Jump to content

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Chris' edits

I agree with Chris that there was no need for two columns in the see also section. But I respectfully disagree with the other edits, and am about to revert them per WP:BRD. Removing the sub-headers in the holiday section simply makes for more continuous text, and does nothing to help our readers. And changing "Beliefs" to "Purported beliefs", well, that really requires discussion before we make a change like that. Editing this page (which is, after all, a GA) involves running interference between those who are offended by the perceived insult to religion (please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that of Chris), and those like the many above in this talk who are shocked, just shocked, that Wikipedia treats their "religion" as a "parody religion". Yes, of course it's humorous. But about that "tone" tag, are we really going to have to explain to our readers that, no, these holidays are not really holidays? Give me a break! Actually, I've argued before for more extensive use of scare quotes (as in "beliefs", etc.), and I'd be fine with revisiting that. But putting "Purported" in there? Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes we do. There are plenty of well-meaning editors who want to turn this article into a direct portrayal of "pastafarianism" as an actual religion, and if we don't ensure that every section of the article treats it as a parody uniformly then the beliefs section will be a cruft magnet. This, for example, is absolutely inappropriate for that reason. The "beliefs" are "purported" because nobody believes them. The holidays section was part of the beliefs section when the article passed GA, and still belongs there because these aren't realy holidays; they are simply part of the fake "belief system", and were only moved out a few months ago in this series of edits (which are that editor's only WP contributions). That should have been undone at the time, as it lends totally undue weight to a minor part of the joke.
So, yeah. The holidays section belongs back under the beliefs section with the headers removed. I personally feel that in order to discourage cruft we should make it plain that these are fake in the header, but if you want a compromise, how about "belief system" for that section's title? The holidays section still needs to be checked for tone and to make sure we're not making too big a deal of any particular fake holiday (such as, like, all three of the latter ones), but losing the headers and putting it back where it belongs is probably alright now that people are at least aware of the problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
We're trying to describe an actual community here, and community practices. The fact is, many of these people do observe 'ramendan', 'pastover', etc. It is thus accurate to describe what they actually do. LK (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is quite plainly that this isn't actually the case. Even if we were to take that angle (which we aren't), that almost all of the holiday cruft is attributed solely to the main primary source (and to a forum on it, no less) provides absolutely no firm evidence that these events are at all notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Chris, perhaps you might consider that, in the diff you cited above as "absolutely inappropriate", the added language actually makes clear that the so-called holidays are parodies. On the other hand, I'll say to LK that I can see Chris' view, in that it's a little too self-serious to refer to Pastafarians as a "community". As I already said above, I'm in favor of making more extensive use of scare quotes, so I'd be fine with calling the section headers "Beliefs" and "Holidays", with the quote marks as part of the headers, and I'd be fine with using more quotes in the text as well. As for the tone tag itself, I'll note that I didn't revert it (just corrected it with a "section" parameter), and I'm receptive to making some edits for tone. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is not actually supposed to document the customs of "the Pastafarian community". Said community is only actually notable for its various stunts resulting in a real-world event concerning religious tolerance, for instance the original ID letter, or the colander passport photo incident. As far as I'm concerned, the parts of the article covered by references 24 through 42 of the current revision should be pruned back to only what secondary sources consider noteworthy. For the time being, though, the way forward would be to reinstate the re-headering, though the header title can be left at Beliefs for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There are real people out there who actually practice these things. They are notable, as they have been written about in newpaper articles and academic journals. Did you read the referenced cites to the academic work done on the pastafarian community? I suggest looking at the google scholar search on flying spaghetti monster and pastafarian before dismissing the community and their practices as non-notable. I think rather that the dogmatic belief that the pastafarian community is all just fan fiction is the OR here. LK (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not spending the time debunking this argument; we've got a megabyte of talk archives which do that. Suffice to say I'll be reinstating the old layout of the beliefs system in a few days unless there's a genuine argument for the current layout (and "it's a real religion cmon guyzzz" isn't one). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that you would wait a few days before taking action. In the mean time, I invite you to take a look at the further edits I have made, and consider whether you would be willing to discuss solutions that might be agreeable to a broader consensus of editors. You know, arguments about header formats are exactly the kinds of molehills from which Wikipedians construct mountains. This need not be a big drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. If we're done here I'm happy to move on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bah. Sadly, LK has chosen to edit war over this, under the repeatedly debunked argument that because "some people" (Henderson, apparently, along with some guys on a Web forum somewhere) actually observe these holidays they are important enough for their own section. This is utter trivia, and until it is sharply pruned back it should be returned to the "beliefs" section. If that section needs to be retitled "Beliefs and practices" then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've modified the sectioning as clearly holidays are a practice, not a belief. They are also, if I may add, cited and referenced. I'ld like to remind everyone that the claim of consensus on an issue is not consensus itself. If there are really megabytes of talk page archives that have settled this issue, kindly point to it. I have been editing this page for years and do not remember any such determination.
I'ld also like to remind people to watch their tone, and remind everyone that politeness is a central tenet of Wikipedia. Kindly try to follow community guidelines. LK (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
They are primarily cited to their original sources (mostly on the same domain, I may add), and mostly unreliable ones at that (forum and blog posts). Practices are not distinct from beliefs in that the latter exist because of the former: furthermore, given the dearth of good referencing this elevates these "practices" to a far too prominent position in the article. As for the consensus, this is no different from the "parody" arguments (take a look at the RfC on archive 7, for instance): if we portray the "practices" as actual things that "Pastafarians" do, we are elevating the subject beyond parody and up to the level of a mainstream belief system, and there is a very simple test to confirm that this is incorrect, which is the test of sincerity. As none of the beliefs or practices are held sincerely, the subject matter cannot be a real belief system, and we cannot portray it as one no matter how many people celebrate "Ramendan" on the Internet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'ld like to point out that 1) web sources are not neccesarily unreliable. 2) Sources self-published by an organization is presumed to be reliable about itself. In any case, the sourcing can be improved. As I have pointed out, scholarly work has been done on this.
You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that practice requires true religous belief. My family has had Christmas parties and gift giving for decades, and yet none of us are Christians (well, one grandmother was). It is proper to note the holiday observations of a community. As demonstrated by the popularity of Halloween, Guy Fawkes Day, and Chinese New Year. A holiday celebration does not require religous belief. LK (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In order:
  1. Where the statement being cited to the source in question is anything other than direct quotation, forum sources are unreliable. if the article said "a thread on the main FSM website forum contained suggestions for holidays for Pastafarians", so be it (though this would simply be a clearer indication that the point is trivial). Instead, we have "The FSM website denotes the following holidays", where by "denotes" it means "a guy with one post to his name on the FSM forum made a post about a thing called Ramendan". This is rather inflating the reference at best and outright misleading at worst.
  2. If the "scholarly work" in question is the undergraduate thesis currently used as reference 20, then I think one clue as to whether we should treat Pastafarianism as a real religion is in the title of the paper.
  3. If the section were titled "Observation" or something and fundamentally rewritten to detail how it is that Pastafarians subvert established religion and social constructs which enable it (such as by wearing colanders on their heads for their passport photos to challenge laws which permit veils), I wouldn't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with using this page as part of that subversion by presenting "the Pastafarian community" as a religious group and simply listing their "observations" as if they were real events. As for Christmas, there are plenty of people who do observe Christmas as an act of their faith, while there are none who observe Ramendan for that reason. Guy Fawkes Night, on the other hand, is a celebration of the foiling of a plot to overthrow Parliament and is not based on faith: I'm pretty sure that both Guy Fawkes and Parliament actually exist.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources in the article do need some work. But these holidays are documented extensively. As an example, I just did some quick google research on 'Ramendan'. Here is what I came up with:

My point is that these 'holidays' are citable, it just takes a bit of effort on the part of the editor to do a few google, news and scholar searches. LK (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate to characterise scholarly work done on Pastafarianism as one undergraduate thesis. The have been conference presentations and articles. A quick search brings up these: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Some others are mentioned in the article sources. LK (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm amenable to putting scare quotes arround all instances of Pastafarian "beliefs", since I don't think anyone seriously asserts that these "beliefs" are held in the same way as Evangelists hold that the world is ~6000 years old. However, we should check what the MOS says on this issue. At the least, we should raise the issue at the proper style noticeboard. Anyone know which one that would be? LK (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that each of those "sources" happens to mention the "holidays" in question in exactly the same order, do you care to hazard a guess where the authors researched their information? If anything you've just proven that we're part of the problem, as we're now acting as a semi-reliable sources for journalists looking up these events, and they were added here by skimming a Web forum for posts. Given that escalation, I don't consider anything other than the removal of the latter three "holidays" to be acceptable until secondary sources which weren't obviously doing their research here can be found. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Are we really discussing this? Sorry, but I feel like I'm the meatball in a meatball sandwich, caught in between the two of you. To LK: I don't particularly feel like any of this rises to the level of a noticeboard notice, but suit yourself. As for MOS, there is WP:MOS#Quotation marks, which expressly includes scare quotes amongst the acceptable uses, but does not elaborate on the point. If you accept their use here, I don't see anyone else objecting (yet). To Chris: we are not, of course, discussing notability of individual pages on each "holiday", and I'm not aware of requirements for multiple and/or secondary sourcing for every paragraph of a page. Are we sure that the mirror sources are mirroring WP, as opposed to mirroring Bobby Henderson? Is this really such a matter of religious dispute that we have to argue over the presence/absence of academic scholarship every time the page mentions someone putting on an eye patch? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems more than likely that if a bunch of sources make trivial mention of the same data points as we do, in the same order as we do, in a way that no primary source seems to (the Henderson link above doesn't reference the holidays together) that they got said information from Wikipedia. We do not require secondary sourcing for everything on a page, but we do require that editors justify edits if challenged, and this is simply trivia which looks to be having a demonstrable negative real-world effect by its inclusion here (i.e. that secondary sources are picking up on it and passing off things with the most incredibly trivial referencing as established fact). And yes, when this article is evidently being used as part of the breaching experiment at the root of the FSM meme, we absolutely need to be vigilant about lending false credibility to random anonymous users on a Web forum somewhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. It's no big deal to lose those parts from the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

And they've been added back, again, with the same sources. If LK is so keen to "document" these festivals, he should be capable of finding at least one independent source for both which isn't drawn directly either from those forum posts or from Wikipedia. If such sources don't turn up, and I still can't find any, the lines in question should be removed again. We're doing genuine damage here if secondary sources are picking up on our coverage and passing off these events as being more important than they can be proven to be (i.e. with words like "some Pastafarians celebrate", rather than "a new user on the Venganza.org forums proposed celebrating"). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by what you said there. LK didn't add any "holidays" back. I did, so you can blame me. But all I did was add the sentence: "Some websites also report "Pastover" as a parody of Passover,[37][38] and "Ramendan" as a parody of Ramadan.[39]" It doesn't have the wording to which you object, at all. Nor does it seem to me to be fodder for Wikipedia mirrors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No website "reported" it. A forum does not "report" things. Henderson perhaps mentioned them in passing, but that's a long step from them being "reported". Were we to use Henderson's comment (which at least has the advantage of a non-zero degree of weight) it should be written and sourced as such. I do apologise to LK for having misrepresented him as the originator of the edit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I corrected the wording based on what you said. Is that better? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Chris, you need to lighten up. You've been here insisting on removing material, essentially arguing I dont' like it for the past month. Above, you reject the reliability of several newspaper articles, based on your own claim that the newspapers must have been copying from this article. This is original research and against policy, we presume that reliable sources have done their 'due diligence', unless there is very good reason to believe otherwise (like when they state 'copied from Wikipedia'). Based on your OR, you then claim that the old version was doing active harm "lending false credibility", and removed material that you know is sourced, since it was based on those sources that you removed the material! This is not according to policy or standard community practice. I suggest you step back from this article, as you are clearly emotional about this issue and have an interest here, and you're trying to impose a preconception of what this page should look like that is not based on what sources say. LK (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't original research to question how important or well-researched a source is. Rather, that should be considered due diligence by all editors wishing to add material to articles. Referencing is not a game. I'm tired of this article being used as a breaching experiment, as it undoubtedly is, and I'm not going to be lectured on objectivity regarding it by a user who has an FSM userbox and has repeatedly re-added content of questionable authenticity companied by overly promotional language in an effort to document the activities of "the Pastafarian community", as apparently composed of people who made one or two pseudonymous posts on a Web forum. The "preconception of what this page should look like" is the consensus position, which is that the subject matter is primarily notable as a parody and not as some actual belief system, and that spending too much time dwelling on the latter (which is almost entirely filler) would lend it undue weight. As for "stepping back", I've made one non-trivial edit to the article since the initial revert over a week ago. Are you suggesting that I should leave the talk page as well? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Chris, if you don't want to be lectured, then I suggest behaving in a way consistent with guidelines and policies. You keep on claiming a consensus, which looks suspiciously like 'what I think is right'. I'ld like to point out that this article has been peer reviewed and obtained 'Good Article' status before you showed up. If there is any pre-existing consensus, it is that version of the article that was nominated as a Good Article. And really, on what basis do you reject the multiple newspaper accounts that Pastafarians celebrate Ramendan and Pastover, except based on your say-so?
If I may suggest, if you really are so 'Gung-ho' about preventing Wikipedia from covering trivial subjects, do browse through the list of Star Trek characters and Lord of the Rings characters from book and film. Or, perhaps better, the many pages on insignificant manga and anime characters that few have heard of, and that have received no newspaper coverage. I'm sure you'll find plenty there to occupy your time. The fact is that FSM and the pastafarian community have received more than adequate coverage for there to be an encyclopedia article to document the subject, and that is what this page attempts to do. I suggest that rather than my pastafarian user badge, it is your actions and words on this page that display a conflict of interest about this issue. LK (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's go through this one bit at a time:
  1. When the article passed GA, it didn't mention these events at all.
  2. The newspapers in question say absolutely nothing about Pastover and Ramendan except what was reported here. All of them are dated from after the addition of said material to this article. None of them mention the forums at all, and yet nobody has been able to turn up a single other source which mentions them in any detail (with the sole exception of this local source, which 404s). So the articles either got them from the forums or from Wikipedia. It's far more likely they got them from here. This sort of thing happens all the time: someone adds trivia to Wikipedia, they are challenged on it, and they then produce a "reference" which was quite obviously derived from Wikipedia itself to back it up.
  3. If you'd care to check my editing history, I've been proactively pushing back against trivia of that sort for over four years. This is just another facet of that: cruft masquerading as article content and backed by fans.
  4. Much like your characterisation of the article's contents at GA and my editing history, your understanding of the definition of "conflict of interest" is somewhat lacking IMO.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
By the powers invested in me by divine pasta and meatballs, I here do declare "Holiday" on this talk page and wish the editors involved in this discussion much pesto and pleasure as they choose to pursue leisurely activities off-wiki such as chasing the dandelion seed head across pastures or trying to solve the Rubik's cube blindfolded. Noodly blessings to all and sundry (glad that Talk like a Pirate day is still mentioned even if I have a bit of a COI). Yargh har! CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish's Book RV

Neargonad made a contribution to the "Books" section, adding details of a book exclusively about FSM (mentioning some follow-up books by the same author). User:Tryptofish then reverted this section, giving the reason that "The section about that book seems to be purely an advertisement." If biased in any way, the paragraph added was actually critical of the book (but with sources), and I see no reason whatsoever for this information not to be included! Surely mentioning the Henderson-authored books is also an "advertisement"? Why have a books section at all when information about a published book specifically about the subject of the article cannot be added? This makes no sense to me. Gorton k (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

$0.02: Amazon user reviews are not considered a good source. Got any others? DP76764 (Talk) 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, what Dp76764 said. To elaborate more fully, the paragraph seemed to me to be sourced only to the page at Amazon.com where it was being offered for sale (and misformatted, to boot). Now if there were to be secondary sources independent of the author and publisher and sellers of the book, discussing the book as something of cultural significance, I'd be quite receptive to including it. My edit was in keeping with WP:SOAP (especially #4 and #5). Please consider also the talk threads just above, in the context of how WP:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE would apply to that paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, i will look for sources myself later.
I'm sure you won't have any problem with me restoring the section reworded with more reliable links?
Thanks Jenova20 09:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that the key thing will be to show sources that are independent of the author, publisher, and sellers, and which demonstrate a significant cultural impact of the book. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

100,000 copies sold

The provided reference doesn't say anything about sales numbers for The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. SkyMachine (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and I've changed it to citation needed. There was a non-displaying comment saying that the information was near the bottom of the page on the right, but it appears the website has changed and it isn't there any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Decided to use archive page version of this reference until a more reliable source is located. SkyMachine (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Was used in the 1980's by Carl Sagan

I don't understand how this could have been first used in 2005 when I saw it myself in the '80s on the Telivision series "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.179.239.175 (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a source, please add this to the article. However, and with no disrespect intended, I think you may be confusing something similar with FSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Henderson

Just curious: why does Bobby Henderson not have a wikipedia page? Certainly with plenty of articles about Flying Spaghetti Monsters and related subjects on wikipedia, he would satisfy notability criteria? Thanks.--345Kai (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can think of two possible reasons: (1) WP:BLP1E, or (2) I'm wrong about 1E and no one has gotten around to writing the bio page yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On Distinguishing between Good and Evil in Relation to Pastafarianism

In October 2011, Pastafarianism was recognized as Good by the Religious Community of Believers in the Greatest Value of Human. I think it is may be used in article. 93.75.238.157 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Does not appear to be notable coverage by a reliable source. (the exception to RS rules you cited pertains to sources talking about themselves; that logic could be used in an article about that Community, but is not valid logic for use in THIS article). DP76764 (Talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster/Archive_10&oldid=1092043031"