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.

Terrible

Offtopic discussion

Does anyone else agree that this FSM stuff is just a bad joke an arrogant atheists who think they're so much smarter than everyone else because they don't believe in a religion? The H-Man2 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC) It matters not one jot what any wikipedia editor thinks about it, we're just here to write it up.--Alf melmac 12:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I know the talk page guidelines. I just want to know what people think sbout FSM The H-Man2 12:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Doesn't the guideline on talk pages expressly state that it's not for general chat about the subject of the article?--Alf melmac 12:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC) As i said i know.But it's just one samll thing. Does it really matter? Is it really going to maske anyone difference that I asked one small question on the talk page? The H-Man2 12:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) The very first paragraph of the talkpage guideline is: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. That is quite clear about the issue.--Alf melmac 12:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Yes but did it really matter that i asked the question? Did the article get destroyed? Did anyone get hurt? Is there still a talk page? But that's it I give up. The H-Man2 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Well obvioulsy apart from wasting your own time by asking the question and mine pointing out/reminding you not to ask those questions, no damage done whatsoever. Had it stirred another to voice their opinions, yes, damage could start to be done, I'm just telling you not to ask those questions, is all.--Alf melmac 12:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Well I don't think that asking questions like that matters much but fine you won't see me asking another question like that. The H-Man2 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Parody" ?

I just noticed an apparent challenge by somebody to find one good source that says Pastafarianism is a real religion. I have found probably the best source out there, the prophet himself. This is on the official website of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. [1] "Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental." This was written by Bobby Henderson, the prophet

If this isn't a good source of information about this religion, then I don't know what a good source could possibly be. I would also like to say that thousands of people around the world are devout Pastafarians and are undoubtedly insulted by this. Mr. Fuzzles 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been talked about before. The consensus is that it’s a deadpan parody, like The Onion. The reason it’s considered a parody is that Bobby Henderson has made numerous comments consistent with it being one in interviews. Seano1 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is an actual quote, but Hubbard is often quoted as saying: “If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.” [2]. Yet Scientology is not outright branded as a money making scheme. I have no illusions that Scientology is anything else but wholly malevolent, but I still think they deserve to have their point of view told as well. Because I don't have all the facts. Same goes for FSM. So if they officially maintain that they are a serious and a real religion, than it should be stated so in the article. Followed by, of course, that some consider it a parody religion. PredatorOC

Actually, Scientology is officially recognized as a "totalitarian organisation" and fraud-scheme rather than a religion in some countries, most prominently Germany. Other countries just grant the "church" this status to avoid legal conflicts. Malc82 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to take a parody at face value. There is nobody who genuinely holds the view that FSM is not a parody, therefore we should not include such a view in the article. This is not the case with scientology. — Matt Crypto 12:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

The site itself (venganza.org) does not say that it is a parody. Or at least I missed it if it was said. So claiming that no mention of this should added before the parody religion part goes against NPOV. Taking things at face value is different from giving all significant points of view. PredatorOC

There is no point of view to be represented here. — Matt Crypto 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten why trying to get anything done here is comparable to hitting yourself repeatedly in the head with a hammer. I really should stop. PredatorOC

That would be best. — Matt Crypto 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you said:

There is nobody who genuinely holds the view that FSM is not a parody, therefore we should not include such a view in the article.

I don't think there's any basis for making such a generalization. It's not really possible to prove a blanket negative like that anyway. Perhaps you meant to say something more like, "While there may be a few out there who genuinely hold the view that FSM is not a parody, they are in a very tiny minority and have clearly failed to understand Henderson's point in the first place, and therefore their views are not particularly noteworthy for inclusion here." Or something to that effect. I would support such a statement fully.

Yes, you know and I know that a significant percentage of those coming into this article claiming to be true believers (ie., not in-on-the-joke) are just pretending outrage in order to yank our chains and attempt to hoist us by our own policy petards. But common courtesy dictates we should at least assume good faith and therefore optimistically hope that each individual making such a claim is not here to be a jerk. This doesn't mean we have to include their viewpoint in the article, of course; merely that we should be polite. No matter how boring it gets to explain this to them over and over and...  ;) Cheers, Kasreyn 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah. I did mean exactly what I said. It's pretty self-evident that when someone claims belief in a flying spaghetti monster, they are not acting in good faith. If you really want to engage these people as if they were attempting to make a sincere contribution to the encyclopedia, I can't stop you, but I'm certainly not going to play along with people acting out games. — Matt Crypto 12:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

James Randi: "satirical" [3]; NY Times: "parody" [4]; USA Today: "parody religion" [5] --h2g2bob (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why venganza should not be used as a source at all. It is self-published and this is exactly the kind of confusing self-referential thing you run into when self-published sites are used. You get someone coming along saying "but wait, Bobby says right here [insert link to venganza] that pastafarianism is REAL". That person is understandably confused because the website is used as a cite for other items on this very page. It is bad practice, it is confusing, and is contrary to the rules of WP.MikeURL 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously vengaza is not reliable to establish whether it's deadpan comedy. However, saying we can't reference Bobby to establish their purported beliefs is like saying you can't reference the Pope about Christianity. --h2g2bob (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't anything of the sort. The Pope represents a real religion. And even if Bobby were like the Pope, Venganza is not a reliable source. If you want to quote Bobby as though he were the Pope that is fine but it should be done from secondary sources.MikeURL 17:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Real religion"? Christianity is no more real than FSMism. This is horribly offensive, as I am a true follower and believer, and I don't appreciate people calling my beliefs a parody. Happinessiseasy 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Justfred's comment below about intentional parodies and those things which others may simply believe parody themselves. "Real religion" does not mean "only true and correct religion" in this sense. In the sense of this discussion, "real religion" means "genuine spiritual belief system not designed with satirical or deceitful intent". Christianity is in this sense a "real" religion because its founders believed in it truly; FSM's founder created an intentional parody, after which various individuals have claimed to be true believers. The original intent of the religion's founder seems critical here. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Church Of the FSM is not a parody religion. There are many loyal followers of the FSM, I, and several other people I know follow the FSM. To call it a parody is discriminating to Pastafarians and I won't stand for a real religion being called a parody. What if we labeled the Chirstian religion a parody? I don't believe in it but I still reconize it as a religion just like the church of the FSM. Konigstigerii 04:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We have many reliable sources that this is a parody. If you can find major newspapers calling Christianity a parody you might have an argument. Please remember that Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 05:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I too am a Pastafarian but must accept Wikipedia's rules of verifiability and undue weight. Anyway a true Pastafarian would not be bugging the poor editors of this article. As the Good Book says - "I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject." Sophia 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok then I think we should re-word the begining paragraph, that states something to the effect of that some call it a parody religion, but has many loyal followers that believe in the FSM. That way people who read it will understand to some its a parody and to some its a real religion. What do you think? Konigstigerii 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people should go play outside. It's worrying how terribly unfunny it is to have people taking this too far. Chris Cunningham 08:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish my pirate costume was as nice as yours. Sophia 09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a parody - that's the point. It's also why it should be referred to as a real religion. It certainly makes as much sense as the others, and has just as much certainty behind its principals. If you call Christianity legit, this must be called legit also. Parody is an important tool in bringing to light stupidity and illogical thinking, and lowering the status of FSM will not help its cause. I propose we refer to it as a real religion in articles, and its Gospel is given the genre of both 'satirical novel' AND 'religious text'. P g chris 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a WP:POINT problem. "This article should be allowed to violate this policy because that other article over there does!" The solution is to fix the other article. Wikipedia has no business "calling Christianity legit", if by that you mean supporting or endorsing that religion. Or did you simply mean referring to Christianity as a real religion where FSM is a parody? In that case, be aware that there are many branches of Christianity, some of which can't seem to agree on even the most basic points of theology. It's a mistake to consider Christianity a unified whole with a unified message.

Additionally, be aware that forwarding FSM's cause isn't WP's purpose - informing readers about FSM (including, perhaps, about FSM's cause, if that's notable), is. I admire Henderson's satirical effort, but WP can't distort facts in order to support a cause. FSM is simply a parody, with very little third-party, reliable evidence of actual "true believers". In time, of course, that may change if people begin to take the joke seriously. Kasreyn 11:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We are under an obligation to treat all religions with neutrality and not to brand any religion a parody. There is nobody who genuinely holds the view that scientology is not a parody, yet neutrality demands that we treat it as real. Why is this not the case with so-called 'Pastafarianism'? User:Pedant 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because FSM is an _intentional_ parody. Perhaps that's the word that's missing from the first sentence of this article. As opposed the other religions that are unintentional parodies of themselves.--Justfred 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, your assertion that "there is nobody who genuinely holds the view that scientology is not a parody" is incorrect. — Matt Crypto 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a devout Pastafarian and am HUGELY insulted by this rediculous slander of my religion. If I went into the Christianity/Buddism/Islam/Judaism page and put in parody, It would have been deleted instantly. Even if, as you so deviously and cruelly claim,Bobby Henderson, our great prophet origionaly thought of this as a parody (which is not true), I hold this as my true faith, and I demand that it be respected as such. So long as 1 person follows this faith, we have a legal claim to religous freedom. I warn you, if within two days, noone has given a logical argument that refutes my claims, I will change it myself-Deshin Finlay, Devout Pastafarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.30.86.251 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Deshin thats utter rediculus and regardless of what you say I know you dont believe that, however some people may be that... finatical, so a more neutral term/description might be approprate. Nobody is denying you religious freedom since they are not forcing you to believe in something else, you have no legal right to claim this, just like i couldnt make up something on the spot and claim it to be a religon. Sure the letter was a was interesting and funny but your taking it too far. Laso this Ar4ticle is still rated B on the WikiProject Religons meaing its still needs work -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being a little hot-headed. I was being a little bit rash, and I know that the legal stuff was BS, but nevertheless, if someone put that about a more established religion, it would have been deleted instantly, probably without any conversation on talk pages at all, and I am still offended, both by the orrigional post and by this Devindra Payment's comment about me. -Deshin Finlay, devout Pastafarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.232.5 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This religion seems no more of a parody than various elements of Christianity. It was suggested that if we could find an authoritative source which suggests Christianity was a parody then it would have to be added to their article, I have one. Thomas Paine in "the Age of Reason" (you can get it on project Gutenburg) does a pretty good job of arguing that, whilst almost all of the Bible is an out and out lie, the story of Jonah and the whale is in fact a parody against religion as is described in the old testament... given this could we maybe settle on "the FSM is said, similarly to Christianity, to be a parody religion"? or some other such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.22.14 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is truly not a parody to those that follow it. I was presented the evidence and find it much more plausible than Christianity. The christians do not account for why the science readings say the world is old. Me and my brothers will all keep changing this page from several IP's and I'll make everyone across the world get in on it. I do not care much for the latter parts of it, but to outright say its a parody in the beginning will dissuade people from being saved. I know you do not want stale beer and VD for the rest of your death. Now this does not defy the eight I'd rather you didn'ts because we are not acting like you should believe in us, but the opportunity for more people to join our religion should not be shut out by a person's opinion that we're a joke. In fact, the fact we look like a parody is just a test in our faith. (pastafarian0000000001) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastafarian0000000001 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And us anti-Vandals will keep on reverting untill this debate has come to its conclusion in your favor ;-) If you really want the article changing, the best way would be to intelligently prove your point on this talk page. Neobros 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, listen and know my logic isn't flawed. I understand why me deleting it was removed, but a compromise of popularly believed to be a parody is a 100% fact. If I believe in something... I'm crazy. If two or more.... it's a religion. Now whether this is called a cult doesn't matter, but I'll have to ask a higher-up why you fail to realize calling it a parody religion is a popular opinion only confirmed by things that infer parody. To say that it is believed as a parody religion and go on about why it's a parody religion in the link is far more factual than the opinionated, insulting, and uninformed statement that my beliefs are ridiculous. Pastafarian0000000001

You do have a point. If enough people devoutly believe in the FSM as fact, it could be classed as a religion; However this is an encyclopedia, you would need to prove a large amount of people do, and with atleast one credible source for that information.

I would have no problem signing onto your side of the debate if you can. Neobros 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The number of devout followers is immense. Have you even read the gospel? If you don't I suggest you give a good read through it. But that doesn't matter... you are putting an opinion on wikipedia. I would be upset even if I wasn't a pastafarian. There is overwhelming information of the big bang happening 13.7 billion years ago, there are fossils in the ground saying a story of evolution, there is many occasions where the bible is wrong. But we cannot place any of those as fact. So what makes your theory that the noodly lord is so false more strong of evidence than background radiation? Exactly, I'm sure someone will realize opinions should have a shroud of "believed to be" in case the shrill wind of legal action blows one day. Pastafarian0000000001 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, my Noodly God wil protect me from any legal action ;-) Neobros 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

you obviously don't believe because that compromise was more valid than what's written. You hate the idea that this religion has more explanation of the world than yours because you follow a 2000 year old book not written by god. Dinosaurs would have been mentioned or anything unknown to humans at that time if it was a real book. Thats why our book mentions many things unknown to us that may seem parodyish. Pastafarian0000000001 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First point I'd like to make: This recent argument between unregistered users (myself included, unfortunately, due to confusion) has horrible thread formatting, and I can't figure out which posts the previous posts are responding to. This post is in response to the discussion as a whole, I guess. I don't know how or if it should be fixed, but I feel I should point it out.

Second point: Is it not possible for Pastafarianism to be both a parody and a legitimate religion? Something like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (also known as the Spaghedeity) is the deity of a religion called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[1] and its system of beliefs, "Pastafarianism". The religion is designed as a parody, although as part of the satirical nature it is designed in such a way that it could conceivably be followed as a legitimate religion." --ADoS 71.192.64.235 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a vision, the noodly appendage wrote in pasta sauce on my wall. I'm quite un-nerved. All true Pastafarians *must* keep correcting the entry as a true religion (not a parody). mxpule

Can we add an excerpt of the Eight “I’d Rather You Didn’ts”?

A little while ago I added the following. (I suppose there’s some kind of approval mechanism for mischevious edits, vandalism, etc, etc, which I assume are copious! So, the wait's fine and the decision is fine, but I do ask you to consider it!)

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

I'm trying to add the following (longer version) as a boxed quote, but it's not really working out. (Please see what I'm doing on edit if you know about this stuff and have the time to help): "1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
.
.

6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):

1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
   I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

.
.

"

I want to actually learn something. And I have learned something from our article here, but, but . . . I can learn so much more if we’re not held back by artificial restraints! There seems to be a wikipedia norm: ‘Don’t include something if it’s included somewhere else, just bluebird it.’ So the article becomes primarily merely mentioning things, rather than describing and explaining things, as if we’re all done and all primary consideration is printing costs. Whereas, no, we’re very much in a process of becoming and if someone else includes something, we can include it, too, and run in friendly competition, and besides, bandwidth is cheap!

What makes our article works is that we include a good colorful drawing of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a simple line drawing, both of them, and they kind of play off each other. The line drawing is really funny. We’re not afraid of going long, we’re letting the story unfold, and then the other pictures and descriptions, and more is better. So, I think we might be able to also include a picture of Richard Dawkins as he’s appearing on the Colbert Report (I remember when philosopher Peter Singer appeared there, and it almost worked better than a formal speech, because we humans are meaning-detectors, we can see big conceptual arcs, and on Colbert’s website there was a picture of Peter talking and it kind of showed some of his personality, it kind of added some life and spice). Can we show of picture of the band that used the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a picture from the “South Park,” episode, and so on? Yes, yes, wtih due consideration for copyrights, permissions, fair use, etc, etc., but I kind of think people might welcome the publicity and all this should be doable.

And I remind you that all writing has positive transfer, even the most formal. But please, let’s start doing the good stuff.

Talk to me as easily and casually as if we were friendly acquaintances taking a drive with plenty of time and I was genuinely interested in the subject. Which I am! FriendlyRiverOtter 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing is simple fancruft and very little discussion is needed before someone like myself removes it. Shoehorn 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot argue with a label FriendlyRiverOtter 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoehorn, newbies require patience. There surely must have been thousands of possible ways at your disposal to inform FriendlyRiverOtter of the policy on fancruft. I can't begin to imagine why you chose such a curt and impolite one. Kasreyn 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the very concept of "fancruft." All we've essentially done is to have invented a new swear word, complete with derivatives such as "crufty." At which point of course, thought stops. It's like calling something "socialized medicine." Well, that's it. That's the end of the conversation. The conversation is now officially over.

The details are what makes something interesting! For example, if we're writing about Three Mile Island, the article is going to remind people of things they probably already know, and then it will hopefully include some things they did not previously know. That's a good article. And it takes a fine touch to know which details to include and which not to include. Sometimes you're going to go one way, sometimes the other. And it's acceptable to make mistakes, in both directions. Writing is hard work, and we're all going to make mistakes from time to time. People--myself fully included!--should not be lambasted. No one should be excessively criticized. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The "I'd Rather You Didn'ts" are trivial bits of fictional absurdity which add no real value to an article already filled with sufficient nonsense. If you want an afternoon full of mild amusement, go buy the book. And if want to contribute to WP articles, be prepared for other people to edit your changes. It would also be useful if you could distinguish between "writing" and simple "copy-and-pasting". Shoehorn 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that the article is bound to be full of nonsense as the subject matter is a work of deliberate farce, right? Because try as I might, I can't interpret your remarks as anything but an unconstructive attempt to drive away a new editor. I don't see how that is helpful. Kasreyn 15:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Provided that we use a good succinct version for the introduction, and provided that we keep the rest of our article divided into sections, I do not understand why we would be against a long article. FriendlyRiverOtter 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is interesting only because it is an argument against teaching non-science in science schools. The specifics of the 'religion' are far, far less important than the general point of it. As such, I oppose adding, as Shoehorn called it, trivial bits of fictional absurdity. Anyone interested in more than the general point can visit the article concerning the eight-whatsits directly. -- Ec5618 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NASA captures the Flying Spaghetti Monster on film!

Explain that non-believers! [6] Xulorg

Thanks - fab photo! Sophia 10:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is just creepy... I'm a believer!! SGGH ^speak! 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait.... this is by NASA, we could use this somewhere :P SGGH ^speak! 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Glorious, I love it:P

Mr.troughton 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

Found this template for anyone interested in using it petedavo 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

{{User:Xaosflux/UBX/User flying spaghetti monster}}

This user has been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

(edited for format + added {{tlu}} version) --h2g2bob (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Spaghediety

I have added the alternate name "Spaghediety" to the article due to it's occasional use throughout the Gospel of the FSM to describe the FSM. ---Osho-Jabbe 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The term gets 12 google hits. Do you have any reliable sources? Please see WP:NEO. Weregerbil 10:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you spell it right (deity is spelt wrong) it gets over 900. You are teh l00z. 65.60.208.212 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(I spelt it wrong; it is 'spaghedeity'.) I stated previously that I saw the term used in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which, being the religious text for Pastafarianism, I would assume is a reliable source. I will however flip through the book again to find some page numbers, and sample text. ---Osho-Jabbe 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On page 25 of the Gospel of the FSM, in the chapter 'What's the Matter with Evolution?', there is a section near the bottom of the page titled "The Spaghedeity." Which, aside from being an instance of the term 'spaghedeity', also contains usages of the word within the section. ---Osho-Jabbe 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to triple post but, would it be acceptable to re-include the term spaghedeity in the article? I believe it gets pas the reliable source test, but am hesitant to add it without a general consensus on whether the term could be included. ---Osho-Jabbe 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

'agree' what ever one thinks of the religion / parody as an encyclopedia 'facts', information and knowledge are paramount.--Edmund Patrick 12:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you cite it to the "gospel" itself there isn't much a need to build a concensus, as it becomes pretty indisputable fact, go for it. SGGH ^speak! 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pirate graph image

The old version of the pirate graph was switched to a shiny new verson. While the new version looks better, I'd like to switch back to the old version which is more authentic because to comes from the Open Letter. Would anyone object? --h2g2bob (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Less (skull and crossbone) is more (noodly goodness), no objections here.--Alf ^melmac 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good - I'll change it --h2g2bob (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too wordy

Several details are repeated multiple times. I think the article could stand some cleanup. Marzolian 17:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you all may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, including Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word.  — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hare Krishnas

Hey guys. I don't even know where to put this on the Talk page, cos it's huge. But anyway, if you're going to mention Krishna on the page, would you mind being accurate? "Hare Krishnas" isn't the name of the religion. It's Vaishnava. "Hare Krishna" are two words out of one of our mantras. So if you're going to go there, and i don't know why you did, you may as well be respectful in your disrespect by using the right terminology. And if you're just trying to be funny by throwing in buzz words, would you mind not? Starting misinformation mudslinging to prove atheist points with people who don't want to be a part of it is just rude. Thanks.Joyan 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambig link to International Society for Krishna Consciousness - Nigosh 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't cite wikipedia pages, that is just circular Dkriegls 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here [7], Use of the term Hare Krishnas as a group is correctDkriegls 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But is it ALL Vaishnavas who go around spreading lies about pirates, or only the Gaudiya Vaishnavas? After all, we wouldn't want to go around spreading misinformation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In legal doc

I've removed the following text, added by 68.167.19.18 (talk · contribs):

• A lawyer made reference to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a footnote to a legal document filed in the New York County Supreme Court:

“ It should be noted that Abady’s characterization of my motion seeking to compel his deposition (note 2 at p. 4 of Abady’s unnotarized affidavit) employs the use of the Hebrew language in a vile effort to appeal to the Court’s presumed ethno-religious identification. To respond to Abady in kind, members of my religion (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) would charitably characterize his statement and his putative affidavit as "Baloney". ”

I can't find anything about it online, and it isn't specific enough to verify by other means (such as by getting the court documents). I've asked 68.167.19.18 where the info came from, otherwise it should probably be removed. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: It's Own Section?

With all the debate over whether or not this should be cited as a proper religion, as some users say that people actually claim to believe what is considered by others a parody religion, I wondered what peoples' thoughts were on creating a section in the article about the claim that some people believe it and are insulted by it's parody status?

Mr.troughton 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. Things that happen on WP talk pages are not notable as topics for main space. So far, as has been pointed out above, there are no reports of such thoughts except self-reporting by outraged, typically anonymous IP address editors here. That does not constitute verifiable information. I'm sure you suggest it out of a generous motive to display all viewpoints, but WP:NPOV is not about displaying all viewpoints. It's about displaying all viewpoints which are noteworthy and can be verifiably sourced. Cheers, Kasreyn 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chill, just a suggestion.

Mr.troughton 18:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Kasreyn took it as such. I oppose for the same reasons and sincerely hope that the people claiming to really believe in FSM just don't know when to stop or spoil a good satire. Cheers. Malc82 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

More things I changed

I've made some edits to the page: most is moving stuff about, but I changed a few bits too. There are one or two bits I should flag up:

• I added that it is a Reductio ad absurdum argument. Googling suggests a fair number who agree with me, but I haven't found an authoritative source yet. Please post your thoughts on that claim.
• The Kansas evolution hearings - I assume these are the ones referred to at the start of the Open Letter ("I am writing ... having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution."). The letter was sent January 2005, and the hearings were in May 2005, so it looks like the dates fit. However, confirmation on that one would be useful.

Yours, --h2g2bob (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FSM logo2.svg

Image:FSM logo2.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

...

Is this really true? I've never heard of it, and it sounds like a hoax. Flying Spaghetti Monster? If it was realy, they'd make a better name for it. This is an example of people who put false things on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.242.113 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question about whether it should be included, I ask you how is it any less a religion than Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Do we count the subscribers to each? What is the threshold for it to be "real"? -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is less of a religion than the above, and I say that as a Pastafarian. There's still been zero documentation of a serious Pastafarian ritual or gathering of folks who literally do believe the FSM created the world beginning with mountains, trees, and a midgit.

However, much like A Modest Proposal or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it's a famous parody of various things and therefore fits in Wikipedia. We cover lots of fictional things here and plenty of more obscure things; just because you, original anon poster, have never heard of it doesn't mean it's something false in the sense you seem to be using it. --Sparky Lurkdragon 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not a Reductio ad absurdum, as you would know if you looked at the definition on Wikipedia

The Reductio ad absurdum, otherwise known as "argument by contradiction" or "proof by contradiction" in mathematics, means that you assume a statement to be true for arguments sake, logically derive a contradiction of known truth from the "assumed true" statement, and thereby prove that the "assumed true" statement cannot be true. I read the open letter, and it best presents a few false analogies and straw man arguments. If you can actually give the statement that is being "assumed true" and the train of logic which leads from this "assumed true" statement to a contradiction of something known to be true, then fine. Otherwise, don't call the letter a Reductio ad absurdum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, though, a Reductio ad absudum, because it mimics the same claims by the Christian apologists it targets for ridicule, changing the wording and 'evidence' slightly to support the existence of a flying pasta deity. You see the same claims of 'planting fossils,' the same selective information interpretation (in the pirates vs climate graph), and the like. Apologists 'assume' these arguments are truths that favor the Christian-Judeo God. This letter hijacks the arguments in favor of the FSM. -EarthRise33 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you allow one faith-based dogma (creationism) into a science class you have to include them all - but that is impractical. Hence reductio ad absurdum. -Noel darlow 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

christian blasphemy

I can't speak to how many people take this seriously or not. This is not an entry in the "is it parody" multi-thread. Irrespective of how serious people take FSM, one thing might be worthy of mention is that it's pretty clearly an attempt to hijack christian words, images, and patterns that is blasphemous and hurtful to an awful lot of people. Of course making a big deal about FSM's blasphemy may not be strategically wise and many christian advocates may not address FSM and pastafarianism (sp?) for that reason but I don't think you've got an NPOV article here without at least addressing the issue.

Pastafarianism is very likely going to continue to virtually ignore islamic creationism as opposed to christian creationism as it's rather safer to challenge the literalist christian than the literalist muslim. As such it cannot be seen as a simple, even handed parody against religious creationism. Its anti-christian character should be noted. Whether it is purposefully or accidentally anti-christian might also be a worthy point to bat around. TMLutas 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When fundamentalist Muslims (or Hindus or Ásatrúarmaður or any other such group of believers) make a creditable attempt in the United States at supplanting scientifically supported facts with their religious doctrines, I have faith that His Noodly Goodness will embrace them and that Pastafarianism will grow to refute their illogic as well. Until then, only fundamentalist Christians have made such attempts, and the teaching of the Flying Spaghetti Monster reflect this. TechBear 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Boy are you behind the times. Here's something from a quick google "Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because a shadowy Turkish Muslim publishing group has been sending an Islamic creationist book to schools in several countries." [8] Some muslim group's been donating an islamic creationist opus to libararies all across the US.

In any case, similar attacks on islamic creation would only add a section, not eliminate the need for a section on the FSM's blasphemous impacts. As a satire, it isn't particularly independent of pre-existing texts and thus it's legitimate to comment on the reaction from the faith that FSM's been borrowing from. TMLutas 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

TMLutas, if I follow correctly, you are not happy that Pastafarians are largely ignoring Muslim creationism. This arises because, given the location in which FSMism thrives, Muslim creationism and varieties therein are not a threat to scientific instruction to the extent that Christian creationism is. FSMism was founded as a criticism of *local* religious dogmatism.

Also, the words hijacked are hijacked from arguments in favor of Intelligent Design, and the resemblance to Christian doctrine is inevitable, because the Intelligent Design movement that cranks in the United States is essentially a Christian movement, founded upon a belief in Jesus Christ and a need to support certain literal truths of the Bible. Pastafarianism cannot help if some Christians have beliefs so delicate that they are offended by a parody intended for a political movement. -EarthRise33 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

EarthRise33 - My argument in this forum is not that I think that "pastafarianism" should mock islam more so you have missed the entire point. I am saying that from a conventional christian viewpoint the whole ball of wax is blasphemous and that it isn't just a case that "pastafarianism" is evenly anti-theist and the christians are just getting their fair share of lumps. Were "pastafarianism" evenly anti-theist you could make a case that a specifically christian rebuttal section would not be warranted. Not addressing this point make the article depart from NPOV by not representing what a significant stream of opinion on the subject. Thus a short section on the offensiveness of this joke even to christian denominations like Catholicism who have no doctrinal problems whatsoever with evolution is justified and unless I get a good argument over why it shouldn't be included it will be forthcoming. TMLutas 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that your argument has merit. The only organizations I have heard to call the FSM blasphemous are those fundamentalist organizations who have been pushing (Christian) creationism. If you wish to alter the article to cite a more widespread perception of blasphemy, you will need to provide cites showing such a widespread perception. Keep in mind, the FSM is not "designed" (sorry, couldn't resist) to be a refutation of theism. It is designed to be a refutation of a literalist and very narrowly defined aspect of theology held by a small but very vocal subset of theists who, in the country where the FSM first made an appearance, are overwhelmingly Christian. Perhaps this point needs to be made more clear, but I think the issues you are raising are actually non-issues. TechBear 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure I'd have to have cites. What section entry into a wikipedia article doesn't have to have cites? But even you (and I doubt you've looked hard for it) are aware of groups that have labeled FSM and "pastafarianism" blasphemous. The standard for inclusion is notability and evidence of notability needs to come from reliable sources. It doesn't particularly matter what the intent is. One can be blasphemous by accident as anybody who has yelped out "God damn" when they hit their thumb with a hammer should know. The issue that I'm raising is an NPOV issue. Obviously "pastafarianism" is not a controversy free concept. Where's the other side? TMLutas 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the 'other side' of which you speak is irrelevant to the issue argued by the existence of Pastafarianism. -EarthRise33 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a, at the very least in part, political movement to influence US political decisions on science curriculum. Irrelevance is a very hard case to make in that context as Gary Hart, Larry Craig, Ted Kennedy, Rev. Swaggart, and a large category of political actors of all stripes could tell you. The effectiveness of a point is influenced by how the point is made. That's the relevance. Hearing about "pastafarianism" is going to generate ire among lots of people who have no inherent problem with evolution. Mostly, we get over it without discussing in detail but to leave it unmentioned is simply not NPOV. TMLutas 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Negative. Many Christians already embrace the concept of the FSM, since they have the sense of humor to appreciate its core message. Agreed, this is a sociopolitical movement to encourage a rejection of Intelligent Design. For this reason, I should gladly contribute a section detailing the complaints issued by the Discovery Institute that pertain to the ID movement and the FSM's mockery of it. Those who find offense are usually the ones who can't comprehend that FSMism is a parody, not a true religion. -EarthRise33 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the concept itself of a thought experiment using a made up deity that's the trouble for most christians (though I've no doubt that there *are* Orthodox who have a problem with FSM as a concept). Jokes and even exploration of alternate possibilities are usually permissible. But you don't get to photoshop in your deity into the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel unless you wish to offend. It's viewed as wrong by an awful lot of people and that current of opinion deserves a small section explaining the carelessness of the "pastafarians" and their fundamental laziness in borrowing largely Catholic imagery. It's a sort of backhanded insult of a cultural patrimony of 2 millenia that is what I'm talking about. TMLutas 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless I wish to offend? Given that some Christians indulge in jokes poked at the Messiah, I think your criticism is misguided. However, as I'm suggesting below, if you can find something beyond personal research and independent opinions to back up the 'blasphemous" nature, sure, why not add a section. But mentioning the 'carelessness' and 'laziness' certainly shall not happen, because, frankly, claims of such a nature stem only from a complete ignorance of the claims of FSMism. -EarthRise33 20:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Concurrence with TechBear, and further development along the lines that you are confusing the intent of Pastafarianism, TML, as would be those organizations that get offended at it. FSMism is a criticism of intelligent design functioning as science. An alternate theist perspective is enough of a criticism of theism. By all means, Islam is 'blasphemous' in the face of Christianity. So is Buddhism, Hinduism, UUism, Discordianism, and every -ism at infinitum that doesn't agree with Christianity. Ironically enough, this is the definition of blasphemy.

FSMism is a social criticism, not a religious one. Period. -EarthRise33 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point that exclusivist religious systems view all other such systems as blasphemous on one level or another. It is rather irrelevant because it's an argument for adding sections to other articles and not omitting the addition here. NPOV does not argue that we should ignore criticism because it would imply a lot of work. Eventually if this article develops, you could split the critique of pastafarianism out to a separate article but for a topic so small in size it makes little sense to have two articles. TMLutas 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So shall we add the obvious observations to every religious article on Wikipedia? "This religion is not like the others, so, naturally, the others call it blasphemy." Stating the brutally apparent is not necessary. Of course a derivative of a religion is going to spark controversy. Unfortunately, that controversy has nothing to do with the intent of Pastafarianism; indeed, it is thoroughly irrelevant, since, again, Pastafarianism is a social parody, not a religious one. Since Pastafarianism makes no intent to mock religions, there need be no commentary on the religious response to it. What would be appropriate, however, would be responses by the Intelligent Design community, responses that pertain to the 'scientific' claims shared by both ID and FSMism. But making the comment that a scientific lampoon draws the ire of IDers is akin to mentioning that every new fossil on earth draws the ire of Creationists. Should we include the Discovery Institute's response in the article for the tiktaalik? Of course not. -EarthRise33 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to Wikify your mention of the article for the tiktaalik but it seemed more polite to post a response instead. Fascinating article; I'd never heard of this critter before. I think "ire of Creationists" is a bit of an understatement, though. TechBear 02:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

EarthRise33 - Social parodies may or may not be blasphemous. It depends on how they're done. The 'pastafarians' seem to be drawn to the Catholic art well, on one level understandable because it's a huge pool of images and they're incredibly beautiful. But Catholicism's concept of creationism, that God Created as He created and the methodology He used may be evolution should be one of the least objectionable out there for evolutionary theory advocates. So what's with all the Cistine Chapel photoshops? Why pick on the Catholics? TMLutas 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't 'picking on the Catholics,' as you may desire to assert. Jansson created the image, and it happened to be the earliest and best graphic piece that a) was well-known, popular, and highly recognizable; and b) included the FSM. The reason for its use lies in the fact that the ceiling is, as I stated, a hallmark piece of Michelangelo, not that it is Catholic. Try again. -EarthRise33 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I very rarely "desire to assert" without actually asserting. The only case that I can think of me doing that was during a period of civil disorder in Bucharest 1990 as I wanted to avoid a beating. You don't qualify for that level of restraint, a fact that relieves us both no doubt.

Sorry, was there a point to mentioning your activity in protests?-EarthRise33 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was making fun of the awkward phrase. It's weasel wording and deserves a poke. TMLutas 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that somehow Michaelangelo is not Catholic or that his artwork can somehow be separated from his catholicity? The Cistine Chapel is in Vatican City and is the personal church of the Pope. I'm not quite sure how one can make a disrespectful parody using that image and not be anti-Catholic. Perhaps you can walk me through the procedure because truly and honestly I just don't get how such a thing is possible. That people generally have forgiven the offense (pastafarian blasphemy of this nature is on a very long list which has many worse things and which is added to daily) does not mean that it is somehow respectful and ok. TMLutas 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm... well, yeah, I am under the impression that his artwork can—and has been—separated from the fact that its artist was Catholic. The Sistine may very well be for the Pope's use, but that image is certainly not under any copyright claims by the RCC, last time I checked. The religious connotation of it has little relevance since the image has been circulated so pervasively.

And, furthermore, you seem to be missing the intent... again. Pastafarianism has no beef with the RCC, no need to defile artwork as a manner of insult. You want to think that FSMism is this grand scheme to offend as many religions as possible. 'The Creation of Adam' was convenient and recognizable, and that serves as the reason for its use. No other reason can apply. If anything, Pastafarians are more appreciative of the RCC than any other church, since the Pope himself has declared evolution a viable method of creation. -EarthRise33 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that blasphemy is a function of copyright law. Don't embarrass yourself further on that point, please.

The images from the Sistine Chapel are profoundly religious art. Using them in this way is legal in many jurisdictions (don't try blatantly circulating that image in KSA though). That does not mean that such use is not blasphemous and mentioning the adherents of "pastafarianism" are regularly shading over into blasphemy from a mainstream christian perspective is not a violation of NPOV.

If "pastafarianism" were a real religion instead of a parody, it might have actual opinions, dogma, and all the rest. It could have a "beef" with a different faith. But long strings of text have pretty much established that, no, it's a joke, a parody, not something to be taken seriously, a teaching tool against the 'fundies' in defense of evolution, etc. So essentially "pastafarianism" is an empty vessel, a carrier of whatever the actual beliefs of the individual telling the joke. And if you take a moment to think about it, I believe you'll agree. Jokes do not have dogmas.

After all this resistence, I have come to believe that some "pastafarians" think that anti-catholicism is funny and examining the topic seems to make a bunch of people (pretty much everybody who's commented on this) uncomfortable. I can't imagine why, if I can come up with reliable sources, a section on controversy associated with a joke seems to put so many noses out of joint. TMLutas 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, jokes do not have dogmas. There is no declared hatred for Catholics. Individuals in the Pastafarian vein may indeed find Catholics repulsive - indeed, I have met several - but others in the parody religion are actually Catholics, surprisingly enough, and they find no reason to be offended. They, you see, have a sense of humor. So, essentially, 'anti-Catholicism' lies in the behaviors of the constituents, but not in the religion itself. If you wish to use this as an argument, we might as well cite protests that Christianity is racist because the KKK claim to be of that faith.

"Pastafarians" have just as much responsibility as anybody else to reign in their associated bigots, kooks, and nuts. When they fail to do so. When you get 3D animations of FSM explicitly denying the Holy spirit as part of a blasphemy challenge this has exactly zero to do with evolution and judging by the comments on that video, nobody has a problem with its 'loud and proud' blasphemy. The christian/KKK relationship is very different. Mainstream christians have a long history of opposing the KKK. In fact, Catholics are on the 'b' list of KKK enemies so your analogy doesn't work at all in reality but boy does it sound truthy. TMLutas 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire premise of 'reeling in' the fringe only works if the organization is actually organized, which, frankly, Pastafarianism is not. It consists of a core of Pastafarians who understand the claims, and a number of people who adopt the FSM as another version of the IPU. -EarthRise33 04:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"pastafarianism" seems about as organized as Islam (the least centralized of the monotheistic faiths) so I see no particular difficulty in keeping discipline. If I were seeing "pastafarians" argue for and against blasphemous usage, the inefficacy of the anti-blasphemy arguments might pull some weight. The reality is that it's all one sided. Any discipline on blasphemous "pastafarianism" seems to be applied externally, and precious little at that. It is, after all, a joke. It does, however, seem to be less out of favor than kike, nigger, and amputee jokes. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslims actually have a voice of authority which they heed. And I take it you don't actually look into Pastafarian interactions. As it were, I myself am a Pastafarian and indeed argue against the use of the FSM in any case other than an ID debate. But the main point here is there exists no 'church' of the FSM; there are no formal guidelines, there are no actual priests. It is one-sided because you haven't looked on the other side. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want a reason for our resistance, we find that your need to point out controversy stems from an urgent offense taken to the FSM, which inherently suggests that you have completely missed the point of Pastafarianism. -EarthRise33 20:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the offense is not urgent, nor did I ever say it was urgent. There's this whole "defining deviancy down" motif that I am getting generally annoyed with in society. "Pastafarianism" and it's casual blasphemies are just an example of a much larger trend. People tend to only push back at the boundaries of offense and eventually they tire. If anything beyond my stated desire to improve the NPOVness of the article, this is a thought experiment in a sort of "broken windows" crime prevention strategy as applied to blasphemy. It's important *because* it's unimportant just as Rudy Giuliani's crusade against squeegee men in NYC had effects far broader than most people ever dreamed. TMLutas 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole concept that "defining deviancy down" is wrong is based on the implicit assumption that "deviancy" is evil, so that anything that fails to consider it evil is in effect assisting in evil. I reject this concept; "deviancy" simply means something that deviates from that which is commonly found, but since what is common might be a bad flavor of "groupthink" itself, deviating from it might just be a good thing. Anyway, a NPOV article must not take a position for or against the "norm" or the "deviants". *Dan T.* 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You have an undeveloped sense of the problem of deviancy. Deviation from an evil norm may be viewed as deviancy as much as deviation from a moral norm. The citizens of Sodom were outraged at the deviancy of Lot, for example. I'm bothering (and boy did I think this point was going to take less time when I started out) because having a one way ratchet effect on this type of system is ultimately unsustainable and the backlash effect is rather painful. This subject seems unimportant enough that it's worth the experiment. As I said above, it's important *because* it's unimportant. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deviancy is sustainable as long as it damages no one. Ergo, deviency from an evil norm is essential, and deviency from what you call a 'good' norm (which is highly variable in itself, and a subject of a non-neutral point of view, so you're really being subjective here) is okay provided it harms no one. And the FSM harms no one. It only offends those who choose to be offended by it. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, man, are you proposing adding this because you are personally offended? For that is what this passage suggests. People will always push at the boundaries of what is considered 'blasphemy,' and always someone will find offense for it. A general social commentary is hardly necessary. -EarthRise33 04:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you've got to start somewhere and guess which subject won the kewpie doll. I actually started getting personally offended when I ran across "the blasphemy challenge" and the FSM entry into that nasty bit of work so I didn't come into this as some sort of bluestocking. But even if I did, NPOV demands the accommodation of bluestockings as much as libertines. If not, what does NPOV mean? TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what, you style yourself a saint now? That which is considered blasphemy is subjective, and your emotions have no place in an objective encyclopedia. The blasphemy challenge is irrelevant to the issue, and there is no reason we should pay attention to you because your were emotionally frayed by the existence of a parody religion. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether something is blashpemous completeley depends on your point of view, so it would be out of place for this encyclopedia to use that label. Obviously, FSM parodies aspects of the christian faith more than others. I think that fact is apparent from reading the article, even without explicitly saying so. The reader can make up their own minds whether FSM is "blasphemous" or "anti-christian". If notable opinions about FSM surface, they might be worthy of inclusion, but I don't think that there any notable and verifable opinions like that out there right now. -- Diletante 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously can't declare a value judgment in the name of wikipedia but that's not what I'm talking about. You certainly can accurately report the value judgments of notable individuals and groups about a parody. Churches do have judicial systems. They have rules on determining what is or is not blasphemy. It is not a violation of NPOV to note these rules and how "pastafarianism" shades over into blasphemy on a pretty frequent basis. The rules and their application inside church judicial systems are objective facts. Now how one does it so that it is a small section in a larger article and doesn't unjustly dominate it is very much up for grabs. TMLutas 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmkays, so how about this: there will be a section detailing a declaration of blasphemy if you can find a relevant church that has declared the FSM to be a blasphemy. No individuals' opinions, no personal research, all that fun NPOV stuff. I think everyone can agree that this is a suitable possiblity. -EarthRise33 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're almost home free on the preliminary round. I think you are improperly limiting things to formal judicial decisions. If a cardinal wrote about FSM and condemned its misappropriation of Catholic imagery and beliefs as blasphemy without bothering to lay it before his diocesan tribunal, I think that it would merit inclusion even absent a full judicial case running through a Church tribunal and establishing a formal, mandatory position on FSM. You would need a reasonable definition of who is notable in this case but I think that common sense can prevail here. TMLutas 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope; that would be the opinion of one person. The only NPOV-defensible inclusion that you can use is a church with a judicial system ruling that declares FSM a blasphemy, since that is the only statement that can be slightly removed from opinion given its authority and process. One cardinal's whinging cannot suffice.

And common sense declares no need for claims of blasphemy, so 'common sense' shall be no standard in this issue. -EarthRise33 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of notable individuals commenting in their field of expertise do count see Wp:rs#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F for the details. Like everything else in Wikipedia, the standard can be modified but it would be a *very* brave man who tried to touch that one. Please do not try to tighten up standards of what is ok in an article beyond the guidelines. That tends to produce bad results. So far, I've got the youtube video I linked to above and a ref to a Discovery Institute rant against FSM on christian grounds. That's still thin for a new section but that does make it two independent sources to support a blasphemy claim. FSM does not have a court system to sort out what's in "pastafarianism" and what is not so a video and approving commentary by "pastafarians" qualifies as being part of the expertise as probably does the Discovery Institute bit. Before I write something up I'd like a little bit more because I've no doubt that there's going to be a winnowing attempt or ten when I finally do get around to writing about it. TMLutas 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord does nobody else see the irony in citing NPOV to justify a determined attempt to express a critical point of view? That's for your personal website TMLutas. - Noel darlow 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If it were my opinion, you would be absolutely right. My literary accomplishments are the occasional 'a' list blog linkage (I'm currently on the front page of instapundit) and a footnote in one book on my ruminations regarding 1st world responsibility for 3rd world society pathology. That makes *my* opinion non-notable. John Shelby Spong (who probably would love FSM) is a different case entirely. If FSM blasphemy opinion were coming from a notable theologian, priest, or other subject matter expert, this is rather a different matter. That's in the guideline and I expect the guidelines to be followed in any article I come across. I hope you're in agreement on following guidelines. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that you appear determined to insert your own point of view. People can decide for themselves if they think FSM is blasphemous and they can comment as they choose on their own websites if they feel the need.

This is somewhat akin to deciding whether OJ really did it. While there is certainly room for discussion, there's an independent reality out there that does not yield to any particular discussion. More importantly for wikipedia, the norm in this project is to include sections on both opinions. TMLutas 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Or.. maybe we can negotiate. You've mentioned you're a catholic: I'll agree to you detailing the blasphemous nature of FSM on the FSM page provided I can add a section to the catholicism page on the theme of the intellectual offensiveness of supernatural beliefs: miracles, angels, an afterlife, and so forth. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? - Noel darlow 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of us controls *any* pages on wikipedia so permission either way is moot. There are an abundance of articles on critiques of Catholicism in wikipedia already and if you want to add some sort of scientism oriented one it won't particularly offend me. TMLutas 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology." This, along with 'significant minority views,' pretty much nullifies the inclusion of a person's opinion, for one bishop commenting is indeed an extremely minor view (a 'tiny minority view,' you might say. Only the Church can be considered conclusively 'authoritative'). However, the Discovery Institute may be applicable, though I shall ensure that a notation is included that a the DI has not made any response to the veracity of the claims of Pastafarianism, since that is, indeed, more relevant than their delicate religious sensitivities. -EarthRise33 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense that actually rests on a misunderstanding of the word Church in Catholicism. As an aside, each bishop has certain rights which cannot be stripped and is thus somewhat sovereign in his own diocese. You might want to meditate on how the Church at large escaped from Arianism to understand the actual power balance inside it a bit better.

But there's no need to limit ourselves to Catholicism. I'm Catholic and thus I'm more likely to come up with Catholic sources due to pure familiarity but I don't limit myself to that source. I'm not coming at this as a Catholic apologist (though I am a Catholic apologist). I am coming at this as a wikipedia editor who doesn't see anything other than puff piece stuff in this entry and that's not quite NPOV. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually do understand the word Church, because I have been instructed on the nature of the Church by - ironically enough - a Catholic Pastafarian. Diocese nonwithstanding, the bishop is still one (1) man with a complaint against something he probably doesn't grasp, which is still a 'tiny minority.'

Now, I'm open to the idea of mentioning other claims of blasphemy - if you can find the sources saying the various churches have decided, based on democracy or whatever decision process they utilize, that FSM is blasphemous. I'm not restricting this to Catholicism; I only address that since you brought it up. So far, you have the DI, and if your source is the same as mine, that isn't even an official position taken by the DI: it's an editorial on some Christmas offenses posted by Casey Luskin in a blog, hardly a definitive source. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've met catholic masons. Their opinion of the compatibility of those two associations does not change the teaching of the Church which is that it is an excommunicable association (specifically automatic excommunication) for a latin rite catholic to join the freemasons. Just because "pastafarian" catholics exist does not make their teaching authoritative. The radically decentralized nature of the FSM meme is a different organizing principle.

The whole "blasphemy challenge" thing is *explicitly blasphemous". That's the entire point of it. It's not original research to point that out nor is it WP:OR to point out the "pastafarian" participation in that challenge associates the joke with that blasphemy until such time as the association is rejected. Shrugging your shoulders and not mentioning it is not really an option over the long haul. The "hell song" bit I've linked up also falls under the same category. The joke can remain a joke aimed at the ID crowd but what seems to be happening is a morph into anti-christian mockery with little connection to ID. That's worth noting. TMLutas 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Is it frequently discussed in notable publications, or is it your own observation? There's a danger that Wikipedia articles will get filled with peoples' pet takes on topics unless we insist that the content is regulated by sources. — Matt Crypto 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, individual participation by Pastafarians is not condoned, appreciated, or even recognized by the Pastafarian 'church,' so this connection has no relevance. -EarthRise33 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Argument ad absurdum, again

Do we really need attribution for the claim that the FSM is an example of argument ad absurdum? I would have thought such a statement is brutally obvious, since, as per a. ad. a., the same arguments for young-earth creationism (God planted the fossils, e.g.) are applied to Pastafarianism (FSM planted the fossils, e.g.). I propose returning it to its original state. -EarthRise33 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed it, for lack of opposition. -EarthRise33 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from User talk:Steel359 and User talk:EarthRise33.)
Hi. Your comments on Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster (specifically, this one) suggest that you are not entirely clear on the definition of reductio ad absurdum. Reductio involves assuming what you aim to refute for the sake of argument and deriving via formal logic something contradictory or otherwise impossible given the premises. FSM is satire and involves replacing names here and there to make the argument sound silly. Reductio ad absurdum does not simply mean "making something sound absurd" - its other name "proof by contradiction" is perhaps more descriptive. At the very, very least you will require a source per WP:V. – Steel 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, dear fellow.

I'm afraid I think you, sir, are not grasping the implications and arguments claimed by Pastafarians. I am very aware, I assure you, that reductio ad absurdum does not use absurdities to make a point (this being an appeal to ridicule), but that is not my aim. And, lest you assume, I am not one of these fellows to adamanly assert the FSM's existence. I will make no claims as to His veracity, so just follow me here.

The premise of reductio ad absurdum is, as you said, a sort of 'hijacking' of arguments used by the opposition to reach a certain end. When the argument is left incomplete, you get your standard "Hitler liked art, so art must be bad." But when complete, you get the same argumentative set leading to a conclusion that either makes no sense, or makes so little sense that its inherent ridiculous quality is realized.

This is the case with the FSM. Pastafarians use many arguments used by creationists to demonstrate an inherent faith that must be required to make the statements, in effect reducing the statements to subjective determinations and making them useless for use in a classroom. The Omphalos hypothesis is one example; Henderson said that, like God, the FSM created the fossils, earth strata, mid-route light from stars, carbon-dating readings, etc. to point out the baseless statements made by creationist opponents. The association between pirates and global temperature mocks experiments in which ID advocates have claimed to find causational prohibitions to certain events, without accounting for various other influences that may or may not have been deliberately ignored (take into account the fallacy of specified complex information).

Essentially, the arguments for the FSM are a sample of arguments otherwise used for God. The whole point here is to demonstrate that many ID claims are without foundation.

And, if you don't mind, discuss the change in the FSM discussion board, not on my Talk page. That will permit the input of other users, and will help create a consensus opinion. Until you discuss it, the statement concerning a reductio ad absurdum will remain on the page.

Regards, EarthRise33 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's all very nice but you haven't really advanced any ground in explaining how FSM is a proof by contradiction. Example, "Henderson said that, like God, the FSM created the fossils, earth strata, mid-route light from stars, carbon-dating readings, etc. to point out the baseless statements made by creationist opponents." - yes, I agree, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, this is veering into original research territory. Please provide a source for this disputed statement as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. – Steel 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The ground is there, but you seem to not want to stand on it. The contradiction lies in the fact that an alternate god, besides the Christian-Judeo one, was supported in the 'logical' arguments. Indeed, any creator can be substituted into the equation with these declarations; the FSM was the most absurd example Bobby Henderson wanted to pull. It does have to do with the topic at hand, but if you wish to feign ignorance at everything I say, I can't really help that.

Here is the topic at hand: FSM is a reductio ad absurdum. Here is your claim: FSM does not actually assume the same position to reach a contradictory conclusion. Here is my assertion: FSM does assume this position, and pulls off statements, from the same reasoning, that support something completely separate from what was intended.

'Original research' is not so original when the conclusion is apparent. The FSM fits into the mold of a r.a.a. argument. Try a quick Google search if you must, but the glove fits.

And stop changing the article without discussing the change on the discussion board! You have no right to modification unless a consensus on the change has been reached. Otherwise, reversions will be repeated ad infinitum, until you are banned for not following wikipedia policy. -EarthRise33 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Various points:

1. Find. A. Source. If FSM being a proof by contradiction is so apparent as you maintain finding an authoratative source should be easy. I am honestly puzzled why you haven't simply tried this already.
2. "Original research is not so original when the conclusion is apparent". Fair enough. Unfortunately, you cannot justify the addition of information disputed by multiple people without a source just because it seems apparent to you.
3. Discussing on the talk page is not a prerequisite to editing Wikipedia, particularly as, in this case, there has been no previous discussion save for this very short thread. I have discussed everything with the only dissenter (you).
4. No-one is going to be banned and petty threats will get this dispute nowhere. Since we're on a related topic, I remind you not to appeal to force.

I'll crosspost our discussions to the talk page. – Steel 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One: There are few sources when conclusions can be derived easily and logically. The relationship between the FSM and a reductio ad absurdum is apparent; when such is the case, there is little need to reassert it.

Two: You seem to forget that you are the one disputing content that is already present. The burden of this argument rests on your shoulders, not mine.

Three: Aye, no previous discussion to remove a piece of information already present. When removing a significant point, discussion is warranted. This is why you must provide reasoning and reach a consensus.

Four: I beg your pardon? Petty threats? I am making references to past occurrences, whereby users have removed content consistently with little reasoning and, as such, been removed from the community. I have no incentive to ban you. On the contrary, I'd prefer you actually get a common agreement before acting on that which is already established.

Good day. -EarthRise33 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(End cross-posting.)

It is not apparent else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Please find an authoratative source - the onus is very much on you.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. – Steel 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you allow one faith-based dogma (creationism) into a science class you have to include them all - but that is impractical. Hence reductio ad absurdum. - Noel darlow 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion (R.A.A.)

Hello, I'm responding to a Request for 3rd Opinion, and as it's my first stab I ask forgiveness in advance for any missteps. I consider myself disinterested, having only a general awareness of the FSM argument, but have taken the time to read the RAA explanation, because I find logic interesting. You be the judge of how well I employ it.

So. My opinion is that the FSM does NOT constitute RAA as defined elsewhere (wiki definition). My reasoning: RAA must use an initial acceptance of the hypothesis, and then use reason to lead to a logical contradiction, thus disproving itself. The FSM argument does not actually disprove a creator god, it only demonstrates that said god, if it exists, could as plausibly be a FSM as YHWH. It does NOT show that a YHWH hypothesis is self-contradicting (ie disproves itself), but only that it is not rationally compelling (if it proves a God, that god might just as well be made of pasta). While this strikes our sensibilities as "absurd", and this is clearly intentional, this alone does not constitute RAA in the formal sense.

To sum up: FSM doesn't prove or disprove anything - it only contends that neither do similar arguments made in support of the traditional YHWH hypothesis, which is thus incomplete. Put another way, proving something unproven is not the same as disproving it. That's what I say - how bout you? sNkrSnee | t.p. 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Thank you. – Steel 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm realizing that the FSM is more of an argument to make ID supporters uncomfortable than to disprove their argument logically. I'll remove it. -EarthRise33 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we've missed the point about how RAA applies here. If you teach christian creation myths in a science class you also have to teach scientology, hinduism, cargo cults, crocodile gods and so on and so on. It's got nothing to do with disproving creationism: the absurdity is twofold. (1) It's simply impractical to squeeze the vast number of creation myths into a science curriculum. (2) ID'ers appear to be arguing "fair do's" for spirituality but obviously would be horrified to be put on an equal footing with other religions. Wicca..? - Noel darlow 02:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

sNkrSnee's point is that such an observation is not a RAA, though, but rather an appeal to discomfort. No IDer in their right mind would support teaching that a wad of spaghetti created the world, though they would turn around and teach the same faith-based belief with 'God' written in for 'FSM.' Likewise, this encourages people to realize the inherent absurdity in the ID argument. RAA would arise in a logical contradiction, which this lacks (thank you, sNkrSnee, for pointing that out). -EarthRise33 02:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

EarthRise has it exactly right, as I understand it. RAA is a logical rule of inference with a very precise definition; "absurd" is a subjective quality. Many things that most people would consider absurd could not be characterized as RAA, including FSM.

I also think that ER's observation that FSM is an "appeal to discomfort" is correct, which led me to reflect that it may be inappropriate to apply logical categorizations to it, as I interpret its intent to be more rhetorical than logical. After all, are FSM proponents really, sincerely advocating that God exists as a cosmic noodle? Or are they employing satire as a (classical) rhetorical device to say: "If you can't prove it's not a spaghetti monster, how can you begin to prove it's your specific God?". Which really makes it an empirical critique of the overall lack of persuasive evidence for any given hypothesis.

Also, I've really enjoyed participating in this discussion. Thanks for making it so pleasant. sNkrSnee | t.p. 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please...

Please use the talk page before deleting people's work. For example, some of my work was deleted where I tried to correct a spelling error. Wolfdog 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's cool, I corrected a few of the remaining errors that you mentioned. -EarthRise33 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pirate chart?

This particular phrase was present in the section concerning the correlation chart:

As the number of pirates is actually growing these days and is in no wise as low as portrayed in the chart, the figure is somewhat problematic and takes away from the humor of the joke.

Now, I've changed it to something less frivolous, since I think this change was due to some low-level trolling, but I'm not sure what should be done with it. I think we could do without the reference, since the point of the chart lies not in its real-world applicability, but its humorous mockery. What's the opinion here? -EarthRise33 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling? I think not. Were it trolling, you'd have killed it entirely and justifiably so. I've no actual problem with the edit, just the characterization. One of the things that provides a minor annoyance about FSM and "pastafarianism" is the casual use of easily debunked "facts" that even the worst religious carny act in the most rural hick town in the world would not stoop to for fear of getting caught. It was a joke in a joke, not well researched, and it turns out to rest on a popular prejudice (there's no more pirates out there) that is just not true. TMLutas 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of that graph was not meant to be completely factual, and you know it. The use of this set of 'easily debunked facts' serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to demonstrate that causation is not synonymous with correlation. This should lend support to the idea that Pastafarianism is a large parody, not a real religion. I think you're trying to be offended here.

Do you have something constructive to add? -EarthRise33 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've decided this reference is useless, so I'm removing it. -EarthRise33 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've decided I shouldn't just let your insult of me go so I reverted it. First of all, you have no idea what I know or do not know about "pastafarianism" so accusing me of certain knowledge which I do, in fact, not actually possess is a type of assuming bad faith. I was going to let it slide so long as the text itself remained. Since you removed it, let's review.

1. The facts of the edit are germane. The number of actual pirates is relevant to a chart purporting to be about the number of pirates.

2. There is no challenge as to the truthfulness or accuracy of the edit.

3. I suspect (and commentary would be especially welcome here) that the "uselessness" of the edit is about its uselessness in keeping the joke funny. This article is not about keeping the joke funny (that would be POV pushing) but about describing the FSM phenomenon within the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia (including NPOV). If Leon Klinghoffer's relatives showed up with hurt attitudes and in short order changed the tone of the section to emphasize exactly how not funny joking about pirates is, so long as it kept to NPOV and other guidelines, this would be well within the realm of appropriate for Wikipedia. This edit falls well short of that. It's 'sin' is that it bleeds the funny out of a joke by explaining it. Oh, so sorry about that. TMLutas 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So your reverting it just to spite me? That's definitely NPOV.

I was letting the original assumption of bad faith attack slide because the text hadn't been reverted. Should I be more rigorous next time? Usually people are happy when I'm *less* pissy. YMMV TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your commentary, but whatever. Try not to split up posts next time. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Pointing out ignorance on the part of the graph is not germane, since the graph is not aiming for factual accuracy.

Up to this entry, that hadn't been established, merely asserted. If there were 50 instead of 20 pirates in a particular year, that's one form of inaccuracy. The essential point of correlation and causation would be preserved. But we're going beyond that with the fact that the slope of the line is wrong. There isn't even a correlation to hang the joke's hat on. TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The slope is not wrong when one embraces the fabricated numbers. I'm not even sure where you got that conclusion. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Well, I'd call this a challenge, so whatever.

3. Discussion of the graph does not help or hinder the humor of the entire parody, since the graph does not need an accurate portrayal to convey its intent. Again, the graph indicates that causation is not the same as correlation. Nothing more. The reason that such an observation will not be made lies in that the observation is of no impact to the comedic value of Pastafarianism (and is personal research, as the reversion added in the article history). I accuse you of splitting hairs in an attempt to sate your need to find revenge for a perceived offense. -EarthRise33 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Humor, its existence, hindrance, etc are rather slippery matters. Try substituting "N. American deer" instead of pirates. It's not funny because a lot of people are aware that there's a deer population explosion going on, has been for decades. You can't just slap on any category whatsoever and have the chart still work and apparently I'm not the first guy to mention that. Mr. Henderson's attempt to save his chart is rather different than yours. He seems to be smart enough to at least see the problem and I honestly admire his solution. I'd actually find it funny to press him further on the birth of modern non-global warming countering piracy. TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there ya go. Mr. Henderson, producer of the chart, has provided a definition of pirate that supports the conclusions of the chart. So basically your complaint does not stand. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On page 63 of the Gospel (in the "Bobby Answers the Big Questions" section), the second question asks why modern "pirates" don't reduce global warming. From the answer: "Calling oneself a Pirate, or dressing up as one, does not make one a true Pirate; it takes much more. In what way are modern-day 'Pirates,' with their speedboats and machine guns, similar to the fun-loving buccaneers from history?" Other parts of the Gospel state that what we think we know of pirates today, that they were killers and thieves, is the result of a massive misinformation campaign by early Christian theologists, Hari Krishnas, and other religions, who worked together because they were jealous of the fun lifestyle of the pirates and who have since turned against each other with the pirates out of the way. "True" pirates, according to this religion, tend to travel in wooden sailboats for the purpose of exploration and having a good time, like to give out candy to children, enjoy the company of wenches and parrots, etc. You don't see nearly as many people who match even parts of that description nowadays, so, working by FSMism's definition of pirates (basically the stereotypical pop-culture one, like in that Lazytown song), the number of pirates has, in fact, been drastically reduced. The graph is still sort of hacked together with basically arbitrary numbers, but then FSMism also holds that the FSM manipulates data with His Noodly Appendage, in addition to much of the real evidence sinking in overloaded pirate ships (leaving only the other religions' misleading propaganda), so that is explained away as well. Sorry if my writing is incomprehensible. Hopefully what I just said can be understood. --ADoS71.192.64.235 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only understood but incorporated into my latest version of the edits. I don't have a problem in adding extra points even when they don't agree with my personal views. TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since that definition of pirate is in the hands of the prophet, and no other Pastafarian has made a claim otherwise, the observation that your definition of pirate doesn't correlate with his in reference to the graph is irrelevant. However, I will tack on Bobby's reference to pirates in modern times, which should quell any protest. Thank you for continuing to ensure that Pastafarianism exists as Bobby described it. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the numeric glitch in the pirate chart deliberate?

The x-axis apparently is intended to indicate a decreasing number of pirates over time (to the right), but the first two numeric labels are, left to right, 35000 and 45000. Was this a slip by the originators, a deliberate glitch to conform to some actual statistics on piracy, or a deliberate glitch to satirize the common error of manipulating data to support one's position? The fact that the x labels start out as almost arithmetically linear, but then become more logarithmic, suggest the latter. (I went to their site, but it's a long procedure to register, get introduced, etc. Hoped someone here would know.) Thanks! Unimaginative Username 05:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a deliberate glitch to not even conform to actual piracy statistics, but rather to demonstrate that causation and correlation are not one and the same. -EarthRise33 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, how do you know that it was a deliberate glitch? TMLutas 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Bobby himself has commented upon it. -EarthRise33 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you supply a link for that? I'm not challenging the fact, I just want to read it so it's not 2nd hand. TMLutas 13:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a hard time finding that particular comment. In the meantime, consider that Bobby remade the graph with the same axes: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ -EarthRise33 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering... considering... nope, still don't get the relevancy of his having remade the graph to the question of whether he's careless (not researching) or purposeful (deliberate glitch) in his error or some combination of the two. I think that there's a certain inelegance to a 'joke' by a scientist complaining about scientific sloppiness that is itself sloppy in its science. It would be worthy of note. TMLutas 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If that caption below the graph that is currently there is yours, then I'm good with it. "Chart comparing Number of Pirates versus Global Warming. The labels on the x-axis are deliberately misleading." -EarthRise33 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put them there, but it's an accurate label addition :-) Unimaginative Username 21:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It achieves the same purpose TMLutas is pressing, without the POV contamination. -EarthRise33 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)