably go into a separate section in the article, to differentiate it from FSM's humorous beginnings. Or:

(2) In line with Critical Theory, statements are never only matter of fact, but closely tied to intentions. So perhaps fundamentally different intentions what the 'purpose' of the article should be prevent consensus here ... ? (For example, upholding vs. analyzing (and therefore, quasi, debunking) parody.)-- Semper discipulus 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Semper, you're taking this far too seriously. Can't you tell this is just a parody of a talk page? --Justfred 15:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Point in case: There is no foolproof system to detect irony ... :-) -- Semper discipulus 10:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The following is evidence against the theory "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a totally serious and absolutely non-parody religion which Bobby Henderson seriously actually follows and seriously actually thought should be taught in the classroom":

• "I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach Creationism in school, fine, but don't teach it in a science classroom. And don't change the definition of science so that you can teach these things. That's retarded."[2]

• "Q: You are making God angry. A: I doubt it. If there's a God, and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor."[3]

These are completely consistent with the theory "FSMism is a parody religion designed as a humorous attempt to demonstrate why teaching Creationism in a science classroom is wrong" and completely inconsistent with "FSMism is a completely serious and non-parody non-humor religion." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to insist on using venganza as though it were/is a reliable source. What are you going to do if Henderson "tightens it up" a bit so there are fewer, or no, inconsistencies? Then you'll be in the uncomfortable position of explaining that it was only a RS while it agreed with your POV and once it stopped agreeing with your POV then it was no longer a RS. Never did get any comments on the RfC...unfortunately. I really did want to see what "outside" parties thought. Lord knows you and I aren't going to agree.MikeURL 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'll stick with common sense and you'll cling tenaciously to the absurdity that the creator of a religion is completely unqualified to comment on that religion. Your predictions are inaccurate, by the way; if Henderson were to remove from his website the statements which clarify that he is not favoring religions being taught in the science classroom, the fact that he had made those statements would still be cited and relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is absurd is to use questionable sources when it is isn't even necessary. There are enough secondary sources to do this article justice. Why don't you put away your strident attitude--it isn't helpful.MikeURL 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I have removed the word parody from the Wikipedia article. Let me explain why:

To say that it is a Parody religion technically constitutes bias. Parody or not, it is a religion, and as such is considered serious by a group of people claiming to be members of that religion. Ergo, I was forced to remove the word parody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.240.16 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 April 2007.

Of course it is a parody religion. It's all in fun, even if it is fun with a purpose. I love it, myself. But, I realize that it was all made up by a guy who wanted to make a point by poking a little fun at the ID folks. Where is the bias in calling it what it is? Cmichael 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section immediately above this one and refer to WP:V and WP:NPOV. HTH HAND Kasreyn 06:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with those two sections. Common sense says its a parody. I've said all I want to on the subject. Thanks for the opportunity to put in my two cents. Cmichael 13:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is not the issue. We have a large number of reliable sources describing it as parody. WP:V and WP:RS are what matters here. JoshuaZ 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an issue...we fundamentally agree that it is a parody. So, calling it what it is does not represent any kind of bias. Cmichael 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to mention that it has been called a parody religion, but imho, it should not be stated as fact given the NPOV guidelines.

It doesn't matter what it was intended to be, calling it a parody is biased, and an insult to the followers. People base their very lives on this "parody". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.137.12 (talk • contribs).

• Firstly, "us people" are perfectly capable of "getting" it. Please try to remain civil.
• Secondly, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~! It makes things much less confusing.
• Thirdly, another thing which doesn't matter about the description of FSM as a parody is whether it might possibly offend someone somewhere. Our only concern here is recording all notable and verifiable information about the subject. Facts cannot be biased. Only the frameworks within which they are presented can be. It is a fact that FSM has been described as a parody religion by several sources. Since no one has yet disputed the reliability or notability of those sources, I will venture to call them several notable, reliable sources. It is not a fact known to me that FSM has ever been described as a genuine religion by any notable, reliable source. You'll need to provide a reference for this claim before we can include it in the article (see [[WP:NOR|no original research).

I will make an edit to reflect this reference. Please reply here if you still feel there is a problem. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FSM is a parody. Describing it as something that people believe is a parody is undue weight. The fact is that it's a parody, and we have the words of the prophet to back that up several times over. -- Ec5618 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful to see you here. The description of "widely described as" parody, was intended to put the kabbash on these NPOV complaints. For one thing, it prevents all possible appearance of original research in our phrasing.

Here is the way this article works. As I described above, at any given time there are between zero and two transient editors (as in, they arrive, they stay a while, then they move on) arguing the minority position. Whenever it happens that other editors get sick and tired, or just bored, of eternally responding to the same damn quibble (over FSM as a parody), there isn't any proof that the consensus is unchanged. So could you stick around for a while? Because a few days ago in here I sure looked mighty ridiculous: "But it IS a parody! That's the majority consensus of me, and all those other editors who I'm sure will eventually say something, right guys?" >_< So what would you do under the situation? Start an one-man edit war while loudly proclaiming, without proof, to be the representative of a silent majority? Or compromise? Naturally, the only proper thing to do was to compromise. Kasreyn 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the issue here. Bobby Henderson has stated, in reliable sources, that he imagined the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a way to mock proponents of intelligent design. On top of that, that fact is self-evident.

Considering that Wikipedia is not a democracy, the strongest argument should win, regardless of the number of transient editors who fail to read the sources. -- Ec5618 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to compromise? That's what I've been trying to do. I attempted to neutralize it by editing the article and saying the some refer to it as a parody, yet the followers take it very serously. It was deleted. I'd appreciate it if it wasn't deleted next time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.221.31.37 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 April 2007.

Ahoy there, matey. Be ye one of the Touched, a Pastafarian? If not, 'tis no matter. This youngin, she is, she be one of the Pirates of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, praise to his Noodly Appendages, and proudly she wears the mantle of 'Pastafarian'.

But, I gotta tell ye somethin', me hearty... though I take the message the Prophet Bobby is a-sendin' with the FSM real serious, the message that we should be a-keepin' faith outta places it don't belong, truly I don't take the deity Himself serious, me lad or lass. Oh, sometimes I'll go out wearin' me eyepatch on Friday, and the Eight Condiments seem right sensible, and I wish people a happy Holidy come Hallowe'en an' December, but matey... matey, I ain't serious about it, and honestly I don't know of any Pastafarian who truly, deep in their swashbuckling hearts, believes the world were started with mountains, trees, and a midgit.

If they be out there, matey, well... frankly they've missed the whole point. We should be reportin' on 'em if they do be out there, but so far I've not seen one teeny little speck of evidence for 'em. It ain't a serious religion, me hearty - just a way for the Atheists and the Agnostics and the Christians and the Jews and the Neo-Pagans and who knows who else to come together and say "Lookie here, lads and lasses of ID - we all see what you're a-tryin' to do. Knock it off." --Sparky Lurkdragon 07:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alf's papal bull.

Alf, Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei,

To those wayward souls in jeopardy of perpetual HotDog eating, this bull is addressed. Stop it just stop it you hear? Now get back to your crayons.

Issued this day, the 10th day of the fourth month of the year 2007. Saint-Tropez beach.

Ego Alf Discordia Ecclesiae Episcopus

Could I just put that some consider it to be a parody, others take it seriously? I realize that not everyone here thinks people take it seriously. And, frankly, neither do I. I'm trying to compromise here, is that really so bad? 68.221.31.201 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's bad, considering that we have sources proving that it isn't serious. It's a parody. Your 'compromise' completely misses theat point. FSM is an argument against teaching intelligent design in schools. -- Ec5618 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

you know what, what the hell ever. Go ahead. I'll stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.221.31.201 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

There you go Ec5618 another victory for your insult them until they leave stratagy.Hypnosadist 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any portion of Ec's comment which would constitute an insult or ad hominem attack. He was referring to 68.etc's compromise, ie. an argument. Focusing on each other's arguments, rather than each other, is precisely what we are supposed to do here. Unlike Ec, your comments seem to be straying perilously close to focusing on the contributor rather than the arguments. Please don't bother with the speculation on Ec's "strategy". Kasreyn 02:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

precedent in other (parody) religion articles

Subgenius and Discordia, both have the word parody in the intros. see Category:Joke religions for more examples. I think Discordia does it best by having a seperate sentence saying it is "widely regarded" as a parody. We all appreciate a good joke but an encyclopedia is not the place to play the joke. I think the language on parody should be nearly identical to the discordia article. -- Diletante 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Discriptions of Subgenius and Discordia are even worse as many books on the practice of these faiths have been writen. Just because we don't drink the blood of a jew whose been dead 2000 years or blow people up does not mean we don't have rights. Hypnosadist 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, please take your garbage somewhere else. Shoehorn 06:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NO Hypnosadist 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Its very simple, find some decent sources for your insult of other peoples faith.Hypnosadist 06:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If I were to attempt an inclusion that The great prophet Zarquon was a true prophet and formed the basis of a true religion because I really believe, truly and honestly that he is, and found it an affront to have others state he's not real and was just made up by some guy I hope someone would have the good sense to block my ass to Ursa Minor Beta and back again.--Alf ^melmac 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It could not possibly have been more well-said. Kasreyn 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We have reliable sources. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please

I posted the thing where the debate is still going on, but you took it down. Well, I believe, I truly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And if I believe it, and my friends believe it, and this debate is going on, then anyone who reads the article has a right to know that. Please, I ask you this: Don't take down something saying that some people believe it. Please, we (believers) don't want to fight anymore, I don't want to fight anymore, but if this continues to happen, we are going to keep trying to tell the public. That's all I ask. Xela 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I'm tired of explaing this to new editors, I'll be brief. Without sources claiming that true Pastafarians exist, you are not notable. On a more personal note, I would ask you to reconsider believing in a well known lie. I would also ask you to consider that your prophet, Bobby Henderson, who opposes blind religion, is probably not at all pleased that some people are apparently blindly following a joke. -- Ec5618 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really tired of explaining to you that there is not concensus here. You are just rude to people until they leave! Hypnosadist 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the number of people that fail to read the sources, the sources still obviously state that the FSM is a parody. -- Ec5618 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources that are not good enough for the extrordinary claim that this is a parody and in some cases misrepresented (see above). Hypnosadist 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maties, ye be makin' th' rest of us Pastafarians look bad. You are either missing the entire point of the Open Letter or trolling the Wikipedia. At this point I rather suspect the latter - you "true Pastafarians" are the ones with the extraordinary claim.

I know the adherents of Pastafarianism are supposed to be Pirates with loose moral standards, and I know you can't account for religion, but seriously: either take it to Uncyclopedia or pony up some tangible, verifiable proof that folks who seriously believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the Universe exist, something verified by the outside media as a serious event rather than one making satirical comments about the Intellegent Design movement and/or dogma in general.

I know I shouldn't be getting so worked up about what are either trolls or a very miniority religion, so minority in fact that the rest of its 'adherents' acknowledge it to be a parody, but enough is enough. --Sparky Lurkdragon 04:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sources that it is a parody do not meet wp:att, nothing academic, no-one with any training on religion let alone New religious movements or parodys. A features writer on a minor local american newspaper just do not cut it for most things on wikipedia, note wikipedia is not about what is true just what is verifiable by notable sources. Hypnosadist 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Jedi census phenomenon

This isn't a joke, so stop it.

This is borderline religious oppression, I mean it. I'm serious, you guys, quit messing with the article and just let the Pastafarians say that some say it's a parody and some don't. You guys are really being borderline racist here. Would you say that people who believe in New Age theories are following a parody religion? What about sects? What about denominations? Are they parodying the "actual religions" out there? No, you wouldn't, and I don't think that you should with Pastafarianism either. Maybe it was made to make supporters of ID look at how ridiculous they were being, so what? It's a religion now and a religion should be respected as a religion. Quit being intolerant and let the article go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.240.16 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with the ongoing discussion by reading the sections above, then replying to whichever points you disagree with. Please refer also to WP's standards of attribution and notability; what we here think about FSM is unimportant. The fact of the matter, as referenced, is that FSM is widely considered a work of parody or satire. Kasreyn 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "messing with the article" seems a strange accusation to level, since the consensus revision of the article includes the parody language with no disclaimer; one might suspect that "messing" would be more appropriate when used to describe those repeatedly altering the article against established consensus. Cheers, Kasreyn 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, just saying so does not make it so. And the sources for the CLAIM its a parody are CRAP.Hypnosadist 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about sources - or at least you complain a lot about other people's sources. Can you find a reliable, believable source that says it isn't a parody? One that demonstrates, say, a non-parody wedding service or funeral? Or even a non-parody service at all? One that shows that this is not (as intended) a parody meant to point out the irrationality of intelligent design?--Justfred 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and may contain material which you find offensive. I'm sure the Kansas School Board would find the Evolution page objectionable, but they can't mess with that page either.

Wikipedia policy says that disputed facts need to be backed by reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In saying FSM is parody we have referenced four sources which meet this criteria, including the very well respected New York Times. We could add four more if pressed. If you want to be taken seriously in your claim that this is not a parody then you will need to provide at least one reliable source. Original research or your opinion is not enough. I await your posting of a reliable source, according to the reliable sources criteria linked above. --h2g2bob 04:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To play the devil's advocate here, I think there may be room enough to release the FSM movement from the bonds of being labelled a parody. If the FSM is a metaphor for the idea that a god can not be understood, characterised or known then the substance of the religion itself is a rejection of the idea of assigning attributes to a god through the use of parody. As such the religion itself is not a parody, but rather it uses parody to illustrate the point that knowing a god is impossible. Nina 137.111.47.182 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pirates chart

The graph of pirates vs global warming has disappeared, apparently deleted... anyone know why? mattbuck 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the commons deletion log for this image has an edit summary of "no permission", presumably like most of the other images of it that can be found on google image search, it had www.venganza.org on the bottom right.--Alf ^melmac 22:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, deleting an image simply because it shows up on google seems a bit stupid to me... But oh well. We need a replacement, as it's one of the central aspects of the theology. mattbuck 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for an undelete - the graph is from the Open Letter, which I think is either public domain or very liberal permissions. --h2g2bob 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's noncommercial use only.[4]. I'll upload to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. --h2g2bob 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Metaphysics of String Theory

I have added this, with assistance from a colleague, mainly because if you start to explore a parody or satire you see links and proofs everywhere. They then become part of the parody itself.--Edmund Patrick 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The very definition of original research. Off it goes again. If you want to explore the deeper meanings of a made-up religion, feel free to do so on, say, Uncyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference #4

1. ^ Wolf, Gary. "The Crusade Against Religion", Wired News, October 23, 2006.

is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.137.137 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've found an article from the monthly archive of that site which is or say the same thing.--Alf ^melmac 10:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What the...

I stumbled on this page, and began reading. I immediately thought, "What is this, an Uncyclopedia article?" Seriously, if anyone copied the entire page and put it on the Uncyclopedia, it would be fit in perfectly. -4.225.189.24 22:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why? Kasreyn 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit ridiculous. But that's the problem. Take Shelley the Republican - is that fake or the real thing? It might be satire, but it's not beyond the realm of believability. mattbuck 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro clearly states that the religion is a parody and places it in context. This is a non-issue. Chris Cunningham 08:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he's wrong. I agree it's not really an issue though. mattbuck 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The fact that is uses a self-published website for most of its material makes this whole entry a joke and an insult to what WP is supposed to be.MikeURL 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it is non notable. If you require other sources, then mayhaps one could cite the book published by Random House. And (HHOS) maybe you proposing double standards and expressing fake outrage to articles you disagree with is the actual insult to Wikipedia.--Shadowdrak 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FSM Hell

I have restored the Pastafarian doctrine of hell, which was removed as "irrelevant vandalism." It is not. Quotation from "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," p.83:

Q. If there's a Beer Volcano and a Stripper Factory in heaven, 
    what's FSM Hell like?
A. We're not entirely certain, but we imagine it's similar to FSM 
   Heaven, only the beer is stale and the strippers have venereal diseases. 
   Not unlike Las Vegas.

oops, forgot to sign Hypnopomp 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You claimed (on my Talk page) that I'd made that removal. I don't recall seeing that quotation, or removing it. It would help when making a remark like that to give a reference so that I (or whoever you're addressing) can see what you're referring to. For example you could say "the edit you made". (There may be a way to reference the change without using an external link back to WP - maybe someone can suggest how?) --John Stumbles 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You did. here. For what it's worth, you were perfectly justified in removing it at the time. Chris Cunningham 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the diff link. And thanks Hypnopomp for restoring the quote with the reference that shows it's genuine: when I first saw it I just thought someone's larking around putting in their own view of FSM hell. --John Stumbles 13:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a great example, by the way, of why cross-pollination of self-published sources used on a related subject eventually lead to an article that is absurd and not encyclopedic.MikeURL 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Noodlefest 2007

Should we mention Noodlefest 2007 here?

and yes...it was held on may, 8.

Source: http://www.venganza.org/2007/04/11/noodlefest-2007.htm

--Xinjinbei 23:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

Link #1 www.venganza.org appears to be broken. Until at least 2 weeks ago it was the official website for the FMS church, anybody know what happened to it? 68.42.180.179 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, it works for me. Copy-pasted from your post even. -- Ec5618 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FSM moved to a new server recently, and there was some downtime. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WWFSMD? not mentioned

WWFSMD (what would flying spaghetti monster do) should be mentioned. 84.177.53.90 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder

How many of these 'pastafarians' have never prayed to 'God' for anything. Or asked God to save their kid's life. Or end the suffering of disease for their mothers. And do these 'pastafarians' have parents, children or loved ones who believe in God? Do they tell their co-workers about this 'belief'? Do they have services?

If they can honestly answer the above then I guess they have the right to mock religion and God-believers. But otherwise it seems like a hypocritical and cruel type of entertainment.

And there should be a criticism section in this article.

Xavier cougat 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it would matter if any of "them" ever believed in a fairy tale called organized religion; I used to believe in Santa Claus but never really cared much for the Easter Bunny. The fact that so many "true believers" insist on cramming their religions down everyone else's throats - trying to get things like "Intelligent design" (just updated creationism) taught in schools; the fact that our nation's leader is slashing science spending while promoting faith-based education, and doing asinine things like trying to fight AIDS (and apparently "immorality") in Africa by teaching abstinence; this whole trail of lunacy gives us not only the right but the obligation to mock and assault their cause.

You want to believe in God? Fine. Just shut the hell up about it and don't use your insecurity as a rationalization for prosthletizing to others, especially other people's kids. And try to learn that there's a difference between religion and science.

And there doesn't need to be a criticism section in the article; but if you think there does, go ahead and write it instead of sitting here complaining about it.--Justfred

A reminder that the talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not soapboxing. Xavier, if you have criticism that is reliably sourced then feel free to add it. JoshuaZ 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well do you think that JustFred's comments here were meant to help make the article better. Seem like he was just ranting. Seems like he is just against Bush and the right wing. Should he be soapboxing like that here?

My point is that almost any article should have a criticism section. Telling someone to 'shut the hell up' to me is uncivil. He says he wants to 'mock' a cause. That sounds hateful to me. And that is not what these talk pages are for.

I am going to try to find something to balanced this article. Xavier cougat 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, JustFred's comments were also off-topic. If you can find decent sources for criticism of FSM, then by all means include it, but there may not even be any...and remember to be careful with your own biases: it's difficult to write from the NPOV when setting out to add negative stuff on a topic you dislike. — Matt Crypto 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. When I wrote them I felt I was responding to Xavier's question/rant by example, but it turns out I just went off. The whole point of FSM (it seems to me) is to attack the religious status quo. Asking if "they" believe in god, or trying to convince people it isn't a parody - these seem to be people who just don't get it. In any case, apologies for my tone.--Justfred 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rant? Try being civil please. Please apologize now for referring to my comments as rants. This is not a place to vent your anger towards theists or whatever. Try behaving better. Please. Xavier cougat 11:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see many here writing on subject they do not like. In fact many articles are written almost completely by antagonists of the subject. Anyhow I posed my concept to see if anyone else felt the same way. I do not think I could make a change here unless the proponents would let me but I do not think that is going to happen. I just feel the article is very one sided and POV. I will see what I can find to balanced it. Do you feel it is POV? Xavier cougat 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The subject matter -- the FSM parody itself -- represents a bias, but that's fine. And from a quick read it seems we describe the topic neutrally enough (i.e. we describe, not endorse). What parts do you feel are POV? — Matt Crypto 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no article should have a criticism section. Criticism sections almost always become negatively biased, and all sections should be NPOV. Ghettoing of criticism makes the rest of the article positively biased. Feel free to integrate criticism into the article, for example starting a "reactions to FSM section" if needed. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So let us say we have an article on George Bush and only show his accomplishments but none of his failings would not that be POV? Xavier cougat 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I am seeing it the POV that FSM is actually equivalent to God or Jesus or the whole parody religion can be contrued as a real religion. I think that is the point of the pastafarians. To make a mockery of religion. See it is an invalid point. Like I said the meanness of the whole thing is not brought up. It is more than a light hearted parody. It is mocking people. Xavier cougat 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying - to take your example - criticism of GWB's handling of the Iraq war should be integrated with the section on the Iraq war, rather than in a separate criticism section. Keeping things together means there will be criticism of the Iraq war in the relevant section

Some "Pastafarians" are really agnostic or atheistic, and some may well be offended by your assumption that they would ever pray to a god, even in times of need. What you are offended at depends a lot on your point of view. However, it may be good to have reactions from different communities if we can find some sources. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are saying some Catholics would not be offended by mocking God? That is my point. This article is a little offensive. And we do not have appropriate balance. Xavier cougat 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A reminder tat this is all irrelevant. If there are reliable sources that discuss criticism then we should include it. If not, we shouldn't. It isn't any more complicated than that. JoshuaZ 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. however another article I brought up something that I had read somewhere but did not remember the source and another editor knew the source and gave it to me. This is the same here. Someone might read this and remember a source and post it here so the criticism would be reliable. I know I am a little offended by the pastafarians. There must be others and if there are others there must be resources somewhere.

Can we make a comparison chart between what pastafarians believe in and say what catholics believe in? The implications here are faulty. Xavier cougat 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work - key beliefs like those related to pirates have no obvious connection with Christianity. Plus other beliefs have a wider context than just Catholicism - a lot of the arguments parody either religion in general, or the intelligent design movement in particular. The article already makes some comparisons where needed, such as the 10 commandments. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the FSM has no recorded history. No mention in ancient books. Has no prophets. Has no son like Jesus who was a historic person. To believe in the FSM is not the same as believing in the Abrahamic God. And why is it a spaghetti monster? There is no logical reason to assume that. Make sense? Xavier cougat 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right: the first sentence says it's parody (to the annoyance of some pastafarians). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Childish

This parody seems too childish to be in an encylopedia. Are there other parodies that gain this kind of status? Xavier cougat 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)