Jump to content

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

???

This is not relally 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrummerhef (talk • contribs)

Spelling error

In paragraph Origins : Spagheti -> Spaghetti. Can't correct this myself because of (maybe slightly to high) semi-protection. Jahvascriptmaniac (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mindmatrix 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cirt (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image review

  1. File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg - This sort of thing "only use on Wikipedia" is not really appropriate. Please go through WP:OTRS and try to get the author to confirm free use permission, perhaps under a suitable license such as "Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike". Also more helpful info at commons:Commons:OTRS.
  2. File:FSM Logo.svg - image at Wikimedia Commons, looks good.
  3. File:FSM Logo on bumper.JPG - asserted at image page as both "public domain" and "fair use"? This should be fixed, and either moved to Wikimedia Commons and free use permission confirmed with WP:OTRS, or not - or maybe just removed from the article and deleted. (Removed) Mnation2 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. File:FSM Pirates.png - This seems like something as well where the author could be contacted to release the image under a free use license. Replaced. Mnation2 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. File:Fsm book.jpg - Fair use rationale provided on image page, looks okay.
  6. File:Fremont Fair 2009 pre-parade 28.jpg - - image at Wikimedia Commons, looks good.

Cirt (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work on this in the next few days. I do have some questions:

1.) On the first image, File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg, this (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_permission_to_use) documents that the original painting has no copyright and is free to use. So, the "only use on Wiki" factor stems from Bobby Henderson, the holder of the (copyrighted) picture of the not copyrighted painting, correct? He is the one I should e-mail?

2.) Digging through this image (File:FSM Pirates.png) revealed that the graph had been replotted by a Wikipedia user to improve the image quality (I don't believe they licensed or formatted it appropriately for this however). As it only depicts and does not use the image, doesn't this void it of copyright requirements? And how can it be properly licensed to reflect this?

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. Yes.
  2. I would contact the uploader for further information and release on that particular version. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Both Henderson and the uploader of the second photo have been contacted. I am awaiting responses. Mnation2 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any updates on the above? Cirt (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. Mnation2 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether we really need Henderson's permission to use the first image. The painting is fully displayed on the original author's (Niklas Jansson) website, http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/other/fsm.jpg, with no reference to Henderson. Along with the statement "pretty much free to use for press and such as far as I'm concerned" (http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/), we already have Jansson saying "there's obviously no copyright for the original painting" documented on Commons.(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_permission_to_use)Mnation2 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
We really need that confirmed via commons:commons:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've replaced the other problematic image. Mnation2 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried emailing Jannson, the artist of (File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg) and got this:

"I'm not sure if the artist Niklas Jansson used to have this same email address, but currently you are speaking with wrong Niklas Jansson ;). If this email address is listed on some wiki page I would appreciate if it would be removed, because this is not the first time I have been asked about that picture."

So I've noted on both the image description on wiki and on commons that this is no longer the artist's e-mail. Mnation2 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that whole "permission" thing should be deleted entirely, and the image not used until the actual author can be contacted and confirmed by WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Mnation2 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The original art and email of the artist can be obtained from his website here. I believe that his email at gmail is according to the image, 'diglett'. (I'm being a bit coy about the email address because he is also, and I think he may not want it posted on websites where spiders can scrape it.)
But, come one, it's a GA review. We're not talking about FA (and even then, some FA use fair-use images). An image where the author has explicitly stated that it's free to use, should be perfectly usable in a GA article. LK (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_November_2#File:Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe we have consensus there that the image is ok to use with a 'fair-use' justification. LK (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But "fair use" does not mean it is okay to add an unconfirmed statement of "free use" at the image page. This [1] is wholly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 23, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  • Could use copyediting throughout. I would suggest posting requests to WP:GOCE, and to the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects - for some previously uninvolved eyes to do some editing.
  • Lede is too short. Could use some expansion to fully summarize the entire article and be sufficient as a stand-alone summary, per WP:LEAD.
2. Factually accurate?:
  • Duly cited throughout.
  • However, please reformat all citations using WP:CIT, inserting relevant information in the fields.
  • MakeRef can help with this.
I reformatted all citations that needed it. Mnation2 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?:
  • Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. This is partially a copyediting issue, but I would like to see these paragraphs expanded upon with material from additional sources. Particularly subsections Origins, Holiday, and The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • Missing - Subsection called something like Commentary or Analysis would be appropriate here. Has there been criticism of this phenomenon/movement? Praise? Analysis in scholarly sources or other media commentary?
4. Neutral point of view?: Pending addition of a Commentary or Analysis subsection.
5. Article stability? Seems to be pretty stable, no ongoing conflicts.
6. Images?: See above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be working on it. Mnation2 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to further points below here, and not interspersed above. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I have eliminated all one sentence paragraphs. Mnation2 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the lede long enough now? If not, what else should be included? Mnation2 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Per the request to WP:GOCE, I have spent about 2 hours running a full copy edit on the page. I feel the article was fairly good already, but did have some components that needed to be addressed. I feel its writing is now pretty solid. Feel free to respond either here or on my talk page if there are any comments or concerns. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Mnation2 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Other uses

The use of the FSM as a general reference to satire and parody. Blairius (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I see at the talkpg of Mnation2 that the copyeditor still has some unresolved concerns? Cirt (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are questions of mine to the copyeditor (not the other way around). Mnation2 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are in fact questions to me, not from me, and I will be addressing those concerns directly, and indirectly addressing others shortly. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have addressed the concerns in question. Pending a double-check by anyone, I think the grammar/structure is pretty solid. Naturally, I have not been doing content checks. I have merely been doing copy editing. I cannot vouch for anything beyond that. (NB: That's not to say the article has poor content, just that I do not have the expertise to judge the content, only the structure and grammar.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Further comment

It is really a nice article but I am still getting the sense that there is a lot more to be said about this topic. For example, critique and reception from the depictions of Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#The_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_in_media - expanded to pargraph form instead of the unprofessional looking bulletted list. Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Critical_reception - this section looks unseemly with all the over-usage of blockquoting instead of selectively working choice quotes into paragraph format. There has just got to be a ton more commentary and analysis to greatly expand upon sections Holiday, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, As a cultural phenomena, and Use in other religious disputes. Again I get the feeling from going over this that there is a lot more to be said, a lot more sources to be used, a lot more research to be done, a lot more room for expansion (which is a good thing, a fuller comprehensive presentation would really be great) :) Cirt (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That comment got me closer to a panic attack than I've ever been. If promoting this article to GA status is conditional on "a lot more ... said, a lot more sources used, a lot more research done, a lot more expansion", then GA will have to wait. In the past week, this article has been expanded by more than 30%. I'm spent, my holiday is over, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster will have to wait. :P Mnation2 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, um, wow. Totally unprovoked bad faith response there. I am suggesting ways to improve this article. If you are going to choose to respond like that, that does not foster a positive collaborative environment. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry as per your talk page. Mnation2 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. If there is an intention for more ongoing work I can allow some more time. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article preliminary requirement

The Narizny citation looked a little suspicious to me so I went and looked it up. [2] You can see from this link that this paper has not been published. It is a BA thesis for an undergraduate religious studies department. Because of this, it does not meet the WP:RS requirements. Now, it looks to me to be a well-written and accurate document, but it will have to be published to qualify for Good Article standards of sourcing. Shii (tock) 10:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case I ask that it be replaced with better sourcing, else the article will fail GA guidelines. That being said, what's the status on the review? Work's definitely being done on it but I can't tell how far it is, and it's been at GAN a long time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Pass

I see a significant amount of improvements from when the article was initially nominated for GA this time round. Excellent work. :) Cirt (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Russel vs. Russell

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone please correct the link to Russell's Teapot to correctly spell the name Russell, rather than Russel as it is currently spelled. Thanks.

 Done Tim Song (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted a number of links in the "See also" section, including this one, because they were already provided in the text. This section should be for links to topics not mentioned in the text. Mindmatrix 16:39, 6 October 2009 (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)

It is rarely a good idea to characterise your opponents' comments as "stupid", because such incivility is likely to be seen by third parties as diminishing your own position. We are told "it was clearly meant as a joke", but that is not at all clear to me. To me it seems to have been invented for the entirely serious purpose of pointing out what its author thinks are weaknesses in the position of supporters of "intelligent design". Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it is not "clear" that I have done so. I am at a loss to understand the expression "personal jabs at christianity", since Christianity is not a person. However, I get the impression that Maddrummerhef in this remark and in "are directly attacking christianity" expects it to go without saying that "attacking" Christianity is unacceptable. If this is so then why? It seems to me that for anyone who believes that Christianity is wrong to attack it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The religious views of the editors of this article are irrelevant. I personally consider the stories of Jesus Christ to be equally as credible to the stories of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, you don't see me screaming on Talk:Jesus Christ about how the article is too long, and how the entire story of Jesus turning water into wine is treated as if it actually happened instead of being properly labelled as utter nonsense. This article should be as long as it needs to be to present all aspects of the topic that are notable and verifiable. Just because you don't like the topic doesn't change anything. The fact that this article is considerably longer than most other parody religion articles only serves to prove that FSM, while it may borrow heavily from Russel's teapot and the like, is more currently far more popular and in the mainstream than the original concepts. Either start presenting specific arguments about why specific passages in the article are not notable or verifiable, or else go find another article to complain about. General arguments about how this article is "another blot on Wikipedia's name" are entirely unhelpful. SnottyWong talk 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Use Of "Parody Religion" In The Description

This is ridiculous. This article, and the amount of Wikipedia users denying strict policy in favour of personal bias they justify with a simple "no, it is parody, obviously, because it obviously is", should have drawn enough attention of rule abiding admins and moderators by now...but alas it seems we are saturated by those who seem to think the rules do not apply to them because, as I state again, "obviously I don't need to back up, it obviously is a parody".

No, im sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. In fact it was specifically designed to cease such ignorant bias that can easily be refuted by the other end of the spectrum of their opponents providing the exact same reasoning for justification to.

Let's look at the problems and facts.

- The origins of Pastafarianism have no baring on a Wikipedia article about whether or not it can be classified as a genuine religion or belief system without having a pointless "parody" tag added onto it at every instance. As per the rules. So even if it can be sourced and established that it began as a parody religion, it has no weight in flat out declaring it has no actual religious followers or is not an actual religion. It can ONLY carry weight if there are no sources to refute or criticise that stance AND (not just or, but 'and') that stance is backed by an, unprecidented to, stance that it could never be anything else. Which would be entirely original research as such sources do not get to define what constitutes a real religion. So on top of carrying no weight regardless, the origins of Pastafarianism being a parody hold about as much weight as Scientology being originally a scam. We are not, in any way, allowed to change the description of Scientology to "a scam religion", yet are allowed to do so here for no other reason than many users "just say so". Nobody has said that Pastafarianisms parody nature should not be recognisd in its history, however as Scientology, it can NOT be included in the description. And there is far, far more sources (verified and meeting Wikipedias standards) that it was created as a scam religion than there is for Pastafarianism as a parody. And as such it is included in various points on the criticism/controversy pages of that series of articles.

Conclusion: The origins of Pastafarianism do not define it's current status and supercede it as a religion and/or belief system. It is against Wikipedian rules to establish they do so as it contradicts every other religious articles definition based on it's origins and history.

- The repeated, again and again, statements of "it is a parody religion, don't pretend it isn't", "obviously it's a parody, everyone knows that" and other variations including "nobody actually believes in it genuinely" in response to the continious outrage at the bias, the allowed bias, in this article is a huge problem. Almost all of the time, after many users specifically abide by Wikipedia policy and bring up discussion on the change of the article, the usual, most of the time ONLY, responses given as to why such a POV and bias thing (against Wikipedia policy given the facts) should be allowed is with responses like "people don't actually believe in it". That's nice. However, users on Wikipedia do not get to decide the legitimacy of a religion because they personally do not believe in it. We do not allow various sects of other religions to go around and define religions as parodies or "not real religions" simply because they personally do not believe in it. It is AGAINST THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA, and the rest of Wikipedia would be outraged enough to disallow them that bias, POV power even if they had majority on that article.

Conclusion: That you personally do not believe that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion, or that it is a parody, that does not justify editing or reversing the article to represent the view it is a parody. That is against the rules.

- Sources detailing original research in relation to Pastafarianism being a parody religion. If the source (read: so far all sources) you are presenting as justification to continue the "parody" status in the description or edit it back to that contains original research, it REMAINS original research. You can include it in criticism or history per a single persons oppinion, if you insist on stretching the rules. As such, regardless of the sources for it being a real religion (as I shall discuss below), decribing it as a parody is not the default. In fact, given Wikipedia standards in relation to articles given similiar justification, the default is that it is a relgion.

Conclusion: Unless a source contains factual information detailing a non-subjective reason why it is a parody and not a real religion (yeah, good luck finding that), it is original research. In effect being some published person detailing the same ridiculous bias of "well, I think it's obviously a parody, I provide no proof of that, but my statement it is should be enough to define religion real or not...despite the fact such has never been done so in the history of human kind" that many users are doing. As it is against Wikipedia's rules, the sources given so far by users justifying their edits that it is indeed solely a parody carry no weight. They have no place as sources for the POV and bias on this page.

- The issue here does not seem to be that is must be justified as a religion but that the users who edit (and vandalise) this article to remove any reference to it being a belief system or religion, opposed to those who refuse to include anything about it being a religion or belief system without then adding on "parody" unjustifiably, are doing so because they think it not be specifically decribed as a parody religion somehow justifies it as a religion "being true".

Final Conclusion: Given that no justification, according to Wikipedia's rules, has been given for including parody in the description, it must be removed. The issue seems to be that the article needs to be REWORDED to exclude not only parody but also any "justification" as an "actual religion". Until the article can be reworded, the POV issue of including the statement of it being/only a parody MUST be REMOVED. It is POV and bias. It is nobodies fault that to reword it to remove the POV (something against Wikipedia's policy) results in the default issue of it then being called a religion passively. If you take issue with it, then reword it yourself to somehow remove it being justified as a religion ALONG with parody being removed (good luck).

Point of Interest: This is an issue. This article is here to stay. And from the degree of opposition from those with their own personal religious bias clearly visable as to their criticism, even hatred at times, of Pastafarianism being anything but written as unjustified as possible, it appears this issue will continue to carry on. Especially from the fact all the pointless anti-Pastafarian remarks from users on this board that deny the same remarks for "actual" religions are the very thing Pastafarianism mimics the hypocracy of.

What will happen when published, very respected articles or groups state Pastafarianism is an actual religion? Or famous/professional people being quoted on such? Things that are not mediocre sources and things you CANNOT ignore, even the admins and mods who passively, sometimes actively, contribute to the POV bias in direct contradiction of their position. No doubt the same ignorance on this board will complain about and revert any removal of it being a parody religion still. Do we really need to wait until it becomes a serious problem before fixing it? 202.124.88.19 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Removal of images

Any particular reason for removing two images? Edit description was "not worth the trouble". Not worth what trouble? Looking at them? Or was there some copyright issue or something? Yaris678 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Only one image was removed (another was moved and placed in what was the spot of the deleted image) and it was because of copyright issues. Mnation2 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the lead image

I just reverted the removal of the lead image. I disagree with the argument that unless we have OTRS confirmation, we cannot use 'Touched by His Noodly Appendage'. Firstly, the author states on his website that it is free to use by newspapers, etc. (I consider an encyclopedia to be covered by this) . Secondly, we have an email from the author that Wikipedia is free to use the image, without reservations. Thirdly, even if we reject the prima facie evidence that the author freely allows Wikipedia to use the image, there is a strong argument for fair-use, as a) the image is notable and irreplaceable, and b) we are displaying a low resolution version. LK (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cirt (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image review

  1. File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg - This sort of thing "only use on Wikipedia" is not really appropriate. Please go through WP:OTRS and try to get the author to confirm free use permission, perhaps under a suitable license such as "Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike". Also more helpful info at commons:Commons:OTRS.
  2. File:FSM Logo.svg - image at Wikimedia Commons, looks good.
  3. File:FSM Logo on bumper.JPG - asserted at image page as both "public domain" and "fair use"? This should be fixed, and either moved to Wikimedia Commons and free use permission confirmed with WP:OTRS, or not - or maybe just removed from the article and deleted. (Removed) Mnation2 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. File:FSM Pirates.png - This seems like something as well where the author could be contacted to release the image under a free use license. Replaced. Mnation2 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. File:Fsm book.jpg - Fair use rationale provided on image page, looks okay.
  6. File:Fremont Fair 2009 pre-parade 28.jpg - - image at Wikimedia Commons, looks good.

Cirt (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work on this in the next few days. I do have some questions:

1.) On the first image, File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg, this (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_permission_to_use) documents that the original painting has no copyright and is free to use. So, the "only use on Wiki" factor stems from Bobby Henderson, the holder of the (copyrighted) picture of the not copyrighted painting, correct? He is the one I should e-mail?

2.) Digging through this image (File:FSM Pirates.png) revealed that the graph had been replotted by a Wikipedia user to improve the image quality (I don't believe they licensed or formatted it appropriately for this however). As it only depicts and does not use the image, doesn't this void it of copyright requirements? And how can it be properly licensed to reflect this?

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. Yes.
  2. I would contact the uploader for further information and release on that particular version. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Both Henderson and the uploader of the second photo have been contacted. I am awaiting responses. Mnation2 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any updates on the above? Cirt (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. Mnation2 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether we really need Henderson's permission to use the first image. The painting is fully displayed on the original author's (Niklas Jansson) website, http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/other/fsm.jpg, with no reference to Henderson. Along with the statement "pretty much free to use for press and such as far as I'm concerned" (http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/), we already have Jansson saying "there's obviously no copyright for the original painting" documented on Commons.(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_permission_to_use)Mnation2 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
We really need that confirmed via commons:commons:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've replaced the other problematic image. Mnation2 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried emailing Jannson, the artist of (File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg) and got this:

"I'm not sure if the artist Niklas Jansson used to have this same email address, but currently you are speaking with wrong Niklas Jansson ;). If this email address is listed on some wiki page I would appreciate if it would be removed, because this is not the first time I have been asked about that picture."

So I've noted on both the image description on wiki and on commons that this is no longer the artist's e-mail. Mnation2 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that whole "permission" thing should be deleted entirely, and the image not used until the actual author can be contacted and confirmed by WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Mnation2 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The original art and email of the artist can be obtained from his website here. I believe that his email at gmail is according to the image, 'diglett'. (I'm being a bit coy about the email address because he is also, and I think he may not want it posted on websites where spiders can scrape it.)
But, come one, it's a GA review. We're not talking about FA (and even then, some FA use fair-use images). An image where the author has explicitly stated that it's free to use, should be perfectly usable in a GA article. LK (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_November_2#File:Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe we have consensus there that the image is ok to use with a 'fair-use' justification. LK (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But "fair use" does not mean it is okay to add an unconfirmed statement of "free use" at the image page. This [3] is wholly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 23, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  • Could use copyediting throughout. I would suggest posting requests to WP:GOCE, and to the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects - for some previously uninvolved eyes to do some editing.
  • Lede is too short. Could use some expansion to fully summarize the entire article and be sufficient as a stand-alone summary, per WP:LEAD.
2. Factually accurate?:
  • Duly cited throughout.
  • However, please reformat all citations using WP:CIT, inserting relevant information in the fields.
  • MakeRef can help with this.
I reformatted all citations that needed it. Mnation2 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?:
  • Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. This is partially a copyediting issue, but I would like to see these paragraphs expanded upon with material from additional sources. Particularly subsections Origins, Holiday, and The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • Missing - Subsection called something like Commentary or Analysis would be appropriate here. Has there been criticism of this phenomenon/movement? Praise? Analysis in scholarly sources or other media commentary?
4. Neutral point of view?: Pending addition of a Commentary or Analysis subsection.
5. Article stability? Seems to be pretty stable, no ongoing conflicts.
6. Images?: See above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be working on it. Mnation2 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to further points below here, and not interspersed above. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I have eliminated all one sentence paragraphs. Mnation2 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the lede long enough now? If not, what else should be included? Mnation2 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Per the request to WP:GOCE, I have spent about 2 hours running a full copy edit on the page. I feel the article was fairly good already, but did have some components that needed to be addressed. I feel its writing is now pretty solid. Feel free to respond either here or on my talk page if there are any comments or concerns. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Mnation2 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Other uses

The use of the FSM as a general reference to satire and parody. Blairius (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I see at the talkpg of Mnation2 that the copyeditor still has some unresolved concerns? Cirt (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are questions of mine to the copyeditor (not the other way around). Mnation2 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are in fact questions to me, not from me, and I will be addressing those concerns directly, and indirectly addressing others shortly. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have addressed the concerns in question. Pending a double-check by anyone, I think the grammar/structure is pretty solid. Naturally, I have not been doing content checks. I have merely been doing copy editing. I cannot vouch for anything beyond that. (NB: That's not to say the article has poor content, just that I do not have the expertise to judge the content, only the structure and grammar.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Further comment

It is really a nice article but I am still getting the sense that there is a lot more to be said about this topic. For example, critique and reception from the depictions of Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#The_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_in_media - expanded to pargraph form instead of the unprofessional looking bulletted list. Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Critical_reception - this section looks unseemly with all the over-usage of blockquoting instead of selectively working choice quotes into paragraph format. There has just got to be a ton more commentary and analysis to greatly expand upon sections Holiday, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, As a cultural phenomena, and Use in other religious disputes. Again I get the feeling from going over this that there is a lot more to be said, a lot more sources to be used, a lot more research to be done, a lot more room for expansion (which is a good thing, a fuller comprehensive presentation would really be great) :) Cirt (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That comment got me closer to a panic attack than I've ever been. If promoting this article to GA status is conditional on "a lot more ... said, a lot more sources used, a lot more research done, a lot more expansion", then GA will have to wait. In the past week, this article has been expanded by more than 30%. I'm spent, my holiday is over, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster will have to wait. :P Mnation2 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, um, wow. Totally unprovoked bad faith response there. I am suggesting ways to improve this article. If you are going to choose to respond like that, that does not foster a positive collaborative environment. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry as per your talk page. Mnation2 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. If there is an intention for more ongoing work I can allow some more time. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article preliminary requirement

The Narizny citation looked a little suspicious to me so I went and looked it up. [4] You can see from this link that this paper has not been published. It is a BA thesis for an undergraduate religious studies department. Because of this, it does not meet the WP:RS requirements. Now, it looks to me to be a well-written and accurate document, but it will have to be published to qualify for Good Article standards of sourcing. Shii (tock) 10:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case I ask that it be replaced with better sourcing, else the article will fail GA guidelines. That being said, what's the status on the review? Work's definitely being done on it but I can't tell how far it is, and it's been at GAN a long time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Pass

I see a significant amount of improvements from when the article was initially nominated for GA this time round. Excellent work. :) Cirt (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

" parody religion "

Any sincere Pastafarian would be offended by the word parody. There may be some. I think that wikipedia shuld not be deliberatly offensive to followers of any religon however misguided they may be. You may not agree : you should not offend .....mikeL 26-11-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.234.205 (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from doubt as to whether there are "sincere Pastafarians", Wikipedia does not avoid saying anything which someone or other might find offensive. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
---The guidelines do not sanction plain old fashioned rudeness. I am trying to express criticism without being rude to you. Thus you will not be offended.... yours mike. 23-12-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.234.205 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious that this article is intended to be offensive towards us hardcore Pastafarians, and calling our religious beliefs "parody" is extremely offensive. Would enjoy seeing the reaction if you went to Jesus and said he was the prophet of a parody religion. (Satire MAY be used in this edit) -- Powerchicken (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
See e.g. §25 of Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras (also reported by Plutarch). The miraculous catch of 153 fish is clearly a parody of this much older story. Hans Adler 13:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The word is not offensive, but "biased". Calling it parody carries inherent assertion that these beliefs are insincere. True, one could make an argument that parody is a literary term and has a clear definition, but let's face it: I can't edit the article for Islam to have it say "a parody of Christianity and Judaism". Neither can I call the United States Government, or Australian Government a parody of the United Kingdom. Certainly, they are imitations, but they are certainly not humorous (well... they are, but rarely because they are imitations). Each example doubtless involves imitation, but is also perfectly serious. To label Pastafarianism a parody is to imply that no Pastafarian is serious. As there are serious Pastafarians, this would make them heretics and hypocrites, which is a very biased comment to make given that they would disagree, and there is substantial reason to believe that they are sincere. Certainly, the term "parody" is deeply offensive to sincere Pastafarians. However, and more relatedly, it is also patently untrue. I do not believe value judgements and personal opinion of this sort have any place in an encyclopedia- unless an acknowledged Pastafarian cleric of high authority states that the religion is parody, the most that should be said is that some (as referenced in the article) claim Pastafarianism to be a parody.
To demonstrate that I am acting in good faith and out of respect to the editors and authors, I am merely polling support from the other contributors and will refrain from making any edits as of yet. Respectfully, Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this talk is a perennial troll-magnet. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

possible revision?

just because this issue comes up all the time, would it work to change the first two lines to read "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster were created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson as a satirical protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools." The fact that it's a religion, and a parody, are sufficiently apparent from the remainder of the text. any objections? --Ludwigs2 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for claims regarding pirate connection

Indeed, it is claimed in the open letter that the inverse relation between pirate numbers and global warming is statistically significant and the data is compelling. However, has the actual statistical test been made available somewhere? Can any statisticians on Wikipedia be so kind to perform it, perhaps?--Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pastafarian Heaven

The third sentence of the section entitled "Beliefs" states that Pastafarians believe in a heaven with a beer factory. This is incorrect. Heaven is host to a beer volcano and a stripper factory. Many thanks for correcting this as soon as possible.

Reference: http://www.venganza.org/materials/#brochures The first pamphlet outlines some of out beliefs including the discrepancy mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassafinn (talk • contribs) 05:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the first brochure at the URL given, and it does not mention the matter at all. If this is simply an error in the citation given then please give a corrected version: if it isn't then please don't waste any more time on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Citation for this is already in the very next paragraph in the article. here it is again, for those who can't be bothered to read a bit farther into said article. [1]

  1. ^ DuBay, Tim (2005). "Guide to Pastafarianism" (Shockwave Flash). Retrieved 2006-08-26.

--averagejoe (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above was about the reference mentioned above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, having a bad day. May you all be touched by His Noodly Appendage! --averagejoe (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Beer under the bridge. But I'm not gonna say "ramen". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Just a suggestion: The inclusion of subsects of FSM should be considered, I, for one, am a Rotinian. As a Rotinian, I believe that the world in general, and the universe, is a very screwy place. The shape of Rotini is the shape of the universe. There are other subsects as well. They deserve their own paragraphs. Cmjohnson65 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna use the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a sort of argument against the presence of conspiracy theory pages...

But considering I see that there actually is a page about it, that pretty much throws said argument out the window... Spartan198 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan198 (talk • contribs)

The subject is notable so there is a page about it. Your point?--LexCorp (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fortunate. Sounds like it would not have been the strongest of arguments.--Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ramendan?

Requested_articles/Social_sciences#Religion currently has "Ramendan - Holiday for Pastafarians".
If we can get a source on this, please add a mention to Flying Spaghetti Monster and make Ramendan a redirect. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found loads of references to this in blogs, forums, etc, and a few in social networking sites, but nothing in any reliable source, so at the moment it will have to stay out. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a paragraph on Ramendan (along with half a dozen other holidays) in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'll add it at some point. Mnation2 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Two suggestions

I want to raise here two (unrelated) suggestions that have come up in discussion with another editor at my talk page.

  • One is to have on this talk page a brief FAQ section, modeled on the more extensive one at Talk:Barack Obama, intended as an antidote to troll attraction. In my opinion, it's an excellent idea.
  • The other suggestion is from me. I'm concerned that the lead has gotten too long. As a starting point for discussion, I have just made some suggested brutal cuts, which I then self-reverted. Any cut material could, of course, be incorporated into the main text, if it isn't there already.

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.) For sure. This is my draft list of Q / A's


2.) Most of your cuts are fine and necessary to trim it down some more. I do think two thinks should be added back, though.

At the end of the second paragraph:
Pastafarians celebrate every Friday as a holy day; this is the holiest of Pastafarian holidays, which include Ramendan, Pastaover, and a vaguely defined holiday named "Holiday". should be returned. This is needed to introduce the "Holiday" subsection, which I will soon expand to include other holidays.
At the beginning of the third paragraph, an abbreviated bit about communal activities and the American Academy of Religion meeting should be returned. In my opinion, that is the most notable aspect of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it snowballed from a letter to a pseudo-religion with so many religious traits (aside from, you know, actual belief) that it received academic attention. I propose the addition of this:
On Henderson's website, now a hotbed for opponents of intelligent design, visitors can purchase t-shirts, trinkets, and bumper stickers and share pictures of crafts "devoted" to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Such communal activities attracted the attention of three religious scholars, who organized a panel at the 2007 American Academy of Religion meeting to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Mnation2 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all of that. My personal opinion is that the FAQ you created is excellent! Minor tweaks (done): In the question part of Q1, I would change "listed" to "described", and delete the "/" between the two questions (ie, have both questions together). If that works for other editors, then I'd say let's do it. For the issues about shortening the lead, I'd like to see what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm boldly moving th FAQ up. I'm still interested in shortening the lead of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I removed the content we both agree should be removed. Mnation2 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That compromise is fine with me for now. Thanks so much—and congratulations on passing GA! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! And thank you for all of your help along the way. Mnation2 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro and History

I read the Intro and then the History. I was reading all the same information twice. Would someone please remove all duplicated information. I do not want to have to read it twice. Also trivia in intro about buying T-shirts should be (re)moved. Kwenchin (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources for claims regarding pirate connection

Indeed, it is claimed in the open letter that the inverse relation between pirate numbers and global warming is statistically significant and the data is compelling. However, has the actual statistical test been made available somewhere? Can any statisticians on Wikipedia be so kind to perform it, perhaps?

I previously asked this but it was rolled into Archive 8. I nevertheless think information on this would be helpful.--Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is Archive 8? Can we have a link to talk archives amongst the above plethora of yellow boxes?
The statistical significance of the data is a rather moot point, since it's made-up data. As mentioned in section 2.1, the real point is that correlation does not imply causation. Even if it is significant, that doesn't really mean anything. The problem is that time is a confounding variable, explaining the variation of both variables better than the connection between them. By the way, I get p=0.003 with a simple linear regression of the data. Tayste (edits) 04:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
As at most talk pages with archives, you can just scroll up to the top, where you will see links to each archive. As with most moot discussions, sometimes it's best to just not bother. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether it helps, but at least in Google Trends, pirates are global warming show a consistent negative correlation: [5]. • Maurog • 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

After a read and a reread I feel compelled to accuse that this article has a bias favoring atheistic views to the exclusion of counter-points by those who are "of faith". I admit that my bias is toward the latter and therefor recuse myself from adding and/or deleting content, if only temporarily!My76Strat (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You would have no problem with allowing atheists -- and Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. -- to add counter-points to the article on Christianity? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would not object so long as the issue was balanced with attention to neutrality. In fact a balanced NPOV should preclude the actual transfer of their personal views so as to leave no impression as to the derivation of their faith. This may be hardest to accomplish if your own bias is so strong that you can not constrain it from dominating the article (see shibboleth). If this is so, it may be better to recuse as I have done in this case!My76Strat (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you give an example of the problem? At the moment the article even says that it's a parody religion, even though it seems to be well on its way towards a real religion and we generally don't use such accurate but disparaging characterisations when discussing other minority religions such as scientology ("is a body of beliefs and related practices" – doesn't even mention science fiction) or Christian Science ("religious belief system" – no word about pseudoscience). Hans Adler 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the article propagates the parody. It is an understandable fact that the work of Bobby Henderson was a parody against the Kansas State Board of Education, and should be included as encyclopedic content. But the article not only presents this fact; it reads in a manner which supports this thesis! By definition, "in contemporary usage, a parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation", a work which was strongly on one side or the other of a parody would necessarily antagonize readers from the opposite side of the issue. This has been accomplished with this article. The same article from a NPOV would present the information without antagonizing anyone. The fact that you mention other works, perhaps Christian, showing a similar yet opposite bias does not excuse the things I've mentioned, nor does it give waiver to the NPOV guidelines. It only indicates that these other articles may themselves need balancing.My76Strat (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that this article is not neutral because it could offend people? By that metric, every article that even vaguely relates to religion has POV. You say that a neutral presentation of this subject would not offend people. What specifically do you wish to see changed? Mnation2 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to say that I levy the accusation that this article has a bias which is delivered in the current form. I am also avoiding specific issues of content. If and when the time comes for me to demonstrate presentation of the same information from a NPOV, I will do so with a bold revision BRD, and discuss any criticism from there. While I remain recused I leave it to a broader consensus to determine if a controversy exists and how best to resolve it!My76Strat (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps your are taking the introduction, which characterises it as a parody religion, too seriously. It's there because that's what the external reliable sources generally say. However, there is plenty of evidence on the net that people actually live this religion. The human mind has a need for religion, and it can be satisfied by psychoanalysis, communism or a parody religion just as well as by a "serious" religion. OK, so at this stage probably most adherents of this religion don't actually believe in it on a certain level. But that's not different from many other "real" religions. The stuff that you can hear from some Christians seems to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that they are just pulling our legs with their stories about virgin births, angels dancing on pins, resurrections, water-walking, the world being created by some super-human in just a few days, wafers turning into human meat etc. Others freely admit that they don't actually believe all that nonsense but still go to church, pay church taxes and think of themselves as Christians.
Scientology started similarly. At first there was just a science fiction book, and then Hubbard tried if he could get away with building a new religion on it in which the story is pretended to be real. He could get away with it, and in the meantime the US has even formally complained to Germany for infringing the religious freedom of this new religion.
When Jesus was still alive it must have been similar with the Christians. ("You really think that guy is a prophet?" Followed by a disparaging remark about one of his features or habits.)
You may find it hard to believe, but this cult clearly exists, so we shouldn't pretend it doesn't. Hans Adler 22:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the complaint is that the article is claiming that a real religion is a parody religion. That doesn't seem to be the point. Rather, I think the complaint is that the page supposedly adopts a pro-atheism POV. I think it frequently occurs that articles that deal with religion and irreligion cause persons of faith to have concerns about POV. However, I don't see that there is a valid case here. The page includes responses by critics who objected to the FSM parody. The fact that the page describes a subject that has a POV does not mean that the page endorses (or takes any position) on the subject's POV. In other words, the FSM mocks some aspects of religion, but the fact that Wikipedia has an article about FSM does not mean that Wikipedia is mocking anything. For the NPOV claim to be valid, one would have to show, in a more specific way, how the page currently adopts a non-neutral POV, and I don't see that here. As far as I can tell, there is no broader consensus that a controversy exists, so I would urge the editor who has raised the issue to either provide specific examples, or withdraw the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it neutral to state within the article the following: "it was originally intended as a satirical protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools." The use of require is not supported by the references! My research shows that ID was to be offered and this has a much different connotation.My76Strat (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. It appears that the board did in fact require it [6], but only after the letter was written. I guess whoever wrote that sentence simply got the chronology wrong. I am looking for a reliable source that describes the event so that I can correct the sentence based on that. Hans Adler 05:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you all know that I'm removing the NPOV tag. There aren't really any specific objections here. There's a significant section devoted to Flying Spaghetti Monster#Critical reception already. The possibility of antagonizing people isn't really valid grounds for changing the article. If other people have specific objections, feel free to bring them up. And by all means, continue this conversation if you see anything else objectionable in the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The opening statement in paragraph 3 reads as such "On Henderson's website visitors can purchase t-shirts, trinkets, and bumper stickers and share pictures of crafts devoted to the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Honestly I fail to see the encyclopedic content in such a statement! It reads more to me like an endorsement. Of course I could be wrong for feeling this way.My76Strat (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It reads to me like a relevant piece of information for evaluating how serious this religion actually is. I wouldn't expect to read: "On the Pope's website visitors can purchase t-shirts, rosaries, and candles and share pictures of crafts devoted to Jesus". Not because it would be advertising or in any way positive, but because (1) it's very likely not true, and (2) if true it would give an incorrect impression of Catholicism. However, a description of the typical shops around Catholic pilgrimage sites might be appropriate; at least for me they make up part of the picture of that religion. Hans Adler 07:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The next sentence ("Such communal activites attracted the attention of three religious scholars, who organized a panel at the 2007 American Academy of Religion meeting to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster") provides it sufficient encyclopediatic context. The sentence describing his website explains why Pastafarianism recieved academic attention and also summarizes the "As a Cultural Phenomenon" section. Mnation2 (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I can imagine several ways to include the content which is encyclopedic without necessitating the mention of items for sale. If however the majority feel it is proper than by all means keep it as is. And should new items be included on the web site in the future, edit the article to include those new items as well. I still maintain the article is more about Mr.Henderson than it is about the deity itself. In fact, other than the opening sentence, there is little mention of the deityMy76Strat (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC).
I guess that properly reflects the way the topic is treated in reliable sources. And if you find a concise and accurate way to summarise the sales activities on the website, go ahead. I am not sure how to express it to get all the connotations right, so I can't do it. Hans Adler 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
After considering your request I made the revision which directly precedes this comment. I felt it required a little rearranging so I took liberty in that regard. I hope any fair observer will notice that I have not censored any of the content by omission. And yet I believe it is more balanced with such a presentation. There still remains other areas I think can improve and I will remain vigilant as well.My76Strat (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There is another misleading sentence from the article "Three board members, all of whom opposed the curriculum amendments, responded positively; a fourth board member responded with the comment (It is a serious offense to mock God)." To separate the comments in this manner reflects a distinction between the three said to be positive, and the one implied to be other than positive, perhaps negative. It is a false assumption that a scriptural rebuke is less than positive. For many Christians it is an act of love. To allow this innuendo is to promote it's premise. To me this is one of the more clear indications that this article was not neutral. The separation is deliberate and totally unnecessary with regard to the story purported to be told. I would be happy to correct this statement to reflect truth, neutrality, and fairness. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if another advises me that the sentence as written is more proper than what I am suggesting.My76Strat (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I think you are out of touch with reality. There is supposed to be freedom of religion in the US, and members of such a board are supposed to act in a religiously neutral way. When acting in their official position they are supposed to treat Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Satanists, atheists and FSM believers as adherents of faiths or non-faiths that are equivalent. The response shows that this particular board member is apparently unable to do that. It's a political incident and as such well worth mentioning. Hans Adler 06:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am puzzled by My76Strat's comment. The issue is whether the responses were positive to Henderson's letter or not, the issue is not whether or not the responses were positive to Christianity. I don't understand how My76Strat can interpret it the other way. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to accuse that I am "out of touch with reality" It sounds like a personal assault against the fact we disagree. Nevertheless if you feel it strengthens your position to attack me, continue the rhetoric. With regard to the comment above, I agree, I just don't feel the sentence in it's current form conveys the statements as effectively as for example your comment was able to do. For now it seems to teach what in general is positive and even more specifically an example of what is not. By the way This is going to be my last comment to this thread. If I am out of touch with anything it is the NPOV policy. It is obvious that the concept of neutrality is subjective and currently, my views are so inconsistent with the majority as to effectively be inconsequential. I thank those who were motivated enough to provide comments to this thread. It was interesting and at least I can say I learned a few things.My76Strat (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent reorganization

My76Strat, you are entirely correct to object to being called "out of touch with reality". There is no justification for anyone to make that kind of comment about another editor. However, I respectfully disagree with your recent edits. Above, in this talk, you raised the issue of the sentence about the three board members. Two other editors indicated that they disagree with your interpretation of that sentence. And now it's three, because I agree with them and disagree with you. The edits you made went way beyond what you discussed here. The page is currently a Good Article, and there has been no discussion of an extensive reorganization, so I reverted you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tryptofish here. The recent extensive reorganization was a mess. Although the lead is a bit over-long and can stand to be pared down, the recent reorganization put paragraphs and whole sub-sections under wrong section headings. As the article has been approved as a good article, I suggest going slow with any changes. LK (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
And a fifth agreement. The board-members comment was clearly not positive in regards to the subject of the article.  Chzz  ►  12:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article to me looks like someone is making fun of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.54.117 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Loose Canon Subsection

I'd like to request that the Loose Canon, a Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, be given its own section. It is a 203 page collection that has been underway for 5 years--since even before Henderson received the grant money to write the "Official" gospel. It's sets a huge precedent in Pastafarian history for the members of the church forum to have gotten together and written a book quite independently of our 'prophet'. I think it deserves its own little niche on the page, and my account is too young to edit the page.

And in light of the momentous occasion of The Loose Canon's completion, I think this page needs an update/

The LC is currently hosted at fsm-consortium, though Bobby H. may choose to have it hosted at the main Venganza site as well. At the same address you can find a brief history of its creation and all that. ((Note that Platypus Enthusiast, the force behind the movement's recent comeback, is Captain Jeffrey Cupo of the Rutger's Pastafarians in real life. Might be nice to give the real him credit instead of his forum alias. I asked him permission for his name's possible inclusion in a previous edit of this page, I haven't asked anyone else though I do know a few of those on the Council of Olive Garden....)) Ham Nox (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The only source given in Hamnox's post above is not an independent one. Is there any evidence of notability? The fact taht it is the first time "members of the church forum" have got together to do this does not confer notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Article subsections don't have to pass notability requirements. They only have to adhere to requirements about Verifiability, and due weight. LK (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
That's true, but on the other hand, I'm not convinced that it is "momentous" enough to justify all of that. It's not so much a matter of whether it's notable, as whether it's trivial. Reproducing every parody that's out there, in this article, is not really necessary or helpful. A mention, sure, but a section, meh. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The Canon is not the work of a splinter group - it's the work of the Venganza Forum Members,closely aligned to Bobby's original intent. The Venganza Forum preceded groups setup on Facebook, or individual blogs and has remained a close focal point for Pastafarians. The FSM Consortium was setup by a Forum member with assistance from Bobby Henderson. Where it lacks legitimacy at present is a link to Bobby's main forum page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.29.15.98 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah tryptofish. I headed up the Loose Canon project (the second council). I have personally talked to Bobby Henderson and gained his approval. It is an official Church project and is equal ground with the section on the Gospel, Holiday, or Global Warming. I don't know if you're a member of the Pastafarian community, but to us this is a big deal. So a little slack would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "slack". The community that I'm a member of is the community of Wikipedia editors. Whether it's a "big deal" to anyone editing here is not the point, and one should also consider WP:COI in this regard. What could make it a "big deal" is if secondary sources, independent of the Loose Canon project, say that it is a big deal. As the page is now, I think it is covered quite well, and certainly not underplayed. In fact, I helped format the quotes to look better, and all I really deleted was a narrative of the on-again, off-again process of compiling the Canon, which seems unlikely to be of interest to anyone who was not actually part of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Platypus Enthusiast's post above is pretty well a declaration that the intention is promotion of the "Loose Canon", as well as a completely unambiguous statement of a conflict of interest. Ham Nox also indicates that Platypus Enthusiast has a conflict of interest ("Platypus Enthusiast, the force behind the movement's recent comeback"). Nothing in what Platypus Enthusiast says addresses Wikipedia's criteria. Nor does 61.29.15.98'as post. Ham Nox's post refers to sources which are not independent of the subject, and also indicates a desire to promote ("Might be nice to give the real him credit" etc) and implicitly suggests a conflict of interest ("I asked him permission"). Also "I asked him permission for his name's possible inclusion" indicates a total misunderstanding of Wikipedia's principals: whether the subject wants or does not want to be mentioned in Wikipedia is totally irrelevant. In short, we appear to have a group of editors who have some degree of involvement with the subject and are pressing to give it prominence in order to promote it. Unfortunately this is totally contrary to the whole spirit of Wikipedia. Or, if you prefer a legalistic approach, is is contrary to several of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As far as Wikipedia's criteria are concerned, there is no evidence that the "Loose Canon" has sufficient prominence to warrant giving it this much weight. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm OK with the amount of weight it has right now, but I see no need to expand it further to create a new section on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right in that I don't have a very complete understanding of how wikipedia works, and I apologize for that. However, my beef with it not having its own section wasn't so much about promotion--there is the main site for that, where it will be more relevant--as it was about form. Where it is right now, it doesn't make sense. It is currently under a section about a very specific book: The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But it's not the GotFSM, it's an entirely different book. There is nothing to differentiate the two within the section, so it looks like it's just another paragraph about the Gospel. My immediate reaction was that it should have it's own section, since I consider it on par with the book by Bobby. But perhaps it would be better placed under the "Other Developments" section, until it gains the proper momentum outside of its origination to meet Wikipedia standards. ((No offense PE, but Bobby hasn't even updated Venganza yet, so it hasn't fully hit the mainstream yet or gotten any attention from non-pastafarians. I jumped the gun on this one--Wikipedia can't do a giant report about notable stuff before it actually becomes notable to the rest of the world. Thinking about it, I'd postpone this conversation till we're at least mentioned on the main page and a few big religious/atheist figures start blogging about it.)) 67.171.117.137 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about that. I hadn't thought about it that way, but they are two separate books, so the Canon is not part of the Gospel. I've corrected the headings to reflect that, with them as two subsections under "Books". But I think we agree that the Canon section is long enough as it is, for the time being. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

After some time, I'm having second thoughts about having three display quotes, as being too many (even though I was the one who formatted them!). What I'm thinking, instead, is to delete the ones in the middle and on the right, and only keep the one that is on the left, and to put it into an Rquote. What do other editors think of that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazing: an issue in this talk, and it does not result in strong opinions? Hearing no objections, I'm going to go ahead and do this. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I think having only one quote doesn't give an adequate 'feel' for the diversity of the Canon, also, it gives that one author too much recognition. I think we should have at least two quotes. I like the one on the left and the one on the right. The one in the middle is too long, and not very funny. I'm going to preempt, and make the change myself. LK (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I went ahead before I saw this reply. That would be OK with me too, back to the previous quote templates, but just deleting the one in the middle. No big deal to me, either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Got that edit conflict thingy. I pasted over yours, hope you don't mind. I'm using curly quotes, cause they look more like the Rquote template that you wanted to use. LK (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
How many edit conflicts can we fit on the head of a pin? Or something. I took it back to quote boxes, because I actually think that they look neater. Anyway, no problem, and none of this is particularly a big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Futurama season 6 episode 9

The flying spaghetti monster is briefly featured in Futurama season 6 episode 9 around 1 minute 42 seconds. That should be mentioned in the article I think. It says: "Hey, professor, I'm a flying spaghetti monster. You seriously believe I'm descended from some kind of flightless manicotti?" to which Professor Farnsworth replies "YES!" emgee (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd lean against including it unless it gets picked up by secondary sources. Otherwise it seems like trivia. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivial

An IP editor and I disagree about this: [7]. Strikes me as trivial junk (and unsourced). What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that another editor has agreed with me and reverted it. Good. I think it is clear that this was junk, and adding it back again will be vandalism if it occurs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Good decision by Tryptofish. PalindromeKitty (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the term started way before 2005

I can not recall exactly where I heard the phrase before. But I feel certain the "flying spaghetti monster" idiom was start way before 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterbyrd (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not what the sources we have now say, but if you can find sources for that... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious inaccuracies in the article

There are many inaccuracies in this article that need to be corrected as soon as possible. I am not going to take the time to list them all, but in several spots it openly claims a pastafarian view to be false. They have no evidence or sources for this. Very notable is in the opening section claiming that the decline of pirates is not responsible for an increase in global temperature. Some source should be required to make such a bold statement about a central belief to a mainstream religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnisking11 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

the first sentence

Please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page.

should it not state that not everyone believes it to be a parody religion that there are many believers out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleppy123 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that a significant number of people really believe it then it can be added.--Charles (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
This has been a perennial question in this talk, and almost always ends up being a matter of trolling. Please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

but i could ask the same for most other religions for you to find a "reliable sources to prove many believe in them, but I ask what is considered a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleppy123 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the hyper linking so ill just give you fall address http://www.venganza.org/join/ as you can see it clearly states it is a legitimate religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleppy123 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's Henderson's website. I guess humor is in the eye of the beholder. Is Borat a real person? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't say if he was real or not, nor could you, that is the problem with your request it is impossible to prove that someone believes in him or if they are lieing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleppy123 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the problem with your request, as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It is very simple. If it cannot be proved that people really believe it we don't put it. That it was created as a parody can be proved.--Charles (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok I believe in it how do I go about proving it to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleppy123 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Who cares?--Charles (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, who ever keeps changing it from saying that people believe in it; to its fake must care or they would leave it be. Also that a bit uncaring Charles are you not interested in correct mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleppy123 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people believe the moon is made of cheese. In spite of what they may believe, Wikipedia will not publish this potential because we know in fact it is not. Likewise, we know from published sources that this religion is a parody. Also please remember to sign your post to talk pages. Cheers. My76Strat 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well frankly, I could say that Christianity is a parody religion. If you give me a survey that says that 30% of the population are believers. I could say it is flawed and not a reliable source. Reliable is in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, I don't like mine and many others religion being mocked by saying it isn't real.206.255.120.62 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Also taking this from the last part of the Joining Pastafarism on Henderson's site "FSM is a real, legitimate religion, as much as any other." 206.255.120.62 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
While you could say anything you want, you could not insert it into an article unless, quite frankly, a reliable source substantiated your claim, lest it be original research. These are the Wiki way. Cheers an happy editing. My76Strat 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Parody Religion" in the Description

This is ridiculous. This article, and the amount of Wikipedia users denying strict policy in favour of personal bias they justify with a simple "no, it is parody, obviously, because it obviously is", should have drawn enough attention of rule abiding admins and moderators by now...but alas it seems we are saturated by those who seem to think the rules do not apply to them because, as I state again, "obviously I don't need to back up, it obviously is a parody".

No, im sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. In fact it was specifically designed to cease such ignorant bias that can easily be refuted by the other end of the spectrum of their opponents providing the exact same reasoning for justification to.

Let's look at the problems and facts.

- The origins of Pastafarianism have no baring on a Wikipedia article about whether or not it can be classified as a genuine religion or belief system without having a pointless "parody" tag added onto it at every instance. As per the rules. So even if it can be sourced and established that it began as a parody religion, it has no weight in flat out declaring it has no actual religious followers or is not an actual religion. It can ONLY carry weight if there are no sources to refute or criticise that stance AND (not just or, but 'and') that stance is backed by an, unprecidented to, stance that it could never be anything else. Which would be entirely original research as such sources do not get to define what constitutes a real religion. So on top of carrying no weight regardless, the origins of Pastafarianism being a parody hold about as much weight as Scientology being originally a scam. We are not, in any way, allowed to change the description of Scientology to "a scam religion", yet are allowed to do so here for no other reason than many users "just say so". Nobody has said that Pastafarianisms parody nature should not be recognisd in its history, however as Scientology, it can NOT be included in the description. And there is far, far more sources (verified and meeting Wikipedias standards) that it was created as a scam religion than there is for Pastafarianism as a parody. And as such it is included in various points on the criticism/controversy pages of that series of articles.

Conclusion: The origins of Pastafarianism do not define it's current status and supercede it as a religion and/or belief system. It is against Wikipedian rules to establish they do so as it contradicts every other religious articles definition based on it's origins and history.

- The repeated, again and again, statements of "it is a parody religion, don't pretend it isn't", "obviously it's a parody, everyone knows that" and other variations including "nobody actually believes in it genuinely" in response to the continious outrage at the bias, the allowed bias, in this article is a huge problem. Almost all of the time, after many users specifically abide by Wikipedia policy and bring up discussion on the change of the article, the usual, most of the time ONLY, responses given as to why such a POV and bias thing (against Wikipedia policy given the facts) should be allowed is with responses like "people don't actually believe in it". That's nice. However, users on Wikipedia do not get to decide the legitimacy of a religion because they personally do not believe in it. We do not allow various sects of other religions to go around and define religions as parodies or "not real religions" simply because they personally do not believe in it. It is AGAINST THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA, and the rest of Wikipedia would be outraged enough to disallow them that bias, POV power even if they had majority on that article.

Conclusion: That you personally do not believe that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion, or that it is a parody, that does not justify editing or reversing the article to represent the view it is a parody. That is against the rules.

- Sources detailing original research in relation to Pastafarianism being a parody religion. If the source (read: so far all sources) you are presenting as justification to continue the "parody" status in the description or edit it back to that contains original research, it REMAINS original research. You can include it in criticism or history per a single persons oppinion, if you insist on stretching the rules. As such, regardless of the sources for it being a real religion (as I shall discuss below), decribing it as a parody is not the default. In fact, given Wikipedia standards in relation to articles given similiar justification, the default is that it is a relgion.

Conclusion: Unless a source contains factual information detailing a non-subjective reason why it is a parody and not a real religion (yeah, good luck finding that), it is original research. In effect being some published person detailing the same ridiculous bias of "well, I think it's obviously a parody, I provide no proof of that, but my statement it is should be enough to define religion real or not...despite the fact such has never been done so in the history of human kind" that many users are doing. As it is against Wikipedia's rules, the sources given so far by users justifying their edits that it is indeed solely a parody carry no weight. They have no place as sources for the POV and bias on this page.

- The issue here does not seem to be that is must be justified as a religion but that the users who edit (and vandalise) this article to remove any reference to it being a belief system or religion, opposed to those who refuse to include anything about it being a religion or belief system without then adding on "parody" unjustifiably, are doing so because they think it not be specifically decribed as a parody religion somehow justifies it as a religion "being true".

Final Conclusion: Given that no justification, according to Wikipedia's rules, has been given for including parody in the description, it must be removed. The issue seems to be that the article needs to be REWORDED to exclude not only parody but also any "justification" as an "actual religion". Until the article can be reworded, the POV issue of including the statement of it being/only a parody MUST be REMOVED. It is POV and bias. It is nobodies fault that to reword it to remove the POV (something against Wikipedia's policy) results in the default issue of it then being called a religion passively. If you take issue with it, then reword it yourself to somehow remove it being justified as a religion ALONG with parody being removed (good luck).

Point of Interest: This is an issue. This article is here to stay. And from the degree of opposition from those with their own personal religious bias clearly visable as to their criticism, even hatred at times, of Pastafarianism being anything but written as unjustified as possible, it appears this issue will continue to carry on. Especially from the fact all the pointless anti-Pastafarian remarks from users on this board that deny the same remarks for "actual" religions are the very thing Pastafarianism mimics the hypocracy of.

What will happen when published, very respected articles or groups state Pastafarianism is an actual religion? Or famous/professional people being quoted on such? Things that are not mediocre sources and things you CANNOT ignore, even the admins and mods who passively, sometimes actively, contribute to the POV bias in direct contradiction of their position. No doubt the same ignorance on this board will complain about and revert any removal of it being a parody religion still. Do we really need to wait until it becomes a serious problem before fixing it? 203.59.114.15 (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Putting aside the possibility that you are trolling, your position not only shows you've missed the point of FSM, but it also illustrates the very same problems of logic that the FSM was intended to highlight.
The FSM and its associated 'religion' are indeed parody, and we can say that with confidence because we know that the inventor himself (I hesitate to say 'founder') openly stated his intent. Still, they are parody with serious purpose: they're to challenge the unquestioning credence given by some to ideas of intelligent design. That's the sole reason anyone's ever heard of FSM, Pastafarianism, the Noodly Appendage, or any of the other elements so well-used in attacks on religion. - 82.132.248.137 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Troll": This is your first and only warning on that. Insulting users because you cannot come up with an argument against them is not going to fly.

"It's a parody": I see you also have refused to read my post, where I I detail this in full. Nobody, ever, has suggested that it's use as a parody and history be omittted from the article. Only that it's description, which does not reflect it's definition and flies in the face of established policy in regards to other religions articles, not define it soley as a parody. If you have a problem with that I suggest you change policy (which you clearly won't be able to do), since it flat out supports us in this matter.

"We can say that with confidence": Ah, and again the "argument" for vandalising the article as "parody" in the description comes down to "well, it just IS, cause we say so". Try again.

Everything you've poorly attempted to respond to me over I have addressed, in full and in GREAT detail, in the post you replied to. Do not vandalise the article unless you can provide a compelling reason why the description should solely refer to the religion as soley a parody. Especially since consensus is against you. 203.59.114.15 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Guys... this discussion is closed. We have reliable sources stating that it is a parody religion. As was established well above, you will need other reliable sources stating otherwise in order to change that section. This discussion is quickly devolving into personal attacks, and it needs to stop. Please either find reliable sources to back up your position, or let it drop. Either way, please stop contributing to an archived section. Jesstalk|edits 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. Discussion is "not closed". Discussion has been an ongoing debtate since the creation of this Wiki, with users like yourself flat out ignoring the rules of Wikipedia and declaring "it should be called that because I want". So far the declaration that it is soley a parody has been rejected by sources and by Wikipedias OWN RULES. So to instantly revert, despit the clear fact being presented that it needs to be removed in accordance with Wikipedias own rules, is VANDALISM. And please, before you attempt that ridiculous fallacy, so far the only people using personal attacks have been those demanding parody be included.

Also, do NOT attempt to use that pathetic fallacy of "we've sourced that it's a parody". We've just IN DETAIL explained that the parody aspect is to be included. We've EXPLAINED AT LENGTH how the religons begining as a parody should be included. However none of that changes the fact that as it is not SOLELY a parody religion, to declare the entire thing to be parody is not only against the rules but the repeated insta-reverts are clear vandalism. 124.169.173.59 (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

The section has been reworded. It does not in ANY REMOTE WAY push POV. And it SPECIFICALLY goes on to point out it began as a parody religion. Any reverts without justification will be reported as clear vandalism. 124.169.173.59 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Undid vandalism by user Lawrencehoo. If this continues I may look into sockpuppetry of those two users, as an organised insta-revert effort seems to be prevailent regarding that one sentence, but currently no evidence exists to establish such. However they have both been warned now, both told to discuss reasons for their "edits" (ie: vandalism) on the talk page. 124.169.173.59 (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Reverted vandalism by user: Timotheus Canens. If you have a reason for deleting sourced NPOV material and writing up a POV sentence in it's place, explain why on the talk pages. You will be reported if you vandalise the article again. 58.7.149.88 (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Strangely every time a user is reported for vandalising the opening sentence of this article or coming close to reverting three times in a row they are "mysteriously" replaced by another user who also vandalises the exact same sentence and refuses to explain why on the talk page. Gee, I wonder if they are sockpuppets *rolls eyes* Reverted vandalism by User:Millahnna. No talk page consensus has been achieved, so neutral wording will be restored. Which regardless the only debate has been regarding the use of the word parody, which is included in the sentence you vandalised. You've got no leg to stand on and if you continue to automatically revert without explanation you will be reported. 58.7.149.88 (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

That old NY Times article also calls it a parody. My edit was hardly vandalism. From the FAQ and the previous discussion in the collapsed box above, it seems clear that the consensus was the other phrasing. I'll leave it be and let those who have been watching this page far longer than I deal with it. Had enough of unwarranted accusations this evening, thanks. Millahnna (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should learn to read. As well as point out in what possible way the specific mentioning of it as a parody was NOT included? Hmm? Because, as I read it again, it appears that the fact it began as a parody is very much SPECIFICALLY included (and sourced) in the sentence you reverted. And don't pretend to get all offended. Reverting a sourced, NPOV sentence without explaining why on the talk page after other users doing the same have been repeatedly warned IS vandalism. I'm sorry if you, somehow, weren't aware of it but perhaps you shouldn't automatically revert something without checking up on it first. 58.7.149.88 (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Hardly offended, just highly amused. Parody is sourced in either version, it's the legitimate religion aspect that has yet to be sourced. The NY Times article that is different in the version you prefer, and seems to be intended to source it as an actual religion, in fact, notes that it is a parody religion. Millahnna (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

- I think that the parody part should be removed, as the creator himself says that it is not a parody religion, but one with many serious followers. See http://www.venganza.org/join/. "FSM is a real, legitimate religion, as much as any other. The fact that many see this is as a satirical religion doesn’t change the fact that by any standard one can come up with, our religion is as legitimate as any other. And *that* is the point." Even despite this quote, it's wrong to refer to it as a 'parody religion' when it is in fact considered by many to be a genuine religion.--Matt2224 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

bandwidth

This is clearly not a page that gets many simple comments but I was sceptical about this: "...used about 700 gigabytes of bandwidth per month.[16]..." Reference 16 no longer mentions bandwidth but I find 700 Gb/month to be pushing credibility. Are there any other sources supporting this vast bandwidth? Mtpaley (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably not use that source at all, since it fails WP:V, at least without archive information. We could delete the mention of gigabytes. Does the number of hits seem reasonable, at least? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Or, could that GB per month be referring to a sort of cumulative bandwidth, like if one multiplies the bandwidth per day by 30 days, or something similar (as opposed to the instantaneous bandwidth at any given time)? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Found this on http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter-discussion/ "To date (July 2010), the venganza website has received tens of millions of visits" so 350 million hits cant be right either. Mtpaley (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Good. Also, the url you found differs slightly (slash versus hyphen) from the one that had been in the reference on the page, which explains why the link was bad. I fixed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Parody? This is a bigoted article!

I came to this page hoping to read more about the evolution of the FSM faith, but I just see Pastafarian beliefs being denigrated as a "parody religion". This is extremely offensive to the hundreds of thousands of people who were drawn to FSM for its humour, but now see it as a evolving into a serious religion.

Shame on Wikipedia for your bigotry!Gymnophoria (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the problem may be that people need to spend a bunch of time rewriting and codifying the differences between the original parody/political statement letter and the belief system that sprang from it. Perhaps you have some ideas on how to accomplish that to more accurately portray how this movement turned into an actual non-parody belief system? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 04:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No, actually this is just a perennial at this talk page, a parody discussion, if you will, as a review of the archives will show. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster/Archive_8&oldid=1136732332"