Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 2

message: Discuss the merge of the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster into Flying Spaghetti Monster here. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would leave it seperate.  Since the book just came out and the article was just started, I see it expanding, and then it would likely be broken off again.Rt66lt 03:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep sepreate--E-Bod 04:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep it separate. Fosnez 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Tis best be left separate matey.--146.244.137.240 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be unfair, and a blantent contradiction in policy to not keep them separate --metta, The Sunborn 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I was redirected from "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - was it decided that an article on the monster itself is not warranted? --jp3z 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Flying Spaghetti Monster really isn't notable outside the context of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, which generally means that a redirect rather than a separate article is indicated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Flying Spaghetti Monsterism really isn't noteworthy without the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so what's your point? If a fictional entity is noteworthy solely for having a religion based on it, but the character's name is much more common than the religion's name (and thus more likely to be searched for) than the religion's name itself, why have the article under the name of the religion (63,500 hits) rather than the entity (641,000 hits — more than ten times as many!)? Until FSM and FSMism are distinct enough to merit two articles, which will probably never happen (unlike God and monotheism), the dominant name should be used—Wikipedia naming policy says to use the "most common" name, not the "most inclusive" one. And even if this article is framed as being about the Monster it will still have all the same information, since the religion is based entirely on the monster and associated characteristics and actions (like the creation of the universe). In the same way, if the God and monotheism articles were both such small stubs that they didn't yet merit distinct articles, then we'd just include all the information on "monotheism" within God, because God is a much more common term and it's hard to clearly draw a line between a fictional entity and the beliefs surrounding that fictional entity. -Silence 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your point seems to be that the article we have which covers both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism should be at the former title rather than the latter.  You seem to think I'm opposing that point, but I'm not; my point is that, as you say, FSM and FSMism are not yet distinct enough to merit separate articles, and until that is so, one of those two titles should be a redirect to an article at the other.  I myself don't have terribly strong feelings about which is the better title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we more or less agree, but my comments weren't really directed especially at you, I was just taking advantage of your comment to voice my opinion on the matter (and seeking clarification on what you meant in your original statement, which you've now explained). Whether you disagree with me or not, I'm sure someone disagrees with me, or this page wouldn't have been moved back to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism after a previous discussion resulted in its being moved to Flying Spaghetti Monster. -Silence 03:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would like to make the point that Pikachu has an article outside of the Pokemon articles, yet is irrelevant outside of those topics. Once the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is released, I think that it would only be fit to create an article on the FSM with information revealed by said Gospel. To do delete that would be unfair, and hypocritical. 24.76.102.140 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blatantly false analogy. A better one: If there was a relatively minor pseudoreligion based entirely on Pikachu called "Pikachuism", wouldn't it be better for it to be a subsection of Pikachu rather than a distinct article? The only reason there would be to split "Pikachu" and "Pikachuism" up would be if the article itself grew exceptionally large, such that it necessitated a daughter article to syphon off some of the information. But, of course, since Pikachu is by far the more common of the two terms, even if Pikachu had been invented by practitionesr of Pikachuism, the article would be called "Pikachu". Saying "Pikachu is to Pokemon as Flying Spaghetti Monster is to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" is a huge distortion. A more accurate comparison would be, "Pokemon (the fictional species) is to Pokemon (the franchise) as Flying Spaghetti Monster is to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", since that accurately denotes how closely-linked and utterly inter-reliant the two concepts are. The only difference is that in the first example, the same word is used for both concepts ("Pokemon"), whereas in the latter example, there are two different words to be used: Flying Spaghetti Monster (the 10x more common term) and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Which means that the "most common usage" policy comes into play, and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism should redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster, not the other way around. -Silence 15:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion vs. Actual Monster 

message: This component of the theory highlights the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation.
Isn't that somewhat redundent and uninformitive? I wonder what is really ment by this? Mike92591 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It means exactly what it says: it is not logically correct to assume that a correlation necessarily implies causality. -Sidar 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That sentance makes sense to someone? News to me (anonymous/to lazy to log in)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)
Just because you don't understand something yet doesn't mean it's nonsense. 24.22.58.51 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible miscommunication 

message: Pirates have been making a comeback in 2005 and 2006. The majority of the pirate activity (at least the most newsworthy pirate activity) seems confined to Africa. --70.189.120.111 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Software Pirate" was most likely termed by large companies and organizations to refer to the act of replicating computer files which surely is not akin to murder, pillaging, and plundering on the high seas.  What remains is the notion that true piracy or at least the frequency of piracy tales has declined. --Paul Vreeland 17:53, 18 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfft, of course the number of pirates is decreasing, in every sense of the word. Just like the number of atheists! -Silence 06:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea whether that claim about the relative number of atheists is actually true (do you have a reputable source for it?). Even if it is true, so what? It hardly means the theists are necessarily right, any more than the fact that Crazy Frog ringtones probably outsell Mozart ones by several orders of  magnitude means Crazy Frog is a btter artist than Mozart.  --Archstanton 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of pirates ''decreasing''? 

message: I read about the pirate fish. What is it?
:A pirate fish is the official emblem of FSMism. It has gone through a few design changes, but the current one is the fish resembling a skull and crossbones. --Omnieiunium 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pirate Fish

message: Do you support creating a separate article for His Noodly Appendage the Flying Spaghetti Monster? --Revolución (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. The ideal option is to make Flying Spaghetti Monsterism a redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster, since FSMism is less than a tenth as common on Google search (which is relevant with such an Internet-ingrained phenomenon) as FSM itself. The second-best option, which is acceptable though not nearly as good as the ideal option, is the current one: having Flying Spaghetti Monster redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. But in either case, splitting the article is a terrible idea. The religion and the central creature of the religion are too deeply connected and interrelated. Plus the current article isn't yet long enough to merit a split: if enough information ever does accumulate on the FSM itself, say in a couple of years if this fad is still thriving, maybe we'll make one of the subsections of this article about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and have a main-article-link for details. But I find that unlikely, and either way the current state of the article is better than unnecessarily splitting it, and worse than having it at the most common name, by far the most-searched for), and most clear name for the phenomenon. -Silence 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: regardless of google hits, the fact of the matter is that there is only so much that can be said about the FSM. If you want to devote an entire article to the FSM, chances are it would be more appropriate on the uncylopedia than the wikipedia. I strongly believe that the contents of this article suffice for the purpose of talking about 'his noodly appendage.' If an entire FSM article even were written, I predict it would fairly quickly be merged into this article.Shaggorama 11:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: separate article

message: "Sorry, but why is this content any more like a 'joke' than any other religion?"
:Because it's satirical, humorous, and deliberately absurd. Most other religions are only absurd by accident; being a parody and being false are distinct concepts. -Silence 09:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moved comment from article

message: I have rewritten the opening paragraph and deleted large amounts of this article as it is fancruft, and therefore not encyclopedic. Shoehorn 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted fancruft 

message: Shouldn't this article remain NPOV?  The wording is harsh to those who believe in the religion. -WAZAAAA 01:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic does not qualify as a religion by any reasonable standard. Come back in a few years, and if you haven't been distracted by some other Internet phenomenon you can claim it as your religion. Shoehorn 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article is best in its current form. To act like it's a serious religion with a notable amount of practitioners is misleading. - Stoph 03:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does it not qualify as a religion? Surely the only difference between this and, say, Christianity, is that one has more followers than the other? They both have a deity, followers, and a 'holy book', so to speak. Alexrushfear 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as one who adores the FSM, I do think it's obvious that FSMism is a parody. Yes, the FSM is "no more or less fictional than any other deity," but the difference is that we Pastafarians actually believe that our deity is fictional. If there's still concern over NPOV I suggest you be clearer about what exactly what is POV about the article. --Singkong2005 08:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it is obvious it is not a parody. This kind of statement does not constitute argument. Care to source your claim that pastafarians believe him to be fictional, or are you just making original research? It is POV to claim it is a parody religion unless you can source it. It is POV to put the FSM in fictional deities and joke religions category. PHF 05:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I deleted the quotation marks around the word "followers" from the text that originally read 
"The "followers" of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are called Pastafarians. Pastafarians occasionally describe FSM as a real religion, though this somewhat negates the original intent of parodying intelligent design."
I felt this was in the interest as neutral point of view, as the following of FSM is no more or less real than the following of any other deity. Pastafarians beliefs are different only because they KNOW that their god is fake, as, they believe, are all deities. (Pygmypony 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed Fosnez 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I dont know if it is fake or not, nor do I know if the followers think it's fake. Can you source that claim, or are you just going to cite yourself as original research? PHF 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Are we going to have to lock this page?  I'm getting tired of people flipping it back and forth from satire to religion.  -sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006
:Since the intro currently neither calls it satire nor religion, I had held hope this issue could be put to rest. Currently, the intro tells us that "the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the subject of a satirical website created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution." Nothing more, nothing less. No ridicule, no undue weight. -- Ec5618 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a protection  might be worthwile. The article has been reverted about twenty times today, so a protection might cool the debate.  Husky (talk page) 23:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please I ask you to read please do not pretend FSM is serious before doing something that is a great disservice to the FSM movement. Pretty please, meatballs on top? The FSM community will thank you for treating the message of FSM the way it must be treated! Weregerbil 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock for editing? 

message: Just Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster"... this is what you get:
"Satirical critique of the intention of the Kansas school board to teach intelligent design in schools as an alternative theory to evolution."
That's the link to the original site, www.venganza.org.  what's the first word?  SATIRICAL!!!!  
-sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006
:The critique itself (that is, the act of critiquing) was satirical in nature because unbelievers would obviously not allow teachers to teach about the FSM. They want to teach one theory (ID) because of their religion, which they perceive to be true, but w/r/t the FSM they exclude teaching the actual Truth as they do not believe in it - all of which is highly ironic and thus worthy of satire.--Wasabe3543 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pirates at my Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster study group told me that Bobby Henderson was afraid of being persecuted for his faith. That is why he added the words satirical to the website.--146.244.137.240 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Creator of FSM's opinion?! 

message: To me, trying to call FSM an actual religion is breaking Wikipedia:No original research. Just because a tiny amount of people believe something, doesn't mean we want to include it. What are your sources for saying FSM is notable as an actual practiced religion?
Also, restated: Most people realize the true value of FSM is its satirical value. To treat it like a real religion actually goes against everything FSM stands for. - Stoph 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to prove that FSM is a real religion, your more than welcome to do so on wikinews, which allows OR, or ideally in a theology journal.  JeffBurdges 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: As a christian, I can honestly say, this about the funniest damn thing I have ever seen. I'm a little astounded that there is so much genuine debate and concern about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People seem to be overanalyizing (and missing) the joke. Slimdavey 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...  There was even a moment where they mentioned it on CNN.  They showed a cropped version of the "creation of Adam" parody (where it says "touched by his noodly appendage" and shows the FSM reaching out to the nude Adam, think the original was by Michaelangelo); only it was cropped to only show the FSM, not Adam, so the point of the parodical image was lost.  The accompanying description was equally short; they said that Bobby Henderson had demanded that the Fly (sic) Spaghetti Monster should be taught in schools, too.  They said it was a "joke", but never mentioned that it was intended as a critique of ID.  Apparently that level of description was just too much work for CNN.  The best part, though, was the cut immediately afterwards to a rather confused-looking Wolf Blitzer.  Empty suit, blown mind.  Kasreyn 23:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity and the FSM 

message: Didn't there used to be a sentence in the introduction saying that, logically speaking, FSMism is a reductio ad absurdum?  Why was this removed?  It's neutral, correct, and provides a deeper understanding into the topic.  Discuss.loodog66.240.10.170 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly because the editor (remover of 'reductio ad absurdum') thought that that phrase implied FSMism as criticizing other religions instead of the teaching of relgion as science?  I don't know, though, I didn't edit it -VetteDude 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reductio ad absurdum 

message: I thought Pastor, but they already exist in Christianity. Anyone know?
:According to Auntie Dee Dee on the forums, this is the structure:
Pasta--leader of a congregation
Bishop--oversees several congregations within a geographic area
ArchBishop--for when there are more groups that the Bishops alone can deal with
Pastriarch--Head of the Pastfarian church in a country. Very large countries may have Vice Pastriarchs -VetteDude 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do they call their clergy? 

message: Looking at the comments above, it is obvious that there is a dispute on this article's state of NPOV. It cannot be said that there is no dispute, because people are writing here that they do dispute that the article is NPOV, and others are posting that they dispute that the article is NOT NPOV.
I mean, two sides holding different sides of an argument is obviously classified as a dispute.
Regardless as to if you feel this article is NPOV or not, please realize that there it IS under dispute. Guspaz 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note that in the same edit, I also attempted to fix the POV status. This might have been a mistake, but many posters above suggested that anyone adding the POV warning should also attempt to fix it. If you want to revert my attempt to fix it, go ahead, but that is independent from the POV warning. So then, in that case, do a partial revert, not a full revert. Guspaz 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-warning added 

message: Wow, check out this letter, really puts down all those Pastafarians believe, eh?:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2005/09/15/the_church_of_the_flying_spaghetti_monst
199.111.88.238 13:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around to hear it, does anyone give a shit? Fosnez 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does everyone ignore the guy when he says that it is not to be taken as a religion, but as a parody of one? ColdSalad 14:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I Don't think it's a matter of it be "taken as a religion", but rather, that no one can say its a "silly religion" and still ask for I.D. be taught in schools. Thats it's point. Fosnez 14:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.  The guy who wrote that letter is a complete and total idiot.  It's actually rather amusing, in an utterly pathetic way.  One wonders what university would accept such a mental midgit.  Kasreyn 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Criticism 

message: FSM, along with Church of the Subgenious, seem to be the most evangalistic parody religions.  It'd be good to have a section on it, I'm sure you can get lots of photos of people in pirate costumes standing on streat corners.  Thoughts?  JeffBurdges 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelism 

message: I think this one would make a fine featured article. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured artcile

message: This is without question, the best article on Wikipedia.... haha... EZZIE 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WOW

message: I own the "Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster", could I add a bit to the “belief” section without someone coming in behind me and erasing the entry.
--BarnhouseEffect 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster appears to be in more need of expansion than this article section. Femto 09:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does. I'll keep it as NPOV as possible, and avoid giving it credit as a real religious text to appease the wiki-zealots. --BarnhouseEffect 14:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to Belief Section

message: The citation numbers currently don't work. Shawnc 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations not working 

message: Yo. I'd like to see this reach GA status, mostly to tick a handful of pretentious kids that sit across from me in Theory of Knowledge class. Anyway, here's what has to happen, in my opinion:
* The one criterion that is inflexible is image usage. :Image:FSMshirt.jpg needs to have its tag fixed. Otherwise, all images are okay.
* We need to figure out once and for all whether we are going to call the movement a religion, a satire, or both. I personally think that if there are people that believe and exhibit faith, then they are believers. Just like Sufism and Zoroastrianism, which don't have many vocal followers, it's a small religion, but it has embraced the Internet and become a large phenomenon because its central tenets follow the same non sequitur lack of logic that is inherent in many Christian beliefs. Don't get me wrong (I'm personally Catholic), but there are believers, like my website's administrator, and we shouldn't marginalize them.
* The giant list in the "Beliefs" section should be turned into prose. Enough said.
* We should consider whether or not to merge over and summarize sections of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, Christianity and Islam have sections on their scriptures.
* ???
* Profit! (Actually, this step would look something like .)
Who's with me? - Corbin Be excellent 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA todo list