Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Bobby Henderson link

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

Belivers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

self-published sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Article Review

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

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

New page: Science humour

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

Kansas State Board of Education

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

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

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

Baltimore mini-billboard

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

Lovecraftian?

Anyone else think the spagetti monster is Cthulu-esque?

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

Getting to Good Article status again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The worst option happened when this article was called "Flying Spaghetti Monster" rather than "Bobby Henderson" or similar. Over time this article will become less about the parody and why it began and more about the monster. This is simply true because the subject of the article IS the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I wish people would understand this and support a merge into an article on Bobby.MikeURL 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)