Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

Quite Silly

I find it somewhat Ironic that this article is allowed, however an article about the game isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.228.208 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game) article has existed since March 2008 Dracker (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Don't you see Dracker, he must mean the FSM Board Game. Which I always lose at.

I swear, there are some pointless complaints about this article, it's almost as if...it touched some sort of nerve with their personal beliefs. Nooo, never. ;) 60.230.201.144 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

It's a serious belief, I consider Christianity silly, should it be removed? No because it's a legitimate belief. C6541 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absoulutely right.I am not Christian, I'm a UU and Pastafarian mix. Anyhow, we should respect people regardless of their religious beliefs. If we didn't, the world would be in mass chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.32.89 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Don`t you dare suggesting to remove it. The FSM might get angry and show his wrath upon us all. Furthermore, I find it offensive such accusation of being silly, its against my beliefs and against what is thought in my school and my country. 142.3.121.63 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it very judgmental to to say this is a parody religion they have their gospel, this very annoying. And i do follow this religion. Noel 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This Article makes no mention, of the appearance of the FSM in the Time Travel episode of South Park (where in Richard Dawkins uses it as an arugement to suede ms. Garrison) This was my first exposure to the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. and warrants inclusion in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.62 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

POV intro

"makes a mockery of the concept of an intelligent designer"

No it doesn't. It makes a mockery of the negative-proof argument for creationism, IE the false dilemma fallacy. "We don't like some of the evidence for theory A, so the answer must be magic". The idea is that there is no more proof of Christian creationism than ancient greek mythology, or any other creation myth, which includes, for parody purposes, spaghetti monsterism. Furthermore, there isn't really any "positive proof" evidence provided for creationism.. just criticism of evolution. I wouldn't even say FSM is a mockery.. it's just a parody. It uses the exact same logic and argument.

The entire intro sounds POV to me, not just this "error" which says that FSM mocks the designer. (When in fact it mocks the fallacious logic behind CLAIMING that there must be a designer.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.109.131 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

please remove the pic of Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH), as FSM donot give the permission of doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.148.70 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This entry is making me hungry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.31.30 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The image seems to be okay by all copyright and wiki standards? Please elaborate.

Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that that request for image removal was made by someone attempting to be funny (no comment on whether they succeeded in that regard) and not a legitimate request. As far as I can tell, there is not a legitimate reason to cut the image and plenty of good reasons to keep it around. --MisterB777 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

But yet its ok to remove pictures of Mohammed from wikipedia, because threats are used? 83.85.131.52 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't ok to remove pictures from the Mohammed article. See Talk:Muhammad/Images. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP?

With Bobby Henderson redirecting here does that mean this page must be held to BLP standards?MikeURL 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond his notability as the creator of the FSM and his subsequent media appearances, is there any information about Bobby that could be used to make this a BLP segment? -EarthRise33 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Information about a person must always be held to BLP standards. That is not an excuse to act paranoid about information tangential to the person. Try to be reasonable about this JoshuaZ 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that I have heard nothing about Bobby Henderson's upbringing or lifestyle beyond his a) parody religion, b) media appearances, and c) unemployed physics grad status. I've no source for it. -EarthRise33 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Information about Henderson must be well-sourced since he is a living person, and BLP applies to any details about him. Does that clear things up? JoshuaZ 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BLP. Sorry if I gave the impression I was opposed to such information. I'm asking what we should do if no other info is readily available. -EarthRise33 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we don't add any other info. I mean, in general we shouldn't add info that we can't verify, right? JoshuaZ 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I shall fall silent. -EarthRise33 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Google's cite of Wikipedia apparently knows more about Bobby than Wikipedia does. I looked for 'Bobby Henderson' + born and got July 18, 1980 (1980-07-18) (age 26) Roseburg, Oregon, United States. -EarthRise33 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion. I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics. More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar. I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion.Laberdere (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

$1,000,000

Are we sure that BoingBoing's offer was made in reference to James Randi's offer concerning supernatural abilities? I was under the impression that it was solely in reference to Kent Hovind's challenge, an association that is more relevant to the FSM's sociopolitical position. -EarthRise33 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's cool, I'm erasing it for lack of supporting material. -EarthRise33 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Falling

I'm pretty sure one of the pasterfarian beliefs is 'Intelligent Falling'. 'Intelligent Falling' is intended as a competitor of The Theory of Gravity as explanation as to why objects fall. It states that all objects fall as the result of the FSM's noodly apendages pushing them down, and argues that Gravity is 'just a theory'. It parodies the creationist argument that 'Evolution is just a theory'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.49.110 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also claimed that the reason that people are taller these days is because the FSM has only so many appendages to push people towards the ground with. Fewer noodles to go around leads to taller people. -- 68.49.10.155 (talk)

Italians are for this very reason much smaller than northern europeans as they live in a more pasta rich environment. Noserider (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirates graph

Please join the discussion about which Pirate Graph to use to illustrate this article. See: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 31#Image:FSM Pirates.jpg. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "Pastafarian"

First time I heard the term "Pastafarian" was in a Russell Peters standup bit - "What you get when an Italian and a Jamaican marry". And this was before 2005. So I gotta ask, is it possible Henderson had that word in mind when he invented the FSM? --Fshafique (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I Have heard 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' before, either it was on the simpsons, or futurama, but it is definately not souly of this mans creation. very hilarious though. -kc

'Pastafarian' is the appropriate term for true adherents to the FSM because it conforms to the strand of teaching that 'His reach is long, his is the straight and narrow path but our human understanding curls back on itself before it finds the true sauce of wisdom' -DJP 27 May 08Pelagianism (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Pelagian

LOL - Now that belongs in the article itself. Meinsla (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Academic attention

A friend of mine, an artist associated with the Church of the Subgenius, passed along an article from CNN that indicates that FSM is getting some academic attention. This is not a topic I'm particularly interested in working on myself, so I am passing this along; it should be a useful reference, and someone may want to follow up to some of the individuals involved.

• Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster, Associated Press / CNN, November 16, 2007.

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CNN seems to have eliminated that link, now, but the text can still be found here. Tim Ross·^talk 12:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Age and History

While the article says this religion was founded in 2005, and while the first historical appearance was indeed in May of that year, in that letter, with 10000 people and numerous books and literature, it may be that this religion existed earlier and was only discovered or exposed in modern day and not founded. This is made more obvious from the fact that the theory of Intelligent Design is so well researched and has so much evidence at the time the letter was sent which you can't just come up after a few days of binge drinking. So it may have existed for many years before that and have many historical references (was it on the Mayflower? What role did it have in building the pyramids? etc) and the religion could have been founded hundreds or thousands of years ago by a prophet to whom the Flying Spaghetti Monster communicated.Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got a point there actually! I'd like to request that the "founded in 2005" bit was changed to "publicized in 2005".

--PPastafarian (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One could question the necessity of the paragraph that begins "In November of the same year the Kansas State Board of Education..." for its relevance to the article. It is a legitimate event with legitimate sources, but it's inclusion alters the tone of the article inasmuch as it appears in the form of a supporting argument for debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiesullivan (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Idea Before 2005?

I recall a reference to FSM that long predates 2005 but I cannot find it. I vividly recall a friend (who died in 1996) retelling a point he had read somewhere that man makes God in man's image — e.g. a bearded old white guy — and this form was strategically chosen to make God relatable. A religion where the supreme being took the form of a flying spaghetti monster would not thrive because the object of worship would not be relatable to humans. I would like to see some reference to this original concept in this article. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming Henderson stole the concept. I believe he very appropriately expropriated the idea and applied it to a different purpose. In fact, Henderson's parody was better not referring to any prior concept. But I'd like to know where it was first published. Does anyone recall who originated the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (long before 2005) to explain the man-like image of God in religions? --Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I followed the link to Russell's teapot and managed to find many derivative links from there. The teapot was the earliest example that I could see. Many of these examples focus on the futility of trying to prove a negative, however, rather than specifically targeting religion. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a reference made today in an article in the NY Times [1] that attributes Flying Spaghetti Monster to Niels Bohr. Here's the paragraph that mentions it:

"So in the spirit of Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory, who is said to have said that a great truth is a statement whose opposite is also a great truth, I would answer "Yes" to your question. I hope that cosmos and chaos turn out to be two sides of the same thing, whatever you want to call that thing — existence, being, the great flying spaghetti monster."

--Anne C. Russell (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read closely enough. He answers in the spirit of Niels Bohr, and makes a summary of one of Bohr's arguments. Then, he (not Bohr) goes on to talk about the FSM. Icarus of old (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember talking about the FSM at the Atheist and Agnostic Student Group at Texas A&M back in 1995. It was discussed on the web and usenet groups at the time. This Henderson guy is taking credit for ideas that were fully formed at least a whole decade before 2005. 209.191.166.202 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For inclusion, if FSM can be dated before Henderson's 'telling', we need reliable sources.--Alf ^melmac 07:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

religion?

this articles syas that this is a "religion"..is this a mistake,or is this far fecthed story true..?96.224.176.40 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a parody religion, i.e., it has all the ornaments of your standard religion, but is recognized to have these parts in order to make a point through satire. -EarthRise33 (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is very clear in describing it as a parody religion. Visit the provided Wikilink to learn more about what is a parody religion. TechBear (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As much of a religion as Christianity. 99.247.165.148 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In a sense is true in that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a Religion, it is a Deity -- if you are asking if it is real or not you would have to ask someone of faith as no Muslim Jew Buddist Christian or insert religion here is likely to answer no to any Deity who is not their own. Meanwhile, I'm sure we've all seen people who pray to numerous things for numerous reasons. If you are uncertain about this question forget about it and ask yourself the two bigger questions of what is a religion and what does a religion do -- wait, don't ask that question ask what is a religion supposed to do. Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The opening of this article cites a report on creationism for a source claiming it to be a "parody religion" rather than a religion, however, according to the official site of the religion itself:

"The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, only recently came into the mainstream when this letter was published in May 2005.

With millions, if not thousands, of devout worshippers, the Church of the FSM is widely considered a legitimate religion, even by its opponents - mostly fundamentalist Christians, who have accepted that our God has larger balls than theirs.

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 can be read here: [2]

I therefore firmly believe that Pastafarianism should be classified as a religion, since the creator himself does take it seriously and has never referred to it as a "parody". True devotees of the religion make their stance very clear. Symphonien (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep I agree with Symphonien and as a "true devotee" (though i'd rather not use those exact words, hehe) I can say that my stance is the same as thousands of other Pastafarians in that in order for our religion to reach the public it had to be first shown as a parody, a satire and an insert-whatever-here just to spread the word a bit. Needless to say, this worked amazingly well.

So, while it can be misleading at some times because of the route we took to becoming well known, don't make the mistake of thinking that Pastafarianism is not a real religion because at the end of the day, it is!

--PPastafarian (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lacking

This article will eventually need to be amended to address the offensiveness and perceived bigotry associated with this subject. Like it or not, many people react to this concept as am implicit statement of anti-religious hatred, not comedy. The article is almost entirely positive in its portrayal, which is not a neutral POV.

1: The judge who ruled on the Dover Cove case needed to be placed under federal protection for his ruling which was neither comedic nor anti-religious (nor hatred) in any context (except it didn't admit Intelligent Design). So we must accept the notion that this article will always be (even if it actually is) too positive and dismiss any non-constructive claims it is positive and all because it will always be perceived by some as offensive and anti-religious as easily as a neutral judge was targeted. Any perceptions might be too clouded by irrational POV and any complaints would obviously need to extensively examined as a few bad eggs with no ability to make sound rational judgments may be around to further muddy the waters for those of us with clear heads or legitimate enhancements. Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

2: This article should not be any more offensive to any particular religion than it is to any other group that are more centrally involved like the Kansas School Board, Kansas, or American, etc. This was originally not a Parody of God or Religion as much as it was a retaliatory response to the subversive attempts to circumvent the system and (re)introduce "Intelligent Design" a rewritten hack of creationism into a school curriculum. Most of the offense was taken by defenders of Creationism not necessarily by any particular religion, but any offense in removing "God" and replacing it with "undetermined force" should more offensive to more people (including even some religious people in having God taken out of the equation indifferent of the supposed good intension) than removing "undetermined force" and replacing it with "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The FSM loves all his creations equally, even those with blasphemous beliefs in non-FSM gods.

Should an element of hostile POV be introduced to this article, then this should be the case in all other religious articles. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Pastafariaism is not bigotted in condemning those who follow other religions and if those people find this offensive then surely this is an aspect of their belief system not Pastafarianism Streona (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don`t see your point. There is no comedy at all in this article. How can you offend me saying my religion is a comedy? There is no anti-religious, no hate, offensive content. The FSM loves us all and he is with you too, even if you don`t believe in him, don`t worry.142.3.121.63 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Links

I deleted the Uncyclopedia link. There was no reason for an Uncyclopedia link to be in there. If you feel I'm wrong, please re-add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.4.115 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here, it's also a good idea to put a brief description or reference to "see talk" on the edit summary. It didn't seem a bad idea to link a parody of this parody, so I've restored it, but not a big deal either way. ... dave souza, talk 11:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia has no place in this article. It is a serious religion. Would you like an Uncyclopedia link in article about muslin or Christianity? I don`t think so. 142.3.121.63 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category

Added [[Category:Creator gods]] Pingnak (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I removed it. Much as I love the FSM this is a parody so does not belong in that particular cat. Sophia 08:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I put it back. There are 74 other deities so listed, at least some of which seem to have no more substance than FSM (perhaps less). Since part of the FSM story involves creation, the cat does make sense. Tim Ross 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'substance' in this context amuses me. The cat definitely belongs here. 144.32.59.199 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum

Why was the reductio ad absurdum aspect of FSM removed from the article? What was the justification? --Macrowiz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, Pastafarianism is not a reductio ad absurdum, based on the true (and not oft quoted) definition of the reductio. -EarthRise33 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be less simpler? What are the true and oft quoted definitions? --Macrowiz (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the oft quoted definition is, "If a line of reasoning can be used to deduce an absurd conclusion, then the line of reasoning is incorrect." RAA, or proof by contradiction, involves assuming that which you aim to refute and deriving via logic something contradictory or otherwise impossible. In other words, "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." (to deliberately plagiarize the words of two users in a past thread.) -EarthRise33 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New York Magazine is a reputable "popular culture" reference and not simply a "gossip column"

Discussion from my user page, moved here in date sequence for information. .. dave souza, talk 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "Founded by Milton Glaser and Clay Felker in 1968 as a competitor to The New Yorker, it offers less national news and more gossip, but has also published noteworthy articles on city and state politics and culture over the years." The article on Bobby Henderson was germane as his creation is parody and the fact that his creation provided a financial windfall for the (at that time) unemployed grad IS factual and important as to same.

From Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" page:

Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

There is no doubt that the creation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster IS a matter of "popular culture" and The New York magazine is a publication that address popular culture in a respected manner. Therefore this contribution *is* of value and the reference (New York mag) *is* perfectly within the intent of Wikipedia's references guidelines.

Please re-read the guidelines on popular culture references before you haphazardly delete pertinent contributions. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of popular culture and fiction it's certainly a reasonable source, but even the best news magazines have gossip columns, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy requires particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, high quality references are required, and the article must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The statement that his creation provided a "financial windfall" for the (at that time) unemployed grad indicates a violation of WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and is a sensationalist way of saying he got an advance as an author, as is the NYm subtitle for their article "The $80,000 Pasta Bible Jackpot for unemployed slot-machine engineer and heretic" – the web page title is the more reasonable "The Case For Intelligent Design: Spaghetti as the Creator". The point about him getting the advance is already covered in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster section of the article, in reasonable terms. We don't seem to mention him being unemployed or a slot-machine engineer. If you think that's worth adding to the body of the article, put the case on the article talk page, and try to find another source. However, it's my opinion that this isn't significant enough to put in the lead, which should summarise material in the body of the article, and it certainly shouldn't be presented in a sensationalist way. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The creator of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

[cross-posted from User talk:Snalwibma - I don't understand why it was placed there instead of here in the first place... It's a response to this edit. Snalwibma (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC))]
Info about the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not "irrelevant". Also, the contribution was WELL sourced, with a footnote leading to the webpage of the article. Please quit erasing pertinent content that you find "irrelevant", your opinion is of no value, the guidelines of Wikipedia clearly allow for such contributions, see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. The creation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster provided a financial windfall for the creator, that is valuable information as altruism has often been credited as the source of his effort. The public has a need and a right to know that this creation meant hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bobby Henderson. This is important information and NOT "irrelevant".Supertheman (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how Henderson's employment status is relevant to the subject of the article, and the suggestion that he did it for the money while a lowly slot-machine engineer who couldn't get a job looks like a gossip-column-based slur. The source is indeed a gossip column. No doubt "valuable information" if you wish to cast the FSM and the motives of its creator in a certain light, but hardly balanced and neutral. Snalwibma (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Intelligent Design page, this is stated and upheld (by admins) as germane: "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity" and also, "consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience." These are *facts*, but they cast "the motives of its creator in a certain light". Bobby Henderson as a physics grad is important, but him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer isn't? If him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer casts him in a "certain light", then the mention of him being a physics grad also casts him in a "certain light". The point is, both are FACTS, and both are GERMANE. The source is NOT a "gossip column"... according to Wikipedia *itself*: Your views about Bobby Henderson and your desire to "cast him in a certain light" are not at issue, what is are FACTS, and the fact is that not only was he a physics grad, but he was also an unemployed slot-machine engineer. Both are true, both are germane.Supertheman (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could be persuaded that his physics degree from wherever is also irrelevant. Snalwibma (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussed previously on my talk page and posted above for information, WP:BLP requires particular care, and while the NYm no doubt carries worthy news stories, this does seem to be a gossip column putting a spin on the situation. The amount earned for undertaking writing the book is already shown in the article, further biographical details should appropriately appear in the body of the article rather than the lead, with good sources rather than gossip columns. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already been over this, Wikipedia itself says that New York Magazine is: ""Founded by Milton Glaser and Clay Felker in 1968 as a competitor to The New Yorker, it offers less national news and more gossip, but has also published noteworthy articles on city and state politics and culture over the years" Also, *your* interpretation of New York magazine is unimportant, the bottom line is: it is fact. It is irrelevant if the source is "distasteful" to you, the point is the facts are *correct*. The person who did the article did the fact checking and this was his status at the time of mailing the letter. It is fact, and it is germane just as the fact that he was a physics grad is germane. I've already linked you the Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction which clearly states: However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources.

I have just added an additional reference noting his status at the time from a column in The Dallas Morning News by Clarence Page. That should put to rest the reliability of the source.

The FSM is a parody religion and is certainly a item of popular culture, therefore references that are *allowable* under Wikipedia's Reliable sources are completely relevant and germane.

Finally, a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility in certain instances. For example, a tenured university physics professor's opinion concerning matters of physics is of the utmost importance to the reliability and relevancy of his opinion. Bobby Henderson wasn't a professor, he was a physics grad who was an unemployed slot machine technician and that certainly is pertinent to the viability of the FSM as a serious criticism of introducing Creative Design into the Kansas educational system and to the relevance of his opinion as to said. Beyond that, it is simply FACT, just as his being a physics grad is fact. Repeatedly undoing my pertinent, germane contribution (clearly within the guidelines of Wikipedia) and simply parroting WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP will not erase the facts about Bobby Henderson that should be included in this item of popular culture.Supertheman (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, "a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility in certain instances", but this is absolutely not one of those instances. Henderson's status as a physics grad who was an unemployed slot machine technician is utterly irrelevant. It has no bearing on his credibility in this case, or on his entitlement to make a point about the idiocy of the Kansas educational system. As I said above, I think maybe it would be best to delete the physics grad status from the lead as well, because that is in fact equally irrelevant. But either way, dave souza is absolutely right - no problem including these facts in the article, but the lead is not the appropriate place. Putting it there does absolutely raise issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Take it out of the lead and build it into the body of the article. Snalwibma (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and shifted the detail about Henderson's background and employment status from the lead to the body of the article. What do you think? I'm still not convinced of the need to include this material, given the WP:BLP policy, but at least it seems better balanced in this position. Snalwibma (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's going to be in, it should be set in context, so I've put the point in date sequence and expanded it a bit. The FSM website sidebar shows the Gospel with a blurb from the Scientific American "Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny", so unemployment's not a big deal. The NYT noted that he'd stated on his web site that he was desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas", and the subsequent reports appear to have spun this as "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". Bit of a cheek, really, since scientists are by no means engineers, as my son (doing mech eng) would tell you if he was here himself. Anyway, it's worth reading Henderson's Feb 02 blog about how he's spending "a lot of time trying to avoid a Real Job"."Bobby Henderson's blog". Retrieved 2008-02-07. :o) . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dave, that looks much much much better. Thanks. All seems to make perfect sense now, and IMHO it looks reasonably fair and balanced - but I only wandered in here by mistake, and I'm a semi-unemployed biologist, so of course I'm not really qualified to comment, given that a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility ... Snalwibma (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, given its provenance the statement that he was "desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas" may have been a joke – do they have slot machine programmers? The subsequent reports of him as a slot machine engineer may have had some other source, or may have been typical journalists spicing up their story, or may just mean that, like some people, they had no sense of humour. Who can tell? .. dave souza, talk 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I still have a couple problems, one, why is he stated *defacto* as a "physics grad", but his status as a "unemployed slot-machine engineer" only "described" by the Dallas Morning News? We need a direct reference that he is a "physics grad" or this also must be written as how he is "described". Also, I wonder if Dave and Snalwibma would direct the same fervor to whit they have fought to bury the employment status of Bobby Henderson to moving the reference that basically all of "the proponents" of intelligent design are members of the "Discovery Institute" to a more appropriate place on the page? If Bobby Henderson's status is unimportant in the first section, then the affiliation of the "proponents" of ID is not appropriate in the first section of ID.Supertheman (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between being "a physics graduate" and being "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". The first is a simple matter of fact (either you are or you aren't). The second, as Dave souza has shown, appears most likely to be a slightly tongue-in-cheek (or possibly mischievous) interpretation of a humorous remark by Henderson himself, an expression of a feeling more than a matter of fact. In which case it seems entirely appropriate to say that he was the one and was described as the other. If you think he is not really physics graduate, by all means add a "citation needed" tag, or some such (though personally I think it would look rather silly). And no, I will not go and attend to the intelligent design page. Do it yourself if there is something there that bothers you! Snalwibma (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I restrained myself from saying "Yeah, right" after saying "check out the ID page", but I knew it was about as likely as *seeing* the FSM.<grin> In the meantime, I have written a letter to Mr. Henderson asking him to clarify his employment status and to confirm his status as a physics grad. Hopefully he will respond with citations as to said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(repeated from above, relevant for discussion here) The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion. I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics. More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar. I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion. Laberdere (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that his "real job" is as pertinent as his status as a "physics grad". If we remove one, we remove the other. I agree that neither belong on the page. Is there a consensus on this?Supertheman (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As he has now written and published several books on various aspects of the FSM and Pastafarianism and is probably coining a small additional fortune from the worldwide sales of various related items, how about instead we refer to him as an "author and successful internet entrepreneur"? One suspects he will be able to live very comfortably for the rest of his life and in some luxury, without the hassle of ever having to get a real career. Time will tell on that. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, unless you can cite a WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, did you think I was being serious? I was just taking a jibe at this nonsensical and tortuous discussion about his employment status. Although I still don't think he will ever need to work again on the back of this money making opportunity. The man is not daft. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I was assuming good faith. It appears that my assumption here was misplaced. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Schism

I'm reading Dawkins' God Delusion, and on page 53 he says "by the way, it had to happen - a Great Schism has already occurred, resulting in the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." He cites the following website:(Link to LULU removed, it was blacklisted). I also found the Reformed Church of Alfredo: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Church_of_Alfredo.

I think the trend should be mentioned in the article. The other organizations may not be officially "recognized" by the main Church - but that only helps the analogy to other religions. Whenever new sects split off of a larger religion, they aren't recognized, in fact they are typically denounced as heretics. Also the mention in Dawkins' book I think qualifies it as academically noteworthy and not original research. Thoughts?VatoFirme (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I think it's noteworthy enough of inclusion. Kit Berg (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was just based on Uncyclopedia then definitely not, but as Dawkins does mention it it ought to be worth a sentence or so. Hut 8.5 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Parody?

No references. See the note at the top of the page and the talkpage archives.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to request that either the word "parody" be removed from this page or that it is added to every other religion as Pastafarianism is just as real as they are. I appreciate that Pastafarianism was originally publicized in such a way that it was thought to be a parody, a satire and whatever by many however, a fair few 'modern' religions have also taken this route to gain fame and help them spread. Anyhow, i'm basically just requesting that the words "parody religion" are either removed completely from this article, added to every other religious article on wikipedia (something i'll do ASAP if i'm given permission, believe me) or just simply changed from saying "is a parody religion" to "has been publicized as a parody religion" for example. Personally, I think the third option would be best for everybody. PPastafarian (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Pastafarianism was created as a parody, hence the label. All religions are not parodies, most are created in good, ahh, faith. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Check the archived conversations for a discussion of the role of 'parody' in this religion. -EarthRise33 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC) All you need is one reliable source talking about real people seriously worshiping the FSM. You'll get a lot of support for its inclusion. Until then you're out of luck.MikeURL (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I also agree that this word is offensive to practicing pastafarians, and request that it is removed. 70.16.204.109 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC) That probably won't happen, considering that even the Prophet himself recognizes that the religion is a tongue-in-cheek parody, and only serves as such. -EarthRise33 ([[User 72.130.164.235 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)talk:EarthRise33|talk]]) 16:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC) What prophet, we have no prophet, please the word parody is offensive to practitioners of this faith, This is absolute religious discrimination, and legal action may be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.34.1 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Please take it, we can all use a good laugh. And what is the objection to discrimination, anyway? Does not the whole FSM thing intend to discriminate against believers? Not that I care much. Let's get to the **real** issue: does the parmesan cheese of the FSM proceed from the meatballs AND the spagetti, or from the meatballs THROUGH the spagetti? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.145.198 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) You should at the very least put some sort of a tag up, directing people here for a discussion of the use of the (thoroughly objectionable) term parody. Or, better yet, put parody religion in the heading of all articles on religion. Besides, how do you know any of those were founded in good faith? I'll bet you don't have any verifiable sources. :P Druworos (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Object away; it will not change the truth that FSM is a parody. And good faith can be verified in serveral religions. For Christianity, try Greenleaf's "The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence" I am not entirely convinced by these arguments, but the good faith of the religion's founders is there. More that I can say for, say, Mormonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.145.198 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Pastafarians like myself know it is no parody. I would like to follow up on the original person's demand to either take the term out, use it in a different sense, or add it to every article on religion. I've never seen the word "Parody" on Catholicism, and our teachings are more realistic! Glory to the Monster of Great Spaghetti! We will not be seen as parodists! 72.130.164.235 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) FSM is defined — by it's creator — as a parody religion. Catholicism is not a parody religion. Christianity is not a parody religion. There are eyewitness accounts of the works of Christ, miracles and rising from the dead. There are no (serious) eyewitness accounts of the FSM. Believers in Christianity do not define this religion as a parody. Lets keep the tongue in cheek where it belongs.Supertheman (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Bobby Henderson is not a "creator" of Pastafarianism, but rather a prophet delivering the word of FSM to the masses. The parody part in Pastafarianism comes from acknowledging that the creator deity has a sense of humor, which is self evident to anyone who looks at the universe. It doesn't make the Flying Spaghetti Monster any less true. You could say it's a test of faith, which people who reject Pastafarianism as "parody" fail. • Maurog • 13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Just thought I'd bring it all of your attentions that, once again, there have been five competing changes and revisions over the word "parody". So, if I may make a suggestion, what if the word "parody" were replaced with a less loaded term like "satirical" which gives the same general meaning without trivializing the Church of the FSM. Even if you take the view that FSMism has comedic value and pokes fun at other religions, neither the founding documents, nor the ideas they espouse fit the generally accepted definition of Parody, instead falling far more easily under the heading of Satire. Of course, this is a semantic argument university English majors have all the time, but I submit "satirical" as a less offensive, les point-of-view driven option. Discuss. --MisterB777 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Once again, my comments have been deleted for absolutely no reason. Is this not the place for discussion? Why are my comments being deleted then? Simply because I wish for the term 'parody' to be removed? It's ridiculous that people like me, as a pastafarian, have to put up with this kind of stuff. All we want is to be treated fairly, when you label our religion as a 'parody' it's not fair. Why don't you label every other religion parody, since they have just as much evidence that prove their legitimacy as the Church of FSM? I will be taking out the word 'parody' as of 8:15PM Eastern Time tonight, as my religion is not a joke and I along with other Pastafarians should not be subjected to this kind of discrimination. Kingofattendance (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) It is verifiable by reliable sources that FSM is a parody religion, so that is what the article says. If there are other sources which indicate that FSM is not a parody religion, then we can quote those. Please spare me the eristic arguments about how there are no reliable sources indicating that Catholicism is an actual religion. The point is not whether we can verify the obvious fact that Catholicism is an actual religion, but that the sources indicate that FSM is a parody religion. Until other evidence is brought up, all of this discussion is pretty obviously offtopic for the article. So, will any of the people who reverted my archiving please put down some reliable sources? Or shall I just archive this section again? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So what happens when Bobby Henderson get's this religion recognized by the government as a legitimate religion?
I know I am a "bleever" and I hope to be ordained as a Pastafarian High Pirate as soon it's a possibility. Randomblink (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Who says Pastafarianism is a parody religion? Who decides these things? What if i were to turn round and say "i think christianity is a parody religion"? I can assure you if i did christians everywhere would have a stroke. So my question is simple, if its ok for other people to say that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a load of B/S, whats to stop up saying the same about other religions. Oh wait i forgot, if we do that, its racist, oh yeah?! Well i take calling Pastafarianism a parody religion to be a racist comment, as such i have change the main page so that it refers to us as a real religion rather than a parody. (And if your reading this and you dont like it, get over it) Kira Chinmoku (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the tone of your comment and edits, I may be wasting my time, but I feel that I owe an explanation for reverting you. It's really very simple: according to the sources, the FSM was founded with the intention of being a parody. (I have a feeling that those who claim in this talk to believe it could themselves be engaging in parody.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Holiday Question

Today is Friday, 3/21. It's Good Friday, Eid, Purim, Narouz, Small Holi, Magha Puja... Does Pastafarianism have a holiday today, too? 'Cause I really need the day off.--Justfred (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hide egg noodles all over your house, and have children search for them? (P.S. Yeah, yeah, WP:FORUM, I know, I couldn't resist) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiding egg noodles seems quite pertinent to such a holiday, however hiding eggs to celebrate the resurrection of Christ makes no sense whatsoever. My suggestion would be that Pastafarians should not follow in such footsteps lest it belittle their holiday as it has EasterSupertheman (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

See what your missing here is that it was not Christians who started hiding eggs on easter. It was non Christians who started that. Easter has become more about the Easter Bunny than the Sacrifice Jesus made for his followers. --HEFF ;) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrummerhef (talk • contribs)

Separate page for Bobby Henderson?

Does anyone else think it might be useful to have a page for Bobby Henderson's biography, distinct from the Flying Spaghetti Monster page? Tim Ross (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. You'd need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, and all sources mentioning him will probably only give trivial mentions connected with the FSM (and hence a redirect here is more appropriate). Hut 8.5 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletiong tag explanation

Just thought it would be good to put a note in here as to why I pulled the Speedy Deletion tag on the Pirate Graph image. While the graph, by itself, seems to be nonsense, it actually has a valid basis in both Flying Spaghetti Monster history and, really, just needed a better caption to make it understandable. As the text next to the image (and now the image's caption itself) points out, the graph showing a correlation between Global Warming and the Number of Pirates is intentionally absurd so that it can illustrate the ridiculousness of claiming that correlation equals causation. As such, while the image represents an absurd concept, it does not seem to satisfy the Criteria for Speedy Deletion as it is not, in fact Patent Nonsense or Gibberish. Definitely needs to be talked through if it is up for deletion. --MisterB777 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Universe as a bunch of spaghetti strands

This commentary by an anonymous poster on Slashdot concerning the article Hubble Survey Finds Missing Matter, Probes Intergalactic Web sums it up best: It is a noodle like structure. FSM 1 ID 0. I assume by ID he meant Intelligent Design and not the Freudian construct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying there is a connection between Pastafarianism and String Theory? Newell Post (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

I just uploaded Image:Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pirate Dragon Con 2007.jpg, in case you guys are interested in using it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Another blot on Wikipedia's name

This article, its length, its evident stance, and its absurdly calibrated tone are screaming to the world that Wikipedia is a juvenile enterprise. The thing itself is nothing but tired one-note joke that has already been told many times over in every era. There is no value in preserving the elaborations and epiphenomena of this version of it. --Nehushtan (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific concerns, please elaborate. --Onorem?Dil 05:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is covering a topic not worthy of notice. If the article is in Wikipedia at all, it shouldn't be more than a few lines long. What else is there to say? --Nehushtan (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And are you the sole arbiter of taste and culture, in terms of notability? There are lots of articles in Wikipedia that I do not necessarily feel belong, but I usually leave specific comments regarding specific problems I have with an article instead of "I'm-so-above-it-all" generalities which only serve to make one seem snobby. Icarus of old (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But I am above it. And you should be too. I have given a specific problem with the article: it's too long. Of course if I were to try to completely eliminate the article or replace it with something more appropriate to its intellectual value my edits would be instantly reversed by a teenager. You want more specific? Here is my stab at what the article should look like: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The parody was initiated as a mocking response to fundamentalist Christianity and creationism in the United States in the early 21st century". Maybe a reference or two after that, and that's all. --Nehushtan (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The religion may be a parody of other belief systems, but I don't see anything juvenile about the article, nor its contributors - to me, your comment betrays your lack of neutrality by labeling the other contributors as "teenagers". What exactly makes the article "not worthy of notice", in your opinion? Why should this article be any shorter than the one for Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (which although famous historically, is not nearly as relevant today)? I could see an argument for trimming a few minor things out of the article, but I don't think a major downsize of the article is appropriate at all.Corfe83 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call them or you all teenagers. And the juvenility I was referring to in my first note was to highlight how the article has become a compendium of the goofy side-jokes that the main joke has spawned. It doesn't matter how polished the article becomes over time as the various contributers strive to rein in the excesses of earlier contributions, shoot for a neutral POV, and shellac on a scholarly tone. At some point the article as a whole has to be evaluated to determine if the subject itself is worthy of the degree of attention it is being given. Swift's satire is mature and has stood the test of time. There have been hundreds of minor pranks and jokes in the past 200 years that are not mature and have not. This is destined be one of those. --Nehushtan (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This subject has been covered in plenty of books and national newspapers. There is no point including a limited amount of relevant, encyclopedic information when there is plenty available. Hut 8.5 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would argue precisely the opposite: there's enough information out there to be googled that you don't need much in the article at all. The value of the subject itself determines how long its article should be, not how much could be included. --Nehushtan (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Not every topic on Wikipedia must have a length in proportion to how valuable you personally consider that topic to be. (This may not be what you think, but it's how you're coming across.) 2) That information is available on Google in no way necessarily reduces the need for it to be in a Wikipedia article. 3) I actually think a strong case could be made that this article includes too much unencyclopedic material that is scarcely mentioned, if at all, in reliable third-party sources about FSM, and that a fair amount could readily be jettisoned. Unfortunately, commentary about how the topic is "absurd" and "juvenile" and "beneath you" doesn't really set the tone for a constructive debate about that. — Matt Crypto 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nehushtan, given your elevated status, I wonder why you looked this juvenile article up in the first place, and then went on to comment on it (at some length). Wouldn't your talents have been better employed making a cup of tea? I don't see the point in removing valid information from Wikipedia just because some high-falutin' folks think it's not very important - the FSM religion/parody/gag has genuinely been extremely successful in reaching (and amusing) a vast number of people worldwide, and the length of the article simply reflects that. No doubt in 20 years we'll all have forgotten about it, but the article will then be a useful compendium of information for someone researching aged internet memes, old one-note jokes, or the history of some half-remembered good time they once enjoyed. Or indeed, perhaps in 200 years it will be useful for scholarly FSM monks researching the early history of the new globe-spanning religion that has brought peace and prosperity to its followers by then...Girth Summit (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It has changed state law. It has pretty much debunked Intelligent Design. It has got accreditation from professionals and professors. I'm pretty sure people will remember it; since it was practically the only thing stopping Intelligent Design from being taught at US schools. Excuse me for being a little naive here; but what exactly is so 'unimportant' about it?--Tyraz (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple correction here. No, it has not "debunked" Itelligent Design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach7775 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure it has. 75.32.32.93 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what an anathema jumping in to old, contentious threads is, however I can't help but agree with Nehushtan and scoff at the contention of Tyraz's assertion that the FSM has "debunked Intelligent Design". Haha, that is one of the most absurd claims I have ever read. Though I disagree with his position(s), I respect Bertrand Russell and his innovative analogy, "Russell's Teapot". Long before this unemployed slot-machine repairman ;-) ever ripped off Russell to avoid ever having to go back to work, many other rationalists had created elaborate parody/pseudo-gods to contest the burden of proof. The debate raging on concerning intelligent design is not abating, instead it is gaining momentum and Henderson's rip-off of Russell's Teapot, Sagan's "invisible... floating dragon" in the garage and the Invisible Pink Unicorn has only provided a fad for younger persons to assimilate. The reason I mention all this is because NONE of the other parody religion Wiki pages come close to the length of the FSM, the article is TOO long and has now become a propagandized, self-promoting, opinion piece ALL of which Wikipedia is not WP:Soap. For example, this comment on the page:

Pastafarians note the increasing popularity of their holiday at the expense of others, with stores and shops now wishing people "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"...

This sentence claims that the usage of "Happy Holidays" was caused by the FSM, which is absolutely *false*. This trend had begun LONG before the FSM oozed on the scene. Henderson mocked (what he believed) were faulty cases of causation and correlation with his "Pirates and Global Warming" parody and here we have a glaring example of a faulty correlation/causation being attributed to the FSM! The irony of this bogus claim should not be lost on any intelligent person. Also, the sentence is utterly throbbing with smug derision due to the usage of weasel words and untenable claims. I will edit this sentence out when I finish here, but the article will still remain as a blight on Wikipedia because of it's ludicrous length and biased slant.

I have avoided editing such topics for a long time, because the stress and strife of it was wearing me down. As I wade back in, I appeal to editors on the other side of the fence to consider this: if this article were written about God or some historical, religious figure would you consider it neural? Read the article, ask yourself, would you consider the article fair and balanced if you disagreed with the position of those hearlding the FSM? Supertheman ^(talk) 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with the change you made to that sentence. However, I'm not really won over by your more generalized complaints about the page. If you can point to specifics, as you did with that sentence, I hope we can address them thoughtfully. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've looked again at the page. One thing I can notice is a tendency to repeat, straight-faced, specifics of the parody, without adequately labeling them as parody. I can appreciate how people who (unlike me) find the FSM offensive would perceive this as unencylopedic. But rather than deleting the material, I think the solution is to add quotation marks where appropriate. I'm pointing that out here in this talk, because I'm about to do it, and that is the reason why. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate a joke as much as the next person but many of the followers of this so called religion (I say that because it was clearly meant as a joke)are directly attacking christianity. In no way has this debunked intelligent creation at all as the biggest thing most people miss is that the theory of creationism does not specify how the world came about. It could have happened any way and may very well run hand in hand with many aspects of evolution. The big diffence is the beleif that a creator had a hand in doing it. Now I would love to be able to enjoy the joke without seeing many personal jabs at christianity, if you are so sure that it is fake than learning or hearing about it should not bother you at all. I myself spend a great amount of time learning about other religions! so please keep stupid comments to yourself --HEFF ;) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrummerhef (talk • contribs)

The Creation of a 'Non-Parody Following' Section

Now, as much as many users here dislike it (and they do, at great length, regardless of whether their personal feelings against Pastafarianism followers can conform to Wikipedia policy or not), the repeated criticism and complaints by users over whether this is a "real" religion or specifically a parody needs to be settled.

I propose a section on the "Non-Parody" following of Pastafarianism. As while the founding denotes parody, its successive existence has taken on an entire new meaning. Now, whether the current incarnation and its "sects" (if any) may also in fact be parodies, they being actual legitimate followings may also be true.

While obviously a working title ("Non-Parody Following"), I propose that if such a section can be sourced according to Wikipedia policy, as with the rest of the article, confirming that it indeed does have a non-parody following, it allow that following and their beliefs on Pastafarianism/FSM to be referred to as a legitimate religion/religious/belief movement as is seen in any other article on "cults", religions or dogmatic followings. Without of course the ever present problem of revertation.

In this way, both the fact Pastafarianism was created and continued as a parody will be met, along with the continued problem of its actual legitimate religious aspects to people not being be met. As its creation as a parody can be mentioned easily alongside its actual legitimate practitioners.

It seems the "parody" religion itself meets all the requirements for a genuine article on a religion, except for its founding as a parody, which holds no weight on what its current incarnation is or considers itself, hence the problem of editors reverting its mentioning as a legitimate religion on the basis they believe it is not (sorry but "I think its not" or "people believe its a parody" isn't a legitimate reason why those who do practice it as a faith are not legitimate) rather than presented sources for why ALL of its practitioners are just lying and EVERY follower (even in the face of users testifying to the opposite) is playing along with the parody. We go through the same problem with the Xenu section on Scientology, and if we were to find out today that Scientology began as a fake religion (no wise crack guys, im making a point on what constitutes a "real" religion) to make money, we would still not be allowed to designate it as a scam.

So that is it.

I propose a section on the non-parody following of Pastafarianism. Only, and I repeat, ONLY if the section itself provides LEGITIMATE and RELIABLE sources for sections of the "movement" being a legitimate religious following outside of its parody beginnings.

I propose this so we may find out who is opposed to such a section and who is in agreement with it as a way to solve this continued problem of parody Vs. religion. I propose this so a section can be created without an edit-war by overzealous editors immediately reverting or deleting any mention of it as a legitimate religion because they believe its vandalism.

Yes/No?

This is just a courtesy of course, if a section can be created in accordance to Wikipedia policy that establishes a legitimate non-parody following, many editors will have to deal with it. Just as many so-called practitioners will have to deal with it if reliable and legitimate sources cannot be found to establish it has actual non-parody followers, which the problem so far has been attaching those sources to cover the entirety of Pastafarianism not being a parody (which cannot succeed). 60.230.201.144 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

There are sources saying the FSM is a parody religion, and until someone finds sources saying it isn't the article is going to say it is a parody. Hut 8.5 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to disagree that we should look to reliable sources. However, we should bear in mind that given a person claiming belief in FSM, the options are A) they are feigning "belief" just to make (what must seem to them) a very clever philosophical point; or B) they actually believe in a flying spaghetti monster. That someone is indulging is A would hardly be surprising, but a claim that B is true is a very exceptional one indeed. Recall that "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included" (WP:REDFLAG). — Matt Crypto 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hut, I suggest you ACTUALLY read rather than making statements my entire post addressed to seek to stop. Because this...

There are sources saying the FSM is a parody religion, and until someone finds sources saying it isn't the article is going to say it is a parody.

Shows the same type of ignorance that people will use to remove a specific section on the NON-PARODY FOLLOWING in the guise of "oh, they must be trying to change the entire article to say its a religion". Which is exactly what this proposed section is meant to avoid. Matt, good points. 60.230.203.88 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

The source cited is actually entitled "The dangers of creationism in education", I fail to see how is it an unbiased source of information about any religion with a creator deity. And what about http://www.venganza.org/about which explicitly states it's not a parody religion? An official refutation by the religion's current leader is not enough? • Maurog • 10:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As a Pastafarian, I think this issue needs to be addressed. The majority of Pastafarians do genuinely believe, no joke. Bobby Henderson himself has stated that this is not a parody religion, and the 'sources' against this are from non-Pastafarians. That's like citing sources on Christianity from atheists saying that it's a joke. Please, change this article or add a 'non-parody following' section, as there is enough evidence to support the fact that it's not a parody. 71.228.245.34 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing

The image of the FSM creating trees, mountains, and a "midgit" should be included, and described. Badagnani (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Per [3], watermarked images cannot be used (or i'm pretty sure they can't be). --MattWT 11:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Should "god" be followed by [sic]

Resolved long ago. Now it is just a troll magnet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that the first letter of "God", since it is a proper noun or honorific, should be capitalized. Hence using a [sic] tag inside the quote is appropriate, particularly since there are some overzealous editors who are keen on capitalizing the "G". Please explain here why the [sic] tag should be removed. Thank you, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC) That's only for Honorifics. So it's, "a god" but "the Christian God". The sic template in this case pushes a monotheistic POV. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC) It suggest no such thing. The captilization of God in reference to a god is purely a Christian concept. The word god is fine. And please keep your monotheistic POV out of this page, wikipedia suggests no such thing in relation to the use of the word god opposed to God. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlquin If you would bother to read the link I provided to the Wikipedia manual of style, then I think you will find that you are wrong in that assertion. I think I may have misread or misunderstood the context, but I was acting in good faith. Also, I would appreciate it if you would not use personal attacks like "keep your monotheistic POV out of this page." I was neither raised in a monotheistic religion, nor do I now subscribe to any religion (let alone a monotheistic one): I am an atheist. So, please keep your assumptions about the POVs of other editors to yourself in the future. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Your link shows nothing of this "suggestion". It states it can be used, as Erik the Red 2 has explained to you. It however presentes nothing that even remotely suggests why we should use it here. As for your attempts to direct criticism of your attempt to push POV into this article, and once more after having it explained to you why you cannot, I would suggest you refrain from it. It is not a "personal attack" to state your attempt to push a POV on the use of a word that denotes monotheism in this case into a wiki article. It is however against the rules to use allegations such as a claim of "personal attack" to deflect criticism. So I suggest you not attempt that here either. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlequin Just to correct you on one point. From the linked section of the MoS: Honorifics for deities, including proper nouns and titles, start with a capital letter (God, Allah, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Great Spirit, the Horned One); the is not capitalized. The same is true when referring to major religious figures and figures from mythology by titles or terms of respect (the Prophet, the Messiah, the Virgin, a Muse). Common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized; thus the Romans worshipped many gods, many Anglo-Saxons worshipped the god Wotan, Jesus and Muhammad are both considered prophets in Islam, biblical scholars dispute whether Mary was a virgin for her entire life, and her husband was her muse. Secondly, you are supposed to focus on the edits, not on the editors. I would kindly ask that you immediately desist from your continued insistence that I am attempting to "push a POV" into the article. This is completely off-base. I have acted entirely in good faith here in an attempt to improve the article, and ensure that it conforms to a neutral point of view, following up a concern of another editor. Now, rather than engage in an edit war (as you are now doing), I posted here on the talk page to discuss the matter. I was corrected and overruled. End of story. I don't know why you seem to have such an axe to grind with me. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC) I suggest you read your own quote in depth. A single supreme god does not need to be considered and referred to as God or a God through lack of other dieties. This is explained within your own link and in a short paragraph by Erik the Red 2. You claim it "suggests" God be used in place of god. Right now god suffices, and you must explain why God overrides it, especially as God promotes a POV within this article. As for your continued complaints, I suggest you also take them elsewhere. YOU as a wikipedia editor are on this talk page attempting to push the use of God opposed to god. As God is monothesitic within this context, you are pushing that POV where no Christian God exists to refer to within this article. This is criticism of your tactics, and as ive now repeatedly stated, this is not a "personal attack" to tell you to stop pushing POV when it is established that what you advocate is POV. You are grasping at straws now, and have now begun actual personal attacks with stating im "enaged in an edit war" when ive edited nothing on this subject we are discussing and "I dont know why you seem to have sch an axe to grind ith me". Cease your personal attacks and do not attempt to deflect criticism by claiming others are doing so by pointing out the subject you are dicussing and attempting to push within the article. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlequin Oh brother! For what it's worth, I more or less agree with Eric the Red, although it could be argued that "Is there a god/God?" does refer to god in the monotheistic sense and so should be capitalized. I really don't see the point in arguing about it anymore. I am not trying to push any POV into the article. In fact, I have completely dropped the issue. Do you see me edit warring about it? I posted a comment here for input, and that was the end of it. Until you accused me of being a POV-pusher, contrary to WP:AGF. I suggest that you learn the rules here, since you have so far violated at least two of them, if you wish to continue to contribute to the project. Bye now, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pirate at Dragon Con 2007

Is this image possibly relevant to your interests? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism: The trend still holds

As shown by http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4285201.html there has been an increase of pirate activity in the latter part of 2008. This coincides with recent drops in global temperature. See: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/ This continues to show "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation"

Please at least READ the information before reverting changes. Please consider it for less than a quarter of a second.

You have a section on showing "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation" There is then a graph on the increase of global temperatures and number of pirates.

1. So we have an increase of pirates recently. READ THE ARTICLE above 2. We have a decrease in global temperatures. READ THE ARTICLE above

I am not vandalizing, I am showing the that there is still a correlation even when the trend reverses. Thus still showing the "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation"

You may want to refer to: Number 3 of the The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.77.93 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

???

This is not really a religion and where is the humor tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.127.114 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like "relally" is not really a word? Honestly, this has been debated before. It doesn't matter what you think it is, because nobody asked you. 65.33.59.183 (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That was very much deserved. 69.113.231.176 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

actually it was not deserved, some people on here are just waiting to find a typo or something so they can jump in and blast somebody. Its just another way to bully a person, the guy had a legitimate question about an article that is supposed to include some humor. --HEFF ;) 17:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Another image

Christmas Lights representing the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ¿Maybe for a paragraph about merchandising? --3coma14 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources

When did Europe get to decide which religions are parody and which ones are not? Belief systems are personal, and therefore are quite dangerously close to "original research". Just as atheism is considered to be "fake" by fundamentalists, and Wicca as a created religion claiming to be a restored one, by others. How can any "reliable third party" state with any certainty or with any authority that a belief system is fake or a parody.

My personal belief system reconciles most major religions in a way that classifies the incompatibilities to that of human missunderstanding. That said. Who is to say the true form of GOD, or whichever deity ranks supreme within the belief system is not in the form of a flying spaghetti monster?

I am willing to lay money, that the separation of church and state is so revered within my home commonwealth, that I would have zero trouble getting recognition for Pastafariansim as a recognized religion. As such, a document by a sovereign government, allowing it protection as a religion, should be suifficient reliable third party recognition to at least allow a watered down "so called" parody religion.

p70 sc 3 "... and that no preference shall
ever be given by law to any religious 
societies or modes of worship.
   Ky Constitution "

I think about anyone reading this can list a host of religions and sects founded this century that are not considered much "crazier" than FSM. I find it very specious that on the grounds of several opinionated authors, and maybe even a founder or two, something is declared a parody.

I can name three sects, that consider Roman Catholicsm to be fake christianity. So do we simply have a democratic vote, as to wether or not WP then must decide on the RCC's reality? I doubt it. Europe says Parody, CK says no? --K3vin (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the opinions of editors here. It is about what the best sources which we have been able to locate say. I don't know what "CK" is, but if you have sources which contest the parody moniker, then I suggest that you present them properly. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The "parody" assertion is sourced with by a missive from Europe and an article from USA Today. That does not make it a parody, it only suggests that Europe believes it to be parody and the UT writer has a sense of humor. In the subjects of religion, there is never any substantive proof. I think using the current standard of "sourcing" for this document, I could also source Christianity to be a religion hijacked by St. Paul into a a parody of an ancient Bababylonian cult. But any reasonable scholar would soften the wording to say "some would suggest that..." By stating a religion IS a parody when just one or two sources says it is not, is far closer to the bad scholarship Wikipedia is trying to avoid. Trust that I will find anunimpeachable source. CK = Commonwealth of Kentucky. I could have made that more clear. But having already refered to it as a Commonwealth, and citing the Kentucky constitution, it was much clearer in my own mind than the casual readers. The article iteself, already has enough sources that it is being taken seriously as a religion. There are four sources for registered religious organizations by nationally accredited universities. If I can cite ancient roman sources that declare early christianty to be hocus pocus does that constitute a proper citation to decare all of Christianity a parody? Even if it would, it would be unscholarly. I would say "ancient roman sources" consdered early Christianty to be a parody. --K3vin (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, not just one source claims that this religion is a parody. Thirty seconds of Googling, and I came up with a number of other hits from US news outlets. I added one more to the article, which was fairly explicit in its characterization. It is also important to bear in mind the history of this "religion". A letter authored by Bobby Henderson was sent to the Kansas City Schoolboard which explicitly parodied the teaching of Christian views on creation in the science classroom. This is the first verifiable mention of the "church", and is quite obviously intended as a parody by any reasonable person's definition. Any sources that you bring in here to contest the religion's parody status are going to need to overcome this seemingly insurmountable barrier of fact together with supporting independent secondary sources.

A mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in documents pertaining to the Commonwealth of Kentucky might be a good start. Do you have a more specific reference? I couldn't find anything in a LexisNexis search. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the comment of Christianity being considered a parody, you miss that Jesus is a real person. There is historical evidence of his birt, life and death. If you could provide me with this actual evidence of the flying spaghetti monster I may be more inclined to not view it as a joke. Also this religion would be by defination a parody as the article clearly states that it takes parts of other religions and makes light of them. That is exactly what a parody does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrummerhef (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

IS

Perhaps it is not clear what my dispute is. Not the word Parody, but the word IS. Is should never be used in a scholarly paper, since it is a conclusion that must be proven. Having references and citations that support a hypothesis does not prove something is anything. It supports that it may be what the author asserts. Knowing the Earth was the center of the universe did not make it so, back in the middle ages. There were plenty of sources asserting the Earth centered universe. When astronomical proof demonstrated the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around, it did not change reality. Writing in absolutes, gets a red circle in about any academic paper turned in. it can be cited that many world religions consider others to be cults or fakes. That does not make any of them more or less so. That 1/5 of the world is Muslim does not make it any more correct than the 4/5 that are not. --K3vin (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See sophistry. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

and E-Prime, suggest a construction of the data in such and see it floats people's boats, but there's a hell of a lot of articles out there needing e-priming.--Alf ^melmac 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about matters of verifiability and fact here. I think E-priming articles is an awful idea. If you think this is a good idea, you should take it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) first rather than beta-testing it here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have put a :p or something by that last bit, I was suggesting K3vin wrote that one line in e-prime to see how it looked... --Alf ^melmac 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite an interesting term, however, I am not advocating that FSM is not a parody nor that it is, just that an encylopedia should not lable it as such. Very few things are something wthout an exception. I believe a religious society, even if disavowed by its founder, is in a protected class, requiring softer use of absolutes when it comes to assertions. There are some scholars that assert Jesus of Nazareth would disavow the current incarnation of Christianity. I am not agreeing or dissagreeing with their assertions, but if that is in an encyclopedic article, it would be clarified within the context of opinion. see how I change the wording to satisfy my minor argument.---K3vin (talk)

Per WP:V: the threshhold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. When we have every reliable source (quite rightly) asserting that the religion is a parody religion, that's what the article should say. Also, you may want to look into the history of this "religion" before you take a stance here. The "religion" *was* intended as a parody, and the article rightly emphasizes that aspect of it in connection with the Creation-evolution controversy. Saying that it is "widely considered to be a parody religion" introduces doubt where there is none. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No one will accuse me of not knowing when to quit. Whoops :-) No one SHOULD accuse me of not knowing when to quit. I am not prepared to offer anythin substantive, and its not all that important enough to get into an edit war over. You know it is, I know it is, they know it is, I just do not feel right saying it is. If that is not clear, I should return to greater semantics class at the ole learning teachification place.  :-) ---K3vin (talk)

RfC: Parody religion

• FSM is described by all reliable sources as a parody religion, and its first verifiable appearance was an explicit parody of the Creationists' attempt to have Christian religious views taught alongside evolution in science classes, in the greater context of the Creation-evolution debate. Given the fact that all sources characterize the religion as a parody, and that any reasonable person looking at the history of the religion would come to the conclusion that it is a parody, should it be so characterized in the article? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved parties

All Reliable sources requires a pretty heavy burden of proof. I just did my standard citation search on the subject just to see if I could find a diversity of opinion. I have found non-judgmental examples, giving "good faith" attention to the subject at hand.

--K3vin (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Here goes:

cites

• "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created in 2005 by computer scientist Bobby Henderson" -

Savino, John. Supervolcano: The Catastrophic Event That Changed the Course of Human History: Could Yellowstone Be Next. Marie D. Jones. Career Press. p. p56. ISBN 1564149536. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

• Henderson, Bobby. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Random House Inc.,. ISBN 0812976568.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• "Why shouldn't we comment on God, as scientists? And why isn't Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, equally immune from scientific scepticism?"

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Books. p. p55. ISBN 0618680004. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

• Afshin Beheshti, PhD

“As a scientist I believe that when presented with a new idea every possibility should be considered so we can eventually find the truth. It would be very biased if the only possibilities presented would be regulated by some authority. As a scientist I am biased towards the theory of evolution, but this does not mean that everyone should be forced to only learn this and believe this. Putting this aside, I feel if the government feels the need to regulate what students need to learn, then all ideas should be taught in school. Not only Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught, but the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) should also be taught. In my scientific opinion when comparing the two theories, FSM theory seems to be more valid then the classic ID theory. There is more data to back FSM then I have ever seen for ID. The graph which was presented should alone more convincing then anything ID has ever presented. I endorse the FSM theory.“ –Afshin Beheshti, PhD

"Disproving God". Oct 19, 2008.

• "That reality may include God, or the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - we won't assume any specifics from the outset. ."

Fost, Joshua. If Not God, Then What?: Neuroscience, Aesthetics, and the Origins of the Transcendent. Clearhead Studios, Inc. p. p194. ISBN ISBN 0615161065. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

• "You could worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster,1 or Zeus, or the Morrigan, so long as you did it with respect and love".

Szabo, Allyson. LONGING FOR WISDOM: The Message of the Maxims. (self) Allyson Szabo. p. p53. ISBN 1438239769. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

--K3vin (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources appear to contradict the assertion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was constructed as a parody. What is needed here is a direct statement "FSM was not constructed as a parody religion," along with enough substantiation to make it plausible. The burden of proof is a heavy one, given that one would need to overturn the fact (as far as it goes) that the religion was developed as a parody of Creationists' attempts to have biblical creation ex nihilo taught alongside evolution in science classrooms. It would need to be shown that this was not a parody, and that there is some actual evidence of a religion having existed prior to the lampooning of the Kansas City Schoolboard. None of the sources you cite comes remotely close to addressing these issues. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what any of these sources are doing almost at all. The first one doesn't mention the matter either way. The second one is Henderson's own work and we know he almost never says anything about it being a parody(that's part of the joke). Dawkins is making a separate point because he considers about all religion equally ridiculous. Indeed, the parody nature of the FSM is implicit in his point. The next one is again implicitly using the idea of the FSM as a ridiculous idea comparing it to the Tooth Fairy. The last one is a self-published screed with minimal relevance. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1. is a description of the organization
2. is proof that it exists as "good news"
3. as much as says all religions are parodies
4. states that FSM is viable as a belief system
5. illustrates perfectly my point. Not to assume or label something to be parody just because everyone else does.
6. is the weakest, I admit, but I liked it enough to leave it.

It should not matter that it started as a joke. Perhaps Latter Day Saints and Scientology did too. Shall I search for allegations on that? Once something is out there, schisms occur from time to time, and theories are denounced and recanted. The Church of England was founded under dubious standards as far as the See of Rome was concerned. I am not even entering into the debate on whether or not FSM is a parody or not, but whether or not WP should committ in writing that it is. It seems like a stepped on some tails because I do not have a problem with ID as a belief system or Evolution as one. My take on all this, is none of the details matter in the end. Either we are dust, or clouds. perhaps. --K3vin (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all hand-waving. Do you have reliable sources that assert that this is not a parody? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I assert an assumption of non-parody when it comes to religion or religion like organizations. I feel the burden of proof in this instance is met by Universities classifying student groups as religious as enough to soften the language. That it was started as a joke, or that people all know - is not a valid argument when it comes to belief systems. If I state it is my religion, and it is not a parody, that is all it should take. see Joan of Arc. --K3vin (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The standard on Wikipedia is WP:V. And even if you we had a reliable source saying that K3vin takes his FSM belief seriously we'd still have massive undue weight issues. The bottom line is that we have multiple reliable sources including the New York Times calling this a parody religion. Without reliable sources asserting otherwise this isn't helpfu. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some questions for you K3vin: are you genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia, or are you attempting to act out the FSM parody in a Wikipedia article? If the former, why then are you seeking to have us treat FSM as a real religion given the facts that A) FSM is a parody, and B) no-one believes otherwise? — Matt Crypto 08:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I come off insincere. I have strong opinions when it comes to freedom of religion. That this may or may nor be a parody is not my point of contention. It is the declaration of such. Where is the line drawn on what is considered parody. Is "al Keida" (sic) a parody of Islam? Are "snake handlers" a parody of Christians? Is "spiritualism" a parody? are the "anti-Missourian Norwegian Lutheran" synodites a parody of the Evangelical church of Germany? At what point do we stop following popular opinion and just keep opinion to be silent, or declare it opinion? Thats what I am doing. To anwer, yes I am, in good faith, trying to make WP better by not allowing declaritive statements that clearly are not from a neutral point of view. --K3vin (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you at the definition of parody: "work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation". None of your counterexamples might be considered a parody. As both reliable sources and common sense will indicate, FSM is a parody. — Matt Crypto 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If we had reliable sources that that Al Quadea or snake handlers were parodies we'd need to worry about that. The reliable sources state that FSMism is a parody. Please read Wikipedia's verifiability policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments

• I'd hesitate even to call this a parody religion. it seems to be satire, pure and simple. When Tina Fey plays Sarah Palin on SNL we don't say that she's a 'parody vice presidential candidate'; she's doing a parody of a vice presidential candidate, and there is no suggestion that she might actually be a vice presidential candidate in her own right. likewise here - the FSM was created entirely and specifically to ridicule a political movement by applying its logic in an absurd way; we should not suggest it was actually ever considered a serious religion. at best, I'd say something like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is character created as part of a satirical attack on the intelligent design movement in the US. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also known as "Pastafarianism", was created by...". --Ludwigs2 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making a judgement that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies. Objective3000 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Objective3000 - no, I have a rather low opinion of the Intelligent design argument. however, ID (as silly as it is) rests on the tenets of a well-established religious perspective: it was not intended as a mockery of anything (though I dare say it was a manipulative political gambit that has little to do with faith). the distinction I'm making is between an argument that's made which serious intent (and there is no doubt that the Christian far right was/is seriously concerned about the damage evolution theory does to central tenets of their faith), and something which is intended as sarcastic or sardonic humor. different language games entirely... when person A makes a serious attempt to do or say something utterly ridiculous, that's embarrassing or pathetic or annoying. when person B acts like person A in order to point out how utterly ridiculous what person A did was, that's (hopefully funny) satire. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was not refering to Intelligent Design. I was refering to religion in general. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, even so, Ludwigs2's comments are still apropos. Sincerity, or the lack of it, is what distinguishes a parody from what is parodied. In particular, something is not a parody merely because it's false, or absurd, or distasteful. To be honest, I believe this is obvious to everyone. The only reason it's debated here regularly is because people want to push the joke as far as possible, motivated by a desire to lampoon religion. What's fine as a joke, however, is not appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia. — Matt Crypto 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's just that they want to push the joke. there are a lot of people out there who just despise religion (and religions have, historically, given some pretty good reasons to be despised...). the problem is that a lot of these people see their position as objectively true (usually through a reference to some scientific or rationalistic understanding of the world), and can't quite accept that what they have is merely a perspective on a far more difficult question. but, whaddayagonnado? Objective has backpedalled to the point of saying that he thinks all religion is self-satire, but we obviously can't include that perspective (since we're not going to find reliable sources that agree with it), so let's go ahead and revise the lead and be done with it. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, where did I backpedal or say anything was self-satire? What I am saying is that FSM is a parody of religion in general, not ID in specific. And that a judgement is being made that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies. Objective3000 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, but in fact religion in general does not fall to the level of the FSM, either in satirical intent or quality of reasoning. saying so would imply that primary sources like the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, the Buddhist scriptures and Hindu vedas (as well as innumerable religious and philosophical secondary sources) were all written with humor in mind, and are not ever taken seriously by anyone. that assertion flies in the face of common experience, and makes light of the millions of deaths that have been caused by religious warfare and persecution, and of the billions of people who have looked to religion for salvation. Further, there's no reliable sourcing to the effect that the FSM people were criticizing religion as a whole - they were quite explicitly focussed on the Intelligent Design movement and its political efforts. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate your belief that religion is absurd, and I'd even agree with you to a limited extent. however, if you want to make that claim on wikipedia, then find some sources that make the point, and argue them in on the article pages of real religions. don't use the Flying Spaghetti Monster article as your personal vehicle to make a point that you can't make in more appropriate places. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think my statement was very clear. Yet you keep misinterpreting it. 1. I did not say religion in general is satirical. 2. I said nothing at all about my own beliefs. 3. I am not trying to make any personal point about religion at all. Please stop reading things into my very simple statement. That is "You are making a judgement that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies." Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's definitional. it is the nature and purpose of a parody. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As the person that began this string, I want to re-emphasize my position. It is not' that FSM is a parody, or that religion is a parody. But that just because many objective resources says it is, is not enbough for a neutral point of view document, such as Wikipedia to say it is, within the context of its firsty paragraph. Any reader can discern for themselves without such labels, whether or not they take it seriouesly. I state again support for my position is cited in the refernece secion itself, where accredited institutions of higher learning classify FSM as a religion, negates any assertion that All reliable sources claim it to be parody. WP:Weasel words has been brought up. ALL is beyond recognition in a world of infinite opinions. --K3vin (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no source which casts any doubt on the (entirely obvious) fact that FSM is a parody. Move along. — Matt Crypto 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

without supporting the current lead (which isn't so good), please note that issues of context and wp:weight come into play here. if in fact there are academic sources that classify FSM as a religion, then I'd like to know what that classification scheme is (because I suspect they classify it as a religion under the legal definition of religion in the US, which self-consciously errs on the side of caution). further, the fact that some sources classify it as a religion might present a noteworthy opinion should be included, but weight means that we have to present to primary view in reliable sources with greater weight and prominence. clearly the primary view is that it was presented as a parody, not establish as an active faith. and please, common sense: at this point in time, FSM is a purely intellectual exercise, with no adherents, no rituals or practices, no places of worship, no established structure or canon of beliefs, and no real meaning except in reference to other religions. in a hundred years, if FSM takes off and becomes a proper faith in its own right, then we can have this discussion again. for now, though, it's not. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep meaning to comment, but have been very busy lately. Let me say briefly that I think Ludwigs2 makes a very good point. The key point here isn't whether FSM is a parody religion qua parody religion, but that it is an explicit satire of the ID movement to have creationism taught alongside evolution. Although I have felt in the past that "parody" already implicitly connotes the satirical aspect of the religion, it may be best and more informative to make that explicit in the first sentence of the article, as Ludwigs2 suggests in his original post. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

well, since discussion here is a bit sludgy, I'm going to edit in the change I suggested and see what response it gets. --Ludwigs2 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it! too!--K3vin (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, let's see if it'll stick. Now I need to go get myself a plastic FSM for my dashboard.--Justfred (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

lol - you really should get an FSM antenna bobble, you know - it's supposed to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Move to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Another big change! I'd like to suggest the page is moved to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the page is about the organization, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible idea. Note that if the page is moved then an indirect will be set-up by default. So old links to the page will still work. If there is anyone who objects to the move, then please speak up now! Pnelnik (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose that move. The claim that it's about the organization is debatable, and beside the point. A reader who wants to find this page will look here, not for the more convoluted title. P.S.: There is already a redirect from the "Church..." title to here, for anyone who does look there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

agree with tryptofish. --Ludwigs2 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to continue this "parody religion" discussion, but...

This is just ridiculous. What qualifies a parody religion vs a non parody religion? First off, let me just clarify that I'm not a "bleever" as pastafarians would say (not that it should matter, but I just want to assure whoever is reading this that my point of view is neutral). I've just been following this for a long time and truly don't understand how Wikipedia can make such a distinction. Is there something in the guidelines I missed?

The definition of religion (according to dictionary.com) is: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

As far as I can interpret (keep in mind, I only have a measly university education), FSM meets all these qualifications (except for number 4 which really doesn't apply). I've read on the discussion page before that there are no "legitimate" articles calling FSM anything other than a parody religion. Even if that fact is true, it's quite obvious that these articles have no authority to make such claims, and thus should not be referenced for such. In fact, as far as I can tell by a google search, the only available source to be an authority on what constitutes a set of beliefs to be a parody (and more specifically FSM's belief system) is Wikipedia's Parody Religion article. However, since it's an open source encyclopedia that by it's nature can be edited by anybody, Wikipedia can't be an authority on any subject.

If anyone can adequately explain why FSM should be classified as a parody religion, please do. Otherwise I see it fit to remove parody as a qualifier for religion in this article. Some people obviously believe that this subject deserves an article, so as long as the article exists, I think I'm completely justified in demanding that it remain encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.223.136 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A parody is "a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation." This is why FSM is classed as a parody. — Matt Crypto 10:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence of a legitimate believer in the FSM, not counting Wikipedia editors? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

to make an analogy: you're basically asking why one of those joke cigars (you know, the ones with the tiny firecrackers inside, that explode when you smoke them), should be called a 'joke cigar' rather than just a plain old 'cigar'. the answer is self evident: no one wants to smoke a joke cigar - their entire purpose of joke cigars is to trick people who want to smoke real cigars. the goal of the FSM thing was to trick supporters of intelligent design into looking like fools, by making it impossible for them to advocate for ID without letting in FSM as well. that's why it's a parody religion rather than a religion. of course, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and some day pastafarianism might be a religion in its own right. but that day is not today... --Ludwigs2 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any definitive proof that FSM was created as a parody? I'll give you that the overwhelming majority may view and interpret it as such, but until Bobby Henderson says he made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it's a parody, there is no verifiable proof of it being such, and thus violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy.

Also, there is evidence of legitimate pastafarians on their website's forum. And the joke cigar is not a very good analogy, because there a joke cigar is not tobacco wrapped in a paper made for smoking, which is what the definition of a cigar is. FSM, on the other hand, meets the qualifications for a religion.

What I am arguing is that FSM meets all the qualifications of a religion and therefore should be classified as one. If you want to classify it as a parody religion, it should meet the qualifications of a parody religion. However, those are essentially nonexistent as the only source that provides adequate information on what constitutes a parody religion is Wikipedia.

I have absolutely zero interest in "pastafarianism," but in this case I'd suggest the burden of proof lies on the person arguing that it has a significant number of adherents who are genuinely convinced of the objective truth of its core precepts - "true believers," if you will. And honestly, even if we despise religion and believe that this is an excellent parody that masterfully parallels some of the claims of traditional religion, do you really think that by obstinately failing to "get the joke" and insisting on listing and describing this exactly like Islam or Judaism we somehow thereby strengthen the atheist position? I certainly don't, and even if I did, I think it would run the risk of falling afoul of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We might want to consider the advice in Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes - I'd suggest that this should be an article about a parody or satire, rather than a parody or satire itself. EastTN (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

geez, what an odd argument... of course, if you're asking me to prove that FSM isn't a real religion, then I'll confess I can't (any more than I can prove there aren't WMD's anywhere in Iraq). you can't ever prove a negative. if you have some evidence that FSM is a real religion, please provide it so that we can examine its worth. and yes, joke cigars are tobacco wrapped in paper, because they wouldn't fool anyone if they weren't. they just also happen to have small explosives.

tell you what. If Henderson really does use his $80,000 to build a Pirate ship and sail around the world giving candy to children, then that would be a good sign that we should take FSM seriously. till then... --Ludwigs2 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should say FSM is exactly like Islam or Judaism any more than we should say Scientology is exactly like Christianity or Hinduism, but we do classify Scientology as a religion. So I don't understand how calling Flying Spaghetti Monsterism a religion would violate the NPOV policy, since as I explained before, Pastafarianism meets the qualifications for a religion. In fact, I would say that calling it a parody religion violates a NPOV because then we are only seeing it from the side of the social criticism the idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster brings and totally ignoring the fact that some people may and do believe in FSM. This is not about strengthening the atheist position, and whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant. Also, we would not be perpetuating a hoax simply by refraining from calling FSM a parody religion or even by outright classifying it as a religion. We would still have information on the Kansas School board and Henderson's letter to them, etc.

Also, if you can't prove that WMD's are not anywhere in Iraq, then Wikipedia has no business saying WMD's are not anywhere in Iraq. Instead it should say that WMD's have yet to be found in Iraq and at this point it is highly unlikely that there ever were WMD's in Iraq. In order to say outright that Pastafarianism isn't a real religion (which is what the article is effectively doing by calling it a parody religion), you have to prove that that it isn't a real religion. Also, notice how I added the qualifier "made for smoking" (and when I say smoking I think it is quite obvious I mean to draw smoke into the mouth and then puff out) when defining a cigar, which excludes a joke cigar from being classified as a real cigar. In order to exclude FSM from being a real religion, you have to find some way in which FSM violates the definition of religion.

I have already supported the claim that FSM by directing you to venganza.com's forum. Also, if I may point out, by stating that FSM is not a religion, the article is contradicting itself because later it refers to Pastafarians as if there are people who follow FSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.223.136 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"the fact that some people may and do believe in FSM" -- this is a strong indicator that you are trolling. — Matt Crypto 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

the fact that these comments are unsigned also seems to be a strong indicator of trolling.--Justfred (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, we have reliable sources that describe this as a parody. If you want to argue definitions, it fits the definition of a parody even better - "a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation." (I wouldn't arm wrestle you, though, if you wanted to argue that it is really satire - holding up human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.) As for your quoting the website, referring "in universe" to the text of a parody to prove something factual about the real world makes as much sense as quoting Tina Fey's parodies of Sarah Palin to document the political positions of the Republican party. EastTN (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt Crypto, maybe you should read the entire discussion before weighing in next time. If you bothered to read it, you would see that I am making trying to make a valid argument and not just trying to cause a scene. And Justfred, if you have a problem with people who don't have accounts leaving unsigned comments, take that up with Wikipedia, not me. They obviously allow people to do that because that's what makes Wikipedia such a great tool - that anybody can edit it. I am not trolling. In fact, I would say you two are the ones trolling by making silly accusations to disrupt from the flow of this discussion. Why don't you to just leave this to the big boys, okay?

Please refrain from ad hominem. If you read the ENTIRE discussion, then (you have way too much time on your hands, and) you may notice that the argument that FSM is not a parody is almost exclusively put forward by anonymous. Your contribution history 128.192.223.136 shows only this discussion - generally this is a good indicator of the level of credence given to a contributor.--Justfred (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

While I will agree there are reputable sources calling Pastafarianism a parody, I cannot agree they are valid because they are not and there are not any authorities or experts on what constitutes a parody religion. Bobby Henderson, on the other hand, would be the considered foremost expert on all things FSM. So until he says FSM should be considered a parody religion, how can we call it that? Maybe or maybe not he is running a hoax, but that is not for Wikipedia to decide. Scientology may or may not be a scam, but Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Judaism and Buddhism etc. meet the definition of a religion, so that's what we should label it as.

To wrap up this discussion quicker, let's make this a make this simpler and stop going all over the place. I have shown how FSM meets all the requirements of a religion, so in order for it to not be a real religion, there must have been a requirement for religion that I missed or misinterpreted. So what is it? Or am I wrong in thinking if something meets the definition of a category that it does not fall into that category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.223.136 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from acknowledged sources stating it's a parody (though you apparently don't recognize them as such: "I cannot agree they are valid because they are not") this is simple Prima facie (or perhaps Res ipsa loquitur). There is no source for FSM NOT being a parody - this has been repeated here ad nauseum. There are no sources for people taking FSM as an actual religion, aside from people here claiming it - without that, it certainly does not meet the definition of a practiced religion or even a credible religious philosophy. Find reputable sources that outweigh the sources saying it's a parody - the burden of proof is on you.--Justfred (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Justfred, I have restrained myself from using ad hominem attacks. It is you and Matt Crypto who used them when both you dismissed me as a troll. I was only defending myself by proving your behavior was more trollish than mine. Also, you are using an ad hominem attack again by trying to dismiss my argument because the only thing I have contributed to Wikipedia under this ip is to this discussion page. Even if this is the only article I have tried to contribute to, it shouldn't detract from my points. Maybe I just want to deal with one issue until moving onto the next one. In any case, I have contributed many times to Wikipedia before I moved to my current location, where my ip is different.

As for a reputable source who says this is a real religion, I have already mentioned Bobby Henderson. Since he is the major "prophet" of this religion and viewed as the creater, if he says it's a real religion that he follows, what more sources do you need? If you are asking me to outweigh the sources that say FSM is a parody by sheer quantity, you have given me an impossible task, and one that is also irrelevant. So if Bobby Henderson, the prophet for FSM is not a good enough source for whether his religion is real or not, who/what is? USA Today? The New York Times? These are the sources the Wikipedia article uses to classify FSM as a parody religion, but explain to me why they get the final say on whether FSM as a religion is real or not. Why do news organizations, who's job is to report what's happening in the world, overrule Bobby Henderson on deciding whether FSM is a real religion or not? And while it may seem FSM is parodic, as you claim, that is not an argument. Jello Biafra may have seemed like parodical candidate to the overwhelming majority of the San Francisco population in their 1979 San mayoral election, he was a legitimate candidate nonetheless.

You also asked me to provide evidence of real FSM followers, which I have also already done (which is why it is helpful to read the entire discussion section). If you go to http://www.venganza.org/forum/, which is probably the largest gathering of FSM followers, you will see there are over 5500 members. Now I realize probably not all of these are Pastafarians, but if you read the posts, you will find that there are a significant number of people who claim they are indeed Pastafarians (which by the nature of a belief system is all that is required (Again, if I am wrong, please explain what the other accepted requirement is for someone to be an adherent of a religion)). If that forum isn't a good enough source to prove that Pastafarians exist, tell me what universal method is good enough for proving the existence of people who follow the same faith. 128.192.223.136 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would someone please explain why this is being argued? The opening paragraph states “The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a character created as a satirical protest”. Isn’t it obvious that the whole thing is a parody? Greg L (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you know that FSM was "created as a satirical protest"? How do you know, or anybody for that matter, the intent of Bobby Henderson? Maybe when he heard that it was likely Kansas School Board was going to integrate a (for the most part Christian) theory of ID into the biology/evolution curriculum and thought if they were gonna do that they might as well (and legally should) include the Flying Spaghetti Monster he worshipped (or heard about or created or did-whatever-you-think-he-did-that-can't-be-proved-without-Henderson's-word). 128.192.223.136 (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, if you were an Intelligent Designer coming back from centuries of inaction, what better way to restore the true religion to its former glory than sending a prophet to the very place that is on the verge of teaching Intelligent Design to the masses? 82.80.85.38 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(← unidented)

• I see… a *controversial* issue. Just because it’s controversial doesn’t raise the burden of proof here; common sense is all that is required, IMO.

  Anyone with a detailed understanding of what the struggle over the Kansas State Board of Education decision was about would realize that Bobby Henderson’s open letter was clearly intended to be satirical. Arguments to the contrary are not even falsifiable: even if some Wikipedian somewhere contacted Mr. Henderson himself and asked him what his motivations were, some would undoubtedly claim that the research constituted a violation of WP:OR. On one side of ‘Kansas’ dispute were those who wanted supernatural explanations to explain the natural world. On the other side were people like Mr. Henderson, who clearly was using satire to drive home the point that once you head down the slippery slope of attempting to explain the natural world as being the product of supernatural processes, then you can’t simply have a show of hands one morning to decide which religion will be afforded a state-sanctioned endorsement (awe shucks, those who believe in polytheism, like Ancient Greek religion, Native American religions, and Hawaiian religion loose out). So Mr. Henderson concocted a new “religion” that he was certain would be received as absurd, wherein the creator was a Spaghetti Monster in order to drive home this point.

  The pro-I.D. forces also didn’t do themselves a favor in Federal court. The proponents of intelligent design swore under oath in Federal court that the “Intelligent Designer” mentioned in “Of Pandas and People” had nothing whatsoever to do with creationism nor God. However, a researcher, examining draft manuscripts of the book provided by the publisher found that every instance of “design proponents” had originally been “creationists”. Further, she found a “transitional fossil” in an intermediate draft. One instance of “creationists” had been incompletely converted in a copy/paste error, and took the form of “cdesign proponentsists”. I’m certain the I.D. proponents had good intentions and rationalized their use of lying under oath for a greater good. I’m sure the Spanish Conquistadors felt the same when they spread their gospel in the New World. But the I.D. proponents didn’t come off looking so good in the process and undermined the very message they were trying to promote. Greg L (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  
  P.S. I also think it is unfortunate that the true Wikipedian titles of the above three articles are Greek mythology, Native American mythology, and Hawaiian religion, only Hawaiian religion has the proper title; the first two embody the arrogance of modern western authors who have seemingly used a “show of hands” to decide what constitutes a *True Religion* and what should apparently be backhanded with the moniker of “mythology” due to (what they think) is a matter of there being too few modern adherents. Most unfortunate since, as I live in the American Northwest, I would only have to drive 40 minutes to get to an “Indian reservation” where I can find many adherents of their “mythology”. Both the “mythology” titles should be revised to “religion.” This is one instance where Encyclopedia Britannica has it done right. Greg L (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I'll forgive Greg L's heresy of suggesting that the FSM is nothing but a mere construct. We all know that the FSM is very real, as evidenced by the touch of His Noodly Appendages on the cosmic, the mundane and the microscopic. "Modern western authors" is a rather ambiguous term, especially coined with an accusation of the POV of mythology/religion. Theologians readily use the term "myth" and "mythology" to refer to religions and beliefs. Christian theologians will speak of the Christian myths and mythology, even the American ones, and many will speak of the Atheistic myths and mythology as well. "Mythology" is not used in a derogatory manner, but rather as a sort of all-emcompassing term to refer to the various foundation of dogmas and outlooks on the nature of things. The "mythology" of Dawkins/Harris sort of atheism would be the emphasis on the value of rationality and skepticism. Their "myths" would include Occam's Razor and Copernicanism for instance.

The "myth=obviously false" vs "religion=It's a respectable position, unlike those myths" is not a product of western thought. Well rather not a product of the western scholars with serious formal backgrounds, but rather of layfolks gradually introducing a distinction where none existed as a mean to vindicate themselves. See myth as well as religion and mythology for more details and supplemental reading. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FSM Manifests in space as an entire galaxy. Proof! :) Fnagaton 14:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I love you two guys’ links; particularly, your “mundane” link Headbomb. Funny. The face of The Creator. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah. Also make sure to never eat pepperoni and mushroom pizza unless you are prepared to be trampled by the Holy Hooves of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhbb), and spend eternity waxing the shell and massaging the most wretched and slimy feet of the Purple Oyster (of Doom).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too worked up here. Please see the articles on Christian mythology, Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology. Then please take a look at the articles on Paganism, Eastern religion, Polytheism, Celtic polytheism, Aztec religion, Maya religion, Norse paganism, Shamanism, Animism, African traditional religion, Folk religion, Chinese folk religion, Religion in ancient Greece, Religion in ancient Rome, Finnish paganism, Baltic mythology, Slavic mythology, Germanic paganism, Ancient Semitic religion, Prehistoric religion, Religions of the Ancient Near East, Ancient Egyptian religion and Historical Vedic religion. Should we be more consistent in our naming conventions for these articles? Possibly. But it simply isn't true that we're consistently describing large, modern, western belief systems as "religions" and older, more obscure and non-western belief systems as "mythologies." In many cases we're looking at both the religious and mythological aspects of belief systems, and separating them out into different articles - as in Greek mythology and Religion in ancient Greece, and Jewish mythology and Judaism. Have we gotten there yet for on all of these belief systems? No. But it's not such a bad direction to be headed in. EastTN (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, anyways, back to the topic of FSM. Greg L, it looked like you were a little torn on the issue, but went towards the side that FSM is not a religion. First of all, of course many things relating to religion are not falsifiable - that is common when it comes to religion. Also, you say that Henderson's letter was an obvious joke. I disagree.

I'll agree so far that it is obvious that that most of the Kansas School Board took Henderson's letter as satirical (as is evidenced by their letters). And I'll agree that he didn't like the Kansas School Board talking about teaching a Christian version of ID in school (that is evidenced by interviews). And just hypothetically, let's say he sent the letter to make a point. However, that would not make FSM a "fake" religion. For example, soon enough Hindus might have sent a letter demanding that Kansas teach their version of ID in schools to prove a point (because they know the school board would never agree), but that does not make Hinduism any less of a religion.

Anyways, nobody has answered the ultimate question: What attribute does FSM lack that invalidates it from being a real religion? It is obviously a belief system and I have shown evidence of true followers. Now the burden of proof is on someone who says FSM is not a real religion. If nobody can appropriately answer the question, then we should change the article to say that FSM is (just) a religion. (Keep in mind, that does not mean we would remove any information on the Kansas School Board and/or related information, because that would create a hoax, which is against Wikipedia's policies.) 128.192.223.136 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• To all here: I am quite impressed with the calm, level-headed, even humorous tone others have struck here. It makes participating here much more enjoyable.

  To 128.192.223.136: With regard to your question “What attribute does FSM lack that invalidates it from being a real religion?”, I would suggest that it (probably) lacks any adherents who believe there really is a Flying Spaghetti Monster with His Noodly Appendages who created the Universe. And…

  To EastTN and your 17:25, 10 November 2008 post: I wasn’t worked up and I can’t see that anyone else here has been so. Your sage caution that no one here get their panties in a bunch does not somehow establish you as a calm, wise voice of reason (a *big picture* kinda guy); particularly when the effort to posture as such seems so deliberate. Please take that observation as a bit of constructive feedback.

  To EastTN and others here: The following isn’t a critisizm of any particular person here, but are my observations about a particular mentality. As to the issue of whether or not old religions should ever be backhanded with the “mythology” label, I find it to be a breathtaking display of arrogance on Wikipedia’s part (shared responsibility) to label it Native American mythology. There are many, many Native Americans who truly and sincerely believe their beliefs are true. I’d sure like to see some howlie caucasian (which I happen to be) drive onto some reservation somewhere, approach some American Indians, and tell them that their belief system is just part of mythology and somehow doesn’t deserve being accorded the title of a religion, as does all the *Major Western True Religions*. If no one else here “gets” what I am referring to here, let me ask you this: what if I told you that you believed in Modern Christian mythology? Oh… now you get it?? In my opinion, we should follow what Encyclopedia Britannica’s policy appears to be: Any supernatural belief system that has, or once had, believers should properly be called a “religion”. Further, if a common-sense analysis shows there are no modern adherents, then it can have “ancient” appended into the title. Thus, it should always be Hawaiian religion, and Native American religion, and Ancient Greek religion. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is now getting quite off-topic, but I believe you're taking offense over a misunderstanding. Our article on Christian mythology bears a relevant boxout: "In its academic sense, the word myth simply means "a traditional story", whether true or false. Unless otherwise noted, the words mythology and myth are here used for sacred and traditional narratives, with no implication that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false." See similar assertions at Mythology#Religion and mythology or Religion_and_mythology#Truth and falsehood. When "myth" is used to mean "sacred narrative", rather than "falsehood", and the word is clearly indicated as being used in that way, then there is little cause to read "breathtaking displays of arrogance" into the chosen nomenclature. — Matt Crypto 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg L, I'm glad to take that as constructive feedback, and I apologize if my comments came off the wrong way. It did strike me, rightly or wrongly, that we were starting to squirrel off on a discussion of whether or not Wikipedia editors are, as a whole, marginalizing non-Western religions by using the term "mythology." I agree that native American religions should be taken seriously. Should that article be renamed? Yes, of course. On the other hand, looking at the broad sweep of articles dealing with religion, I don't see a consistent pattern of marginalizing non-Western religions, or religions that have fewer adherents than what we might consider the "major" religions of the world (say, for instance, the top dozen by number of adherents).

As I mentioned, there is in fact an article on Christian mythology, and no, I don't take offense over it. Neither do I take offense over the articles on Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology. Frankly, I think there should be both a Native American religion and a Native American mythology article. Going further, the current content of the Native American mythology article looks me as if it would be more appropriate for the "religion" article (though it's not much more than a stub at this point).

Again, I apologize if I've given offense to you or anyone else. I could very well be mistaken - the pattern may be there, and I'm just missing it. In any event, I hope this explanation gives you a better idea of where I was coming from. I do think, as a general rule, that the pairing of "religion" and "mythology" articles to describe a belief system and its related narratives makes a great deal of sense, and that the Christianty/Christian mythology, Judaism/Jewish mythology, Islam/Islamic mythology, Religion in ancient Greece/Greek mythology and Religion in ancient Rome/Roman mythology pairings are good examples of how that can be made to work.

As Matt Crypto points out, we've gotten way off topic, so I'll drop the issue. It's really not relevant to the FSM article. EastTN (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It turns out that this has been discussed on the Talk:Native American mythology page. There wasn't a consensus, because the more specific articles it points to are titled "mythology" (and, in the case of several I looked at quickly, they do seem to focus on the traditional narratives). I've thrown in the suggestion that a parallel "Native American religion" article be created to point to those articles that do talk more specially about the belief systems and ritual practices. I don't know how the editors working on that page will react. If you feel strongly about it, you may want to comment there. EastTN (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, EastTN… your effusive apologies made me feel like a bit of a rat now. The maturity, tone, and constructiveness of the arguments by everyone on this page is truly striking. Debate on WT:MOSNUM over binary prefixes (megabyte v.s. mebibyte) was far more vitriolic than the goings-on here (a religion-based discussion forum). Interesting.

  I doubt I will go over to Talk:Native American mythology, don orange robs, douse myself with gasoline, and set myself alight over this issue; tackling this principle one by one would likely prove a thoroughly frustrating experience. Sometimes just salting a talk forum, as I did here, and letting a message percolate a bit does a great deal of good. Wikipedia policies are like a train: one has to be patient and allow ideas to gain momentum. Besides, my basic sense of “fairness” has been satisfied with the knowledge that there is a Christian mythology article. Greg L (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel like a rat on my account! It's all part of the normal back-and-forth. EastTN (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You give us too much credit Greg L. This is just a conversation about religion. Megabytes vs. Mebibytes represent a hyper-controversial issue. On one end you have the fanatics who want more of the same because they are scared of losing the only file storage terminology they have ever known while on the other end you have the lunatics want unambiguity and to destroy traditional families.

Anyways, back to religion: I would have to agree that we need to remove the term mythology from describing aspects of these these non-mainstream religions (and mainstream religions as well). While mythology does not necessarily have to mean false, many times it is used to mean exactly that, so Wikipedia should use a more accurate word/term. After we finish here, we should not forget to do this.

Now, more specifically, back to FSM and it's current clasification as a parody (as in 'not real') religion: Greg L, you said that FSM probably lacks real adherents who believe that there really is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the world with his Noodly Appendage. Well, I have already shown evidence (which has yet to be refuted) of claim to believe exactly that. Now do any of them REALLY believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster? I can't answer that question any better that I can answer the question "do any of the 2 billion people who claim to be Christian REALLY believe that Jesus is going to make a second coming and smite those who didn't/don't believe in him?" If people to either of these questions exist, there are obviously gonna be those calling them delusional. But anyhow, questioning what people REALLY believe is out of Wikipedia's scope and would be a very slippery slope - not to mention a violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Now, if there was a reputable source saying that absolutely none of the people who claim to be Pastafarians REALLY believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then your argument might be valid. But that will never happen.

Anyways, so unless someone can adequately point how FSM does not meet some standard of determining a religion (for those of you just tuning in, the burden on proof is not on me, I have already shown how FSM DOES meet ALL the known standards of determining a religion. Now it's your turn to point out something I missed or why I am wrong) in the the next couple of days, I will remove the parody qualifier from religion in the main article. 128.192.223.136 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting argument, 128.192.223.136. Outside the realm of mathematics, few things are absolute. Your argument above is solidly structured on the requirement that if anyone believes it’s true, then it is a religion. Our Apollo 11 article doesn’t use weasel words regarding the Moon landing even though there are thousands of people who think the Moon landings were faked on a sound stage. I think all that is needed here for determining whether or not the text in the article is sound is the application of common-sense. Even there *might* be a few individuals who believe that a Spaghetti Monster created the Universe, Bobby Henderson created it as a parody and most “followers” feel as he does. In Henderson’s FAQ, he makes his views clear enough (“Supernatural explanations are by definition not science, so why would you teach them in a science classroom?”). I think the current wording in the article here accurately represents what The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really about.

  A final thought. Your writings here are thought provoking and civil. I’m not invested in this article to make a stink about your last sentence, but I would encourage you to not edit against the consensus here. Greg L (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just go with what all reliable sources say and call it a parody religion? The one source that has been brought up here is the FSM forum. Now forums are as a matter of course not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. Moreover, 128.192.223.136 placed this forum under even more doubt with this:

I realize probably not all of these are Pastafarians, but if you read the posts, you will find that there are a significant number of people who claim they are indeed Pastafarians...

Some people posting to a joke forum who may (or may not) have been so dim as to fail to get the joke is not convincing evidence. Since we have quality sources showing that this "religion" was invented as a satire of the intelligent design movement, and other high quality sources saying that it is a "parody religion", we should go with what these sources say until other sources of comparably high quality are brought up here. And no, we don't need to engage in the above trolling philosophical debate concerning the nature of religion and other nonsense. Here at Wikipedia, we make decisions based on the quality and content of sources. So far, IP, you haven't given what we consider a valid source. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with what Silly rabbit wrote. His reasoning too is based on common sense. Existential ponderings as to whether there might or might not be a single Pastafarian who actually believes a can of Beefaroni created the universe (and whether or not the discovery of said individual might constitute WP:OR) is all beside the point. We’ve wasted enough of everyone’s time over this now. Time to move on. Greg L (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. When I wrote earlier that thousands of Americans think the moon landings were fake, that was an understatement; roughly fifteen million Americans think they were faked. This documented fact does not require that our Apollo 11 article begin with “Many people believe the Apollo 11 mission was the first manned mission to land on the Moon.” We rely upon credible sources here at Wikipedia. Speaking of existential: who created Mr. Boyardee? Greg L (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything more here, but I feel like I do. I won't be changing the article removing the parody qualifier from religion. It's not because I believe I am wrong, because I would actually be right if I did so. I really do hate to talk with excessive pride, but it would be quite obvious to the impartial observer that my argument truly trumped all of yours. The proof of this is that I refuted every single one of the points that people brought against my argument, but no one (or even all of you combined) refuted all (or even close to all) of my points. That's because not one of ya'll were able to discuss things with an open mind, so you just conveniently ignored some of what I ahd to say. So I will not change the article because I know the "concensus" would just change it back, either in ten minutes or a two weeks. The fact is, even if USA Today and New York Times (the two oh so high quality sources which are experts on religion that Wikipedia uses to justify calling FSM a parody religion) come out with articles that treat FSM as a real religion, the concensus would still be to call FSM a parody religion. We would just have to cite the other sources. 128.192.223.136 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to reiterate, FSM is a parody because it was invented as a satire explicitly to lampoon the intelligent design movement. So far no one has provided a single shred of evidence to contradict this one fact. All sources we have been able to dig up (except for joke forums and certain editors here) agree that FSM is a parody, and most importantly no one has come up with a single reliable source contradicting this. If, as you clearly believe, your arguments clearly show that FSM is not a parody religion, then I'm sure some religious studies journal would jump at the chance to publish your ideas. Until that time, however, Wikipedia cannot accept your original research. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It must indeed be upsetting to have your earnest and compelling arguments about how Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a real religion simply ignored or overruled by a bunch of closed-minded bigots. I'm sure you'll cope. — Matt Crypto 13:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think I might shed a tear when I think about all the cans of Beefaroni I’ve ever eaten. After all, they are His children. Greg L (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break (for editing ease)

There is a major point that is being missed. Pastafarianism is a parody religion, but it is still a religion. The criteria that it must be believed to be factual is invalid.--RLent (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, it's a parody of religion. EastTN (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So many people keep saying there is no reliable source to suggest that Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion. But isn't the official site of the religion itself the most reliable source of all? I cited this more than a year ago under this section but not a single person has yet responded to the reliability of this particular source. Here it is again for you:

http://www.venganza.org/about/

This is a source that refers to it as a legitimate religion and directly contradicts claims that it is purely satire. So why should the two current sources for a "parody religion" be relied on over what the founder himself has said on the religion's official website? If Dan Vergano from USA Today decides to call it a parody religion, why does that make Bobby Henderson wrong? Symphonien (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The website is satirical, and therefore not a reliable source. — Matt Crypto 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because the religion has satirical elements, that doesn't stop it from being a valid religion if that's what they choose to call it. All I'm saying is that I don't see why we shouldn't refer to it with the term the Pastafarians themselves use to refer to it. For example, I could call this website satirical but that doesn't make me a more reliable source than L. Ron Hubbard who founded the religion, and his followers who believe it is a legitimate religion. Why would it be invalid then to refer to Pastafarianism as a religion and cite the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the religion's official website as sources? The website may indeed appear satirical but it is still the official website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, written by its founder Bobby Henderson and as such surely cannot be refuted as a source, especially when other sections of the same website have already been referenced to provide the information on the central tenets of this belief system that have enabled this Wikipedia article to be written in the first place. If the religion's own website and founder are not reliable sources according to you, then this Wikipedia article should not exist at all. Symphonien (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that Scientology does not cite use it's creator's own words to cite that "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices..." nor should it, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources which states quite clearly that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" if we were to cite Bobby Henderson, that would not be using a third-party source - do you have a third party source that says it is not a parody, or even that it is a religion recognised by any particular body that would be qualified to recongise such entities?--Alf ^melmac 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

heavens... let's try a little honesty here. are you (you, personally) offended because what's written in this wikipedia article violates a a deeply held belief of your own? or are you just making an intellectual argument about how it's impossible to tell what other people might or might not seriously believe? if the latter (which, frankly, both of us know is the case), then fine: the point has been made, we all get it, so let it go. continuing this argument only magnifies the damage that fundamentalist Christianity has been inflicting on spirituality every since they made the decision to go political. you're doing what they do; is that what you want? let me spell it out for you.

• Political behavior of fundamentalist Christians (of a particular inclination, mind you, not all of them)
  1. they claim to know the truth (because it's written in the bible).
  2. they insist that no one can tell them that they don't know the truth (because that would be offensive to their religion).
  3. they use point 2 as leverage in an effort to get the truth they know written into the rules that everyone has to follow.

and here you are claiming point (1) for the pastafarians, and using the tactic in (2) to try to (3) change what everyone on wikipedia reads.

Henderson's satire was sharp - it effectively short-circuited a Machiavellian political strategy. the pastafarian thing was and is a whole lot of fun for a whole lot of people - no problems there. however, what you're doing here is just a grind - you're belaboring the point excessively and taking all the fun out of it. Nobody wants pastafarianism to be a serious, true religion, because the minute that it becomes serious and true it loses its power as satire, loses its ability to be an embarrassing comparison, and suddenly we might find ourselves actually having to teach pastafarianism in public schools right along with creationism. get the point, or the FSM will smite you with a steaming torrent of marinara.

I don't think you have gotten my own point yet. I am not a Pastafarian. I am not interested in what "nobody wants" regarding Pastafarianism or what constitutes "taking all the fun out of it". As Wikipedia editors, I don't think it is very credible to apply such personal agendas to decide how articles are written. Instead, I think we would be better off to look at things objectively and therefore call the religion what its founder and followers call it: a religion. Your use of a comparison with Christian fundamentalism is thus not only irrelevant as a guilt by association fallacy but is also flawed in its premises. I never claimed that Pastafarians "know the truth" but only that they are entitled to their religious beliefs if that is what they choose to call them. As I stated above in response to Matt Crypto, if the official Pastafarian website (and gospel) is used as a source for much of the information in the "Beliefs" section, then why shouldn't it also be used to describe the nature of the belief system itself? Symphonien (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If the information about what the supposed beliefs were on another reilable site, I would prefer to exchange them instead of the current source, but this is very much like Dr Who articles - the best source is usually the BBC, who are not third party, and while that is not sufficient to satisfy notability, it is enough to fill in the plot lines and reasons behind the actions. Mind you Dr Who does not make any claim that Dr Who is God as the FSM site does...

And on taking a second look - two sources from Henderson are used in the Beliefs section - the open letter (cite number 4) and the website itself (cite number 25) which are used in lines such as "The canonical beliefs of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are set forth by Henderson in the Open Letter,[4] the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and on Henderson's web site,[25] where he is described as a prophet." which I don't think is overworking a non-third party cite - in fact it's a darned good use of it. The majority of the cites in that section use other sources backed up by detail of the open letter - again seems aposite to the information recorded. Do you have any new cites which can shed any new light on this, such as a list of registered charities listed under religious groups inlcuding the Church of the FSM, or maybe a governmental agency/department allowing usage for a building to be a Church of the FSM or similar?--Alf ^melmac 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Symphonien: I've gotten the point being made, but apparently you can't yet see how ridiculous it is. wikipedia is not obligated to treat James Bond, Jason Vorhees, or Santa Claus as though they are real individuals (though movie theaters and parents will often insist on it); wikipedia is not obligated to treat soap operas, romantic comedies or docu-dramas as though they are true facts, even when the opening credits state explicitly that 'the following story is true'; wikipedia does not need to treat a belief as real when it's clear that the 'believers' are offering the belief not because they believe it, but for some other political, financial, or social purpose. In short, wikipedia does not need to be stupider than the rest of the population as a matter of misguided principle. why would you want it to be? --Ludwigs2 19:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, anyone who believes because his parents hold the same religion or to fit in with the society around him is not a "real" believer, since he does it for social purposes. I firmly believe Flying Spaghetti Monster is more real than most other deities. I don't pretend to hold this belief, but hold this position after a detailed study of Pastafarianism and other religions. As a more encompassing and non-anthropomorphized deity, FSM is less open to criticism of its nature and has less inconsistencies with the real world around us. Being an agnostic believer, my stance is that we can't be certain of FSM existence, but it's much more likely that it's FSM and not any other gods. Please don't use the True Pastafarian fallacy against me. 82.80.85.38 (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

nooooo... parents do not teach their children their religion for some other political, financial, or social purpose. they teach their children their religion because that's what the parents believe. further, believing that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster is more real than most other deities" is not the same as believing that the FSM is a physically real and present god. believers in other faiths do not believe that their god is 'more real than other gods', they believe that their god is real, and other gods are false (or in some cases that all gods are real). in fact, the assertion that something is 'more real' is a tacit admission that it is false, since 'real' in an absolute word (not a relative one). Russell's teapot is a great intellectual reductio ad absurdem argument; trying to build a rocket to find it would miss the 'absurdem' part of the argument, and show a complete lack of common sense. likewise the FSM. --Ludwigs2 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a joke. For argument's sake, let me represent a Pastafarian. My story goes: I used to be an agnostic looking for God and one day Bobby Henderson opened my eyes and I saw a Flying Spaghetti Monster and I knew he was real. Ever since that day, I have been a Pastafarian. This is my BELIEF. I am an ADHERENT to this belief. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is my RELIGION. How can Wikipedia or the New York Times or The Washington Post accurately say my religion is false? They can't. And neither can Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's purpose is not classyfying religions as legitimate and false. There are people who adhere to FSM, and that is all it needs for Wikipedia to view it as legitimate. 128.192.21.125 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Mr 128.192.21.125, makes a good point. Though I would go further. Throughout history it has been common for people to publicly state that they have faith in religion, but in reality they don't. 2,000 years ago Roman senators would pretend to believe in the Roman gods because it would help them get elected. In the Catholic Church, Mother Teresa is a fine example. In private letters and diaries she wrote of the utter silence of prayer, the fact that she couldn't ever hear God answer back led her to question his existence. In contrast, in public, when asked if she ever had doubts, she would bluntly reply 'no'. Also I think that there is lots of evidence to suggest that Obama does not believe in God. However for political reasons, this is not something that he could ever be honest about. So my point is that for something to be called a religion it is not important whether or not people actually believe in it. As long as they say the do that's enough. I am now hereby stating that I'm a follower of reformed pastafarianism. Some may question my honesty in that statement. The fact that I've made the claim is not up for debate. So there is at least one person (me) who claims to believe in Pastafarianism. Whether or not the founder (Bobby Henderson) claims that the whole religion is a parody is not relevant. For something to be called a religion, it is not necessary for the beliefs to be sensible, it does not matter if the founders don't believe in it. There are plenty of people who start religions for strange reasons (eg the convicted con-artist Joseph Smith). It also is not important if people genuinely believe in it. All that is required is that people claim to believe. And I do. (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Pnelnik

Belated reply

I wonder if it's a good idea to revive this discussion which seem to be semi dead but here goes. We can argue ad infinitum about whether FSM is a true religion. But wikipedia isn't the place for such an argument. The only issue that should concern us is what do the reliable secondary source say? The venganza website is not a reliable secondary source. It's not even a reliable primary source for most things. So it's immediately out. We do have two reliable secondary sources which say it's a parody. Until and unless we have reliable secondary sources calling FSM a religion, any arguments about why it should or shouldn't be called a religion are OT and irrelevant and could legitimate be deleted (but I'm not suggesting we actually do that). Editors are welcome to their opinions, but their personal opinions about whether FSM is a religion or whether they believe in the FSM or how Christianity and other religions compare to FSM are, as always on wikipedia when it comes to random editor opinions, irrelevant. The only thing we care about is what the sources say Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

flying speghetti monster origins...

despite the fact that the flms are obviously ancient, the origin of the argument is atleast a decade old and the attrib to henderson or who ever is inaccurate. I remember reading it in print in the nineties.

thank you for shamless promotion of a plagerist

Peace with You

11 07 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.38.10.1 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course, you have sources to go with claim other than your memory? 82.80.85.38 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia cleanup

The trivia section has certainly been growing lately. I think it may be time to start removing entries which are unlikely to be incorporated into the main text of the article, per WP:TRIVIA. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The copyright issue again

People may want to look at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Flying Spaghetti Monster.Geni 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pastafarianism outside american universities

http://www.guildonline.net/sgdsp/dispsite.php?groupsiteseq=16&pageseq=51 , QUT, Brisbane, Australia. http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/10098 , U of Calgary, Canada http://hulluni.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231 , Hull Uni, UK Someone want to edit the comments on american only occurences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.127.223 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reason for revert

I reverted this edit which was described in the edit summary as "Spelling of "Speghetti" corrected" and marked as minor, both are deliberately misleading.--Alf ^melmac 18:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there was just some misunderstanding here. The edit to which you refer (not made by me) was indeed just a spelling correction of a single word, nothing wrong with it or its edit summary. However, you ended up reverting more than that, and that's what I and another editor reacted to. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well I don't know then, the diff I looked at included a heap of changes and reverted what I thought was s single edit. Hmmm. Must have had either a serious caffeine deficiency or too many tabs open, so my aoplogies there.--Alf ^melmac 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! We've all been there. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Pastafarian Sects

It may be worth mentioning some of the other pastafarian sects such as the sparrowism or the reformed pastafarian church. Round the web there are quite a few. 89.125.12.125 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• See: Notability and Reliable sourcing requirements. DP76764 (Talk) 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park misspelled

Shouth Park should be South Park —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.111.66 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do you mean? I think it is already corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Appearance in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race (Franken vs. Coleman) recount

Would anyone like to take up the challenge of adding a short paragraph describing the Flying Spaghetti Monster's appearance on a disputed ballot in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008 ? Please see the video documentation of the recount proceedings at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTg55m5YIwc&feature=PlayList&p=AA921FE0232B4630&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=44 (from 5:20 to 6:30) 24.18.218.123 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like trivia for the most part. If you find a reliable source discussing it, that might be better. DP76764 (Talk) 17:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Let's be honest; 90% of the Flying Spaghetti Monster article could arguably be construed as "trivia." As for the reliable source issue, I'm a little confused about how Wikipedia reliable source policy deals with an essentially unedited transcript (although the YouTube poster here added a silly joke at the end, the entire "Flying Spaghetti Monster ballot" review and discussion is presented uncut and without commentary). Is not a transcript (whether written or video) essentially a "published" source, even more unimpeachable and objective than other published sources? 24.18.218.123 (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• A transcript would be considered a primary source. It is Wikipedia policy to use secondary sources instead. Using a primary source usually leads to original research. There is a difference. DP76764 (Talk) 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, not really. Being present at the hearing and transcribing it yourself would be original research. Someone else "publishing" the transcript into the public sphere, makes your research secondary. And besides, Wikipedia's hesitation about primary sources has to do with the potential subjectivity of such a source in presenting "fact." However, in this case, hearing itself would be the matter for which the transcript would be the source; there is no potential for subjectivity, as the transcript is inherently objective about its own content.24.18.218.123 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, I think that interpretation of policies is incorrect. If the person transcribing the event was a reliable reporter, that would make it a secondary source, not WP:OR. Additionally, reliable sources are not preferred for, nor expected to be, 'neutral' when presenting facts, so it's not a question of subjectivity. Primary sources can't be used to make interpretations about an event. See WP:PRIMARY again: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Anyway, the notability issue was also something I was going to mention too; no sources probably means it's not notable. DP76764 (Talk) 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the central question here is noteworthiness. Although I take the point that some people might consider much of this page content to be trivia, it's hard to see how this disputed ballot really adds much insight to either the election recount or to the FSM. If a secondary source were to write about it, however, that would indicate that someone had a reason to consider it important enough to write about. Absent that, it probably isn't important enough to add here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would argue that its noteworthiness is about on par with most of the items in the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster in media" section. But your point that finding a published article about it would affirm a wider perception of notability has merit.24.18.218.123 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here are two brief stories: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/18/infamous_lizard_people_ballot_rejected_by_board/ and: http://minnesotaindependent.com/20585/flying-spaghetti-monster-makes-minnesota-recount-appearance though both are light on the descriptive detail (comments made by panel, legal arguments in favor of and in opposition to ballot rejection) contained in the original video/transcript.24.18.218.123 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at both of those links. The first really isn't very relevant. The second is, but I would say that it doesn't illuminate anything about the subject of this page, beyond a single use as, essentially, graffiti. If there were some religious parody tie-in, that might be different. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tryptofish, I must say that I disagree with you strenuously. The point of such an inclusion in the article would be to illustrate the Flying Spaghetti Monster's gradual assimilation into the popular culture, to the point where it is increasingly DIVORCED from targeted religious parody! Should we eliminate Wikipedia references to any biblical allusions in popular culture that don't directly express devout religious fealty? 24.18.218.123 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "illustrating a point ..." : that's pretty much the definition of original research. DP76764 (Talk) 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised to find that anyone would feel strenuously about this! I, for one, don't. I see my comments here as trying to be helpful in providing advice as to what is or is not likely to remain on the page after being put there. If you want to make an edit, you don't need my or anyone else's permission to do it; just understand that any edit can be reverted. But, as for illustrating what you say it would illustrate, it would be OR to claim that such an assimilation is happening, unless a secondary source says so. (By the way, there is no need to start talk page entries with a • unless one is making a bullet list.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean "strenuously" in the sense that it was a life-or-death matter.  ;-) But I thoroughly disagreed with your suggestion that use as religious parody should be a litmus test for relevance. If the article is designed to be an encyclopedic exploration of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (both unfortunate puns intended), it should not be limited by the original purpose of its genesis; the article must evolve as it evolves. As for "illustrating a point [being] pretty much the definition of original research," um, no... please don't confuse the words "point" and "argument." Wikipedia makes a "point" of being neutral, sourced, accurate, and comprehensive. (The "Antibiotic resistance" section in the antibiotics article makes the "point" that use of antibiotics has not been free of adverse consequences, to choose a fairly random example.) No one should add anything to Wikipedia that doesn't have a "point" -- that would be superfluous and "pointless," and other Wikipedians would rightly make a "point" of removing it. Lastly, sorry about the •; I was just follow the prior respondent's lead.24.18.218.123 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think there's some unfortunate circular logic being indulged here. This incident happened, thus placing the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a novel context, but no details can be included, despite their incontrovertibility, unless those details have been written about in a secondary source. And while such a source might be found, and while it would show the emergence of the FSM in a novel context, its notability is still suspect unless someone can explain why it is notable. Since notability is frequently implicit in the article itself, I explicated on the discussion page. But apparently, that is suspect, unless I can also find a secondary source entitled "Flying Spaghetti Monster's appearance in a novel context meets Wikipedia's Notability Requirements" to cite. Wikipedia policies exist to refine and better its contents, not to nitpick away at the articles sentence by sentence. (P.S. Tryptofish, I originally posted the link and the suggestion for inclusion in the hopes that someone with much better experience at sourcing/source-formatting than I have might go ahead and make the inclusion. I'm actually pretty shocked that it was a controversial suggestion. I suppose I may have just figure out the source-formatting so that I can do it myself.) 24.18.218.123 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You should read through the policies on: verifiability, notability, reliable sources and original research. They do all work together, actually. If something is notable, it will be reported on by reliable sources; it is not necessary to have one specifically saying "this meets WP's Notability Requirements" (that's a bit of a straw-man argument). Perhaps you could re-state the reason you feel this should be included? If your reason truly is "to illustrate the Flying Spaghetti Monster's gradual assimilation into the popular culture" then that is absolutely 100% original research unless you have reliable source making the claim. DP76764 (Talk) 04:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Took a breather away from the discussion, but realized I'm still bothered. I thought this development was worthy of inclusion, since the point of Wikipedia IS to be encyclopedic on a topic. You have failed to convince me otherwise. I found sources; you all nitpicked them away.

There has been a disturbing trend in which Wikipedian source-Nazis would rather hack away at an article until the remainder is grossly anemic, useless, nonsensical, insubstantial, illegible, perhaps even obviously biased, as long as each word that survives is separately sourced up to their standards. I'm tired of reading articles filled with incomplete sentences, misinformation, and simply horrifying writing, only to click on "history" and discover that a PRIOR version was 100 times better and contained specific (completely accurate and adequately-sourced) information FOR WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY SEARCHING, all of it subsequently ransacked by nitpickers.

This FSM/Minnesota Recount discussion is a pretty minor, completely inconsequential example of this phenomenon. But if I were to write a paragraph on the subject, using all available sources, you have already stated that you would toss my work in the trash. Even though I find you logic (INCLUDING YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WIKI GUIDELINES) specious. So make no mistake, this is the same disturbing phenomenon.24.18.218.123 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to take out my frustration on this matter here, but I have seen entries on political topics come under siege by editors who CLEARLY have a strong (usually, but not exclusively) conservative bias, who slash-and-burn each and every sentence not supporting their worldview, concocting flimsy source/notability/NPOV rationales each time, yet strangely leave the sentences supporting their point-of-view intact, all the while protesting their own "neutrality." This has left me very suspicious of the deletionist urge. Wikipedia NEEDS to have a presumption of notability/reliability; the burden of proof SHOULD be upon the deletionists, since they are the ones taking steps to deny future searchers access to the information in question.24.18.218.123 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's a free site, express what you like. Have you familiarized yourself with what Wikipedia is not? As for the grander sentiments you've express, you'll probably want to take those up with Jimmy Wales, as the burden of evidence is currently on the person adding material not removing it. Then again, perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place for you (which would be unfortunate). DP76764 (Talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please let me just say to all involved that I wish very much that no one would come away from this talk feeling unhappy. It seems to me that nothing in this particular thread has been about POV, but rather about notability. But anytime any editor is concerned about the validity of what appears to be the predominant view about a particular edit, the best remedy is always to argue the point based on reason, and not on impugning anyone's intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I always say, "Decent people shouldn't live here. They'd be happier somewhere else." Wikipedia is fast becoming a cesspit, and the destructive effect it has on common sense is stupefying. As an experiment, it is a limited success, but at what cost? We have, as a community, already lost so much, and will continue to lose more, working as unpaid workers for a greater whole, but carelessly used and rankly abused like common slaves. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't interacted with you previously that I remember, but I sincerely am very sorry that you feel that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are probably literally thousands or more mentions of the FSM that could be sourced to primary sources. That is one of the many good reasons we don't discuss a mention of the FSM unless it's been described in reliable secondary sources. If you genuinely believe a wikipedia should be filled with thousands of times the FSM has been mentioned, then wikipedia is probably not the place for you Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Members?

How many members of 'The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster' are there? Doing a school RE project on minor-religions - much appreciated.

Coolcat64 (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Pastafarians count members as other faiths do. Though perhaps you could post a question on the official pastafarian site: venganza.org, you could possibly also include the other pastafarian sects such as the reformed pastafarians. You could also see how many members are in the various facebook pastafarian groups.

If you can find an answer then it may be a worthy addition to this wikipedia article. Needless to say, you'd need to provide relevant citations. Wikipedia is not a site that accepts original work.

Pnelnik (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

However, it is important to avoid original research and to stick to verifiable, reliable sources. TechBear (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Creative design?

"In November 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education voted to allow criticisms of evolution, including language about creative design, as part of testing standards.[16] On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. This was the fifth time in eight years that the Board had rewritten the standards concerning evolution.[17]"

Would it not be appropriate to change it simply to creationism as it was known at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.104.244 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the source cited, it is actually "intelligent design." I've made the correction. Thanks for pointing it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Later developments

Some joker has taken the liberty of editing the third paragraph with their own spin on Bobby Henderson. Why hasn't this be corrected or flagged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.189.224 (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Which bits are inappropriate? If you check through the revision history can you see when the additions were made and by whom? Was the joker you refer to the same person who flagged the issue of the editing by a joker which had not been flagged? (if you know what I'm saying). Pnelnik (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"POV" quotes

I had an edit conflict with another editor while making some minor copyedits, mostly for punctuation, and in so doing, I also reverted that editor's reversion of my adding quotation marks in a preceding edit. I want to explain here. First, I want to make clear that I didn't mean to appear to edit war over the quotes, but just wanted to not lose all my copyedits due to the edit conflict, so I hope the other editor understands that I AGF. Anyway, my addition of the quotes came from new talk above, at the end of the "another blot" section (I hate that heading), where I was trying to respond to a third editor's POV concerns. I think it is a fact that FSM is a parody. As such, there is nothing POV about putting the intentionally satirical usages of "belief" etc. in quotation marks. On the other hand, it is arguably POV to present the material without the quotes, because it puts Wikipedia in the position of adopting FSM's POV, rather than describing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can live with most of the quote marks. But the one around "religious" symbol doesn't seem right. Even parody religions have religious symbols, not "religious" symbols. I've also changed back the wording from 'beliefs' to 'tenets', which I think is less controversial. LK (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (really didn't mean to set off a religious war! (joke)). I put "parody" into the caption, which I hope works. None of this strikes me as a big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is getting pretty...not neutral. I mean, does this count as an actual religion, or just a philosophy, or just an example of open religious intolerance? Also, how the heck is it "popular"? I know pretty much about Western society, but I've never even heard of this, in NY. Please, what is this about? AmeliaSmith (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus has been that FSM is a parody religion; this is explicitly stated in the first sentence of the lede and elsewhere in the article. It would be incorrect to call FSM "an actual religion," "just philosophy" or "an example of open religious intolerance." I agree that the popularity of FSM should be documented, but we would also have to document why the word "popular" is used to describe South Park. As for your lack of knowledge... FSM has been widely discussed in the blogsphere, on college campuses and through the mainstream media, as the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster in media," Notes, References and External Links sections attest. TechBear (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Amelia, I agree with TechBear. Your argument comes down to the fact that you have not heard of it, but the page is referenced, and that, in effect, you don't like it. I do not really think that you have justified the POV template you put on the page, and I suggest that it be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed -- a series of tendentious ill-informed questions does not make for an NPOV dispute. Especially coming from a "new" editor whose first edits include pov tagging... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

See also GA review, from 13:48, 26 October 2006

---

GA review

GA - Pass

• 1: Well written, etc: Check
• 2: Accurate, verifiable: Check
• 3: Broad in coverage: Check
• 4: NPOV: Aye.
• 5: Stable: Aye
• 6: Images: Probably. However, I would like a double-check on copyright status of images: HAVE they been releases into the public domain? If so, can you say where this is stated in the image information.

...Whilst there are some doubts, I'm going to assume good faith about the images, and let the article pass. Please fix it ASAP, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)