Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 7

message: Explain that non-believers!  Xulorg
::Thanks - fab photo!  Sophia 10:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just creepy... I'm a believer!! SGGH speak! 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait.... this is by NASA, we could use this somewhere :P SGGH speak! 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Glorious, I love it:P
Mr.troughton 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA captures the Flying Spaghetti Monster on film! 

message: Found this template for anyone interested in using it petedavo 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edited for format + added  version) --h2g2bob (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I have added the alternate name "Spaghediety" to the article due to it's occasional use throughout the Gospel of the FSM to describe the FSM. ---Osho-Jabbe 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term gets 12 google hits. Do you have any reliable sources? Please see WP:NEO. Weregerbil 10:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On page 25 of the Gospel of the FSM, in the chapter 'What's the Matter with Evolution?', there is a section near the bottom of the page titled "The Spaghedeity." Which, aside from being an instance of the term 'spaghedeity', also contains usages of the word within the section. ---Osho-Jabbe 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to triple post but, would it be acceptable to re-include the term spaghedeity in the article? I believe it gets pas the reliable source test, but am hesitant to add it without a general consensus on whether the term could be included. ---Osho-Jabbe 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you cite it to the "gospel" itself there isn't much a need to build a concensus, as it becomes pretty indisputable fact, go for it. SGGH speak! 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaghediety 

message: The old version of the pirate graph was switched to a shiny new verson. While the new version looks better, I'd like to switch back to the old version which is more authentic because to comes from the Open Letter. Would anyone object? --h2g2bob (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less (skull and crossbone) is more (noodly goodness), no objections here.--Alf melmac 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good - I'll change it --h2g2bob (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pirate graph image 

message: Several details are repeated multiple times. I think the article could stand some cleanup. Marzolian 17:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's too wordy 

message: As you all may already be aware, :Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, including :Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word.  — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians]] 

message: Hey guys. I don't even know where to put this on the Talk page, cos it's huge. But anyway, if you're going to mention Krishna on the page, would you mind being accurate? "Hare Krishnas" isn't the name of the religion. It's Vaishnava. "Hare Krishna" are two words out of one of our mantras. So if you're going to go there, and i don't know why you did, you may as well be respectful in your disrespect by using the right terminology. And if you're just trying to be funny by throwing in buzz words, would you mind not? Starting misinformation mudslinging to prove atheist points with people who don't want to be a part of it is just rude. Thanks.Joyan 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambig link to International Society for Krishna Consciousness - Nigosh 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't cite wikipedia pages, that is just circular Dkriegls 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here , Use of the term Hare Krishnas as a group is correctDkriegls 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is it ALL Vaishnavas who go around spreading lies about pirates, or only the Gaudiya Vaishnavas? After all, we wouldn't want to go around spreading misinformation...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hare Krishnas 

message: I've removed the following text, added by :
* A lawyer made reference to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a footnote to a legal document filed in the New York County Supreme Court:
I can't find anything about it online, and it isn't specific enough to verify by other means (such as by getting the court documents). I've asked 68.167.19.18 where the info came from, otherwise it should probably be removed. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In legal doc 

message: With all the debate over whether or not this should be cited as a proper religion, as some users say that people actually claim to believe what is considered by others a parody religion, I wondered what peoples' thoughts were on creating a section in the article about the claim that some people believe it and are insulted by it's parody status?
Mr.troughton 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not.  Things that happen on WP talk pages are not notable as topics for main space.  So far, as has been pointed out above, there are no reports of such thoughts except self-reporting by outraged, typically anonymous IP address editors here.  That does not constitute verifiable information.  I'm sure you suggest it out of a generous motive to display all viewpoints, but WP:NPOV is not about displaying all viewpoints.  It's about displaying all viewpoints which are noteworthy and can be verifiably sourced.  Cheers, Kasreyn 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Kasreyn took it as such. I oppose for the same reasons and sincerely hope that the people claiming to really believe in FSM just don't know when to stop or spoil a good satire. Cheers. Malc82 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy: It's Own Section? 

message: I've made some edits to the page: most is moving stuff about, but I changed a few bits too. There are one or two bits I should flag up:
* I added that it is a Reductio ad absurdum argument. Googling suggests a fair number who agree with me, but I haven't found an authoritative source yet. Please post your thoughts on that claim.
* The Kansas evolution hearings - I assume these are the ones referred to at the start of the Open Letter ("I am writing ... having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution."). The letter was sent January 2005, and the hearings were in May 2005, so it looks like the dates fit. However, confirmation on that one would be useful.
Yours, --h2g2bob (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More things I changed 

message: :Image:FSM logo2.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:FSM logo2.svg 

message: The Reductio ad absurdum, otherwise known as "argument by contradiction" or "proof by contradiction" in mathematics, means that you assume a statement to be true for arguments sake, logically derive a contradiction of known truth from the "assumed true" statement, and thereby prove that the "assumed true" statement cannot be true.  I read the open letter, and it best presents a few false analogies and straw man arguments.  If you can actually give the statement that is being "assumed true" and the train of logic which leads from this "assumed true" statement to a contradiction of something known to be true, then fine.  Otherwise, don't call the letter a Reductio ad absurdum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, though, a Reductio ad absudum, because it mimics the same claims by the Christian apologists it targets for ridicule, changing the wording and 'evidence' slightly to support the existence of a flying pasta deity. You see the same claims of 'planting fossils,' the same selective information interpretation (in the pirates vs climate graph), and the like. Apologists 'assume' these arguments are truths that favor the Christian-Judeo God. This letter hijacks the arguments in favor of the FSM. -EarthRise33 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously not a Reductio ad absurdum, as you would know if you looked at the definition on Wikipedia 

message: Please use the talk page before deleting people's work. For example, some of my work was deleted where I tried to correct a spelling error. Wolfdog 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's cool, I corrected a few of the remaining errors that you mentioned. -EarthRise33 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please... 

message: The x-axis apparently is intended to indicate a decreasing number of pirates over time (to the right), but the first two numeric labels are, left to right, 35000 and 45000. Was this a slip by the originators, a deliberate glitch to conform to some actual statistics on piracy, or a deliberate glitch to satirize the common error of manipulating data to support one's position? The fact that the x labels start out as almost arithmetically linear, but then become more logarithmic, suggest the latter. (I went to their site, but it's a long procedure to register, get introduced, etc. Hoped someone here would know.) Thanks! Unimaginative Username 05:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually a deliberate glitch to not even conform to actual piracy statistics, but rather to demonstrate that causation and correlation are not one and the same. -EarthRise33 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, how do you know that it was a deliberate glitch? TMLutas 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Bobby himself has commented upon it. -EarthRise33 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you supply a link for that? I'm not challenging the fact, I just want to read it so it's not 2nd hand. TMLutas 13:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a hard time finding that particular comment. In the meantime, consider that Bobby remade the graph with the same axes: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/   -EarthRise33 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering... considering... nope, still don't get the relevancy of his having remade the graph to the question of whether he's careless (not researching) or purposeful (deliberate glitch) in his error or some combination of the two. I think that there's a certain inelegance to a 'joke' by a scientist complaining about scientific sloppiness that is itself sloppy in its science. It would be worthy of note. TMLutas 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that caption below the graph that is currently there is yours, then I'm good with it. "Chart comparing Number of Pirates versus Global Warming. The labels on the x-axis are deliberately misleading." -EarthRise33 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur. It achieves the same purpose TMLutas is pressing, without the POV contamination. -EarthRise33 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with it. TMLutas 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the numeric glitch in the pirate chart deliberate? 

message: Although Pastafarianism is a fantastic relgion, it has one thing completely wrong.
Global Warming is not due to the lack of pirates, but the lack of penguins.
Penguins generate cold, and due to them dying out, the world is becoming warmer.
I take this as a misprint.
L
Lauriedix 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your religion, not Pastafarianism. -EarthRise33 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where they got it wrong 

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

message: "makes a mockery of the concept of an intelligent designer"
No it doesn't. It makes a mockery of the negative-proof argument for creationism, IE the false dilemma fallacy. "We don't like some of the evidence for theory A, so the answer must be magic". The idea is that there is no more proof of Christian creationism than ancient greek mythology, or any other creation myth, which includes, for parody purposes, spaghetti monsterism. Furthermore, there isn't really any "positive proof" evidence provided for creationism.. just criticism of evolution. I wouldn't even say FSM is a mockery.. it's just a parody. It uses the exact same logic and argument.
The entire intro sounds POV to me, not just this "error" which says that FSM mocks the designer. (When in fact it mocks the fallacious logic behind CLAIMING that there must be a designer.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.109.131 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV intro 

message: please remove the pic of Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH), as FSM donot give the permission of doing this.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.148.70 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, I think that that request for image removal was made by someone attempting to be funny (no comment on whether they succeeded in that regard) and not a legitimate request.  As far as I can tell, there is not a legitimate reason to cut the image and plenty of good reasons to keep it around.  --MisterB777 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

message: With Bobby Henderson redirecting here does that mean this page must be held to BLP standards?MikeURL 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond his notability as the creator of the FSM and his subsequent media appearances, is there any information about Bobby that could be used to make this a BLP segment? -EarthRise33 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Information about a person must always be held to BLP standards. That is not an excuse to act paranoid about information tangential to the person. Try to be reasonable about this JoshuaZ 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that I have heard nothing about Bobby Henderson's upbringing or lifestyle beyond his a) parody religion, b) media appearances, and c) unemployed physics grad status. I've no source for it. -EarthRise33 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Information about Henderson must be well-sourced since he is a living person, and BLP applies to any details about him. Does that clear things up? JoshuaZ 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with BLP. Sorry if I gave the impression I was opposed to such information. I'm asking what we should do if no other info is readily available. -EarthRise33 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then we don't add any other info. I mean, in general we shouldn't add info that we can't verify, right? JoshuaZ 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I shall fall silent. -EarthRise33 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google's cite of Wikipedia apparently knows more about Bobby than Wikipedia does. I looked for 'Bobby Henderson' + born and got July 18, 1980 (1980-07-18) (age 26) Roseburg, Oregon, United States. -EarthRise33 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion.  I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics.  More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar.  I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion.Laberdere (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP? 

message: Are we sure that BoingBoing's offer was made in reference to James Randi's offer concerning supernatural abilities? I was under the impression that it was solely in reference to Kent Hovind's challenge, an association that is more relevant to the FSM's sociopolitical position. -EarthRise33 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's cool, I'm erasing it for lack of supporting material. -EarthRise33 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  $1,000,000 

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

message: First time I heard the term "Pastafarian" was in a Russell Peters standup bit - "What you get when an Italian and a Jamaican marry". And this was before 2005. So I gotta ask, is it possible Henderson had that word in mind when he invented the FSM? --Fshafique (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - Now that belongs in the article itself. Meinsla (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "Pastafarian" 

message: A friend of mine, an artist associated with the Church of the Subgenius, passed along an article from CNN that indicates that FSM is getting some academic attention. This is not a topic I'm particularly interested in working on myself, so I am passing this along; it should be a useful reference, and someone may want to follow up to some of the individuals involved.
*  Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster, Associated Press / CNN, November 16, 2007.
-- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN seems to have eliminated that link, now, but the text can still be found here. Tim Ross·talk 12:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic attention 

message: This article will eventually need to be amended to address the offensiveness and perceived bigotry associated with this subject. Like it or not, many people react to this concept as am implicit statement of anti-religious hatred, not comedy. The article is almost entirely positive in its portrayal, which is not a neutral POV.
:1: The judge who ruled on the Dover Cove case needed to be placed under federal protection for his ruling which was neither comedic nor anti-religious (nor hatred) in any context (except it didn't admit Intelligent Design).  So we must accept the notion that this article will always be (even if it actually is) too positive and dismiss any non-constructive claims it is positive and all because it will always be perceived by some as offensive and anti-religious as easily as a neutral judge was targeted.  Any perceptions might be too clouded by irrational POV and any complaints would obviously need to extensively examined as a few bad eggs with no ability to make sound rational judgments may be around to further muddy the waters for those of us with clear heads or legitimate enhancements. Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2: This article should not be any more offensive to any particular religion than it is to any other group that are more centrally involved like the Kansas School Board, Kansas, or American, etc.  This was originally not a Parody of God or Religion as much as it was a retaliatory response to the subversive attempts to circumvent the system and (re)introduce "Intelligent Design" a rewritten hack of creationism into a school curriculum.  Most of the offense was taken by defenders of Creationism not necessarily by any particular religion, but any offense in removing "God" and replacing it with "undetermined force" should more offensive to more people (including even some religious people in having God taken out of the equation indifferent of the supposed good intension) than removing "undetermined force" and replacing it with "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking 

message: I deleted the Uncyclopedia link. There was no reason for an Uncyclopedia link to be in there. If you feel I'm wrong, please re-add it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.4.115 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this here, it's also a good idea to put a brief description or reference to "see talk" on the edit summary. It didn't seem a bad idea to link a parody of this parody, so I've restored it, but not a big deal either way. ... dave souza, talk 11:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Added Category:Creator gods
Pingnak (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I removed it. Much as I love the FSM this is a parody so does not belong in that particular cat.  Sophia 08:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After some thought, I put it back. There are 74 other deities so listed, at least some of which seem to have no more substance than FSM (perhaps less). Since part of the FSM story involves creation, the cat does make sense. Tim Ross 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of the word 'substance' in this context amuses me. The cat definitely belongs here. 144.32.59.199 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Why was the reductio ad absurdum aspect of FSM removed from the article?  What was the justification?
--Macrowiz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, Pastafarianism is not a reductio ad absurdum, based on the true (and not oft quoted) definition of the reductio. -EarthRise33 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you be less simpler?  What are the true and oft quoted definitions? --Macrowiz (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the oft quoted definition is, "If a line of reasoning can be used to deduce an absurd conclusion, then the line of reasoning is incorrect." RAA, or proof by contradiction, involves assuming that which you aim to refute and deriving via logic something contradictory or otherwise impossible. In other words, "FSM doesn't prove or disprove anything - it only contends that neither do similar arguments made in support of the traditional YHWH hypothesis, which is thus incomplete. Put another way, proving something unproven is not the same as disproving it." (to deliberately plagiarize the words of two users in a past thread.) -EarthRise33 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reductio ad absurdum 

message: :Discussion from my user page, moved here in date sequence for information. .. dave souza, talk 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of popular culture and fiction it's certainly a reasonable source, but even the best news magazines have gossip columns, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy requires particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, high quality references are required, and the article must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The statement that his creation provided a "financial windfall" for the (at that time) unemployed grad indicates a violation of WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and is a sensationalist way of saying he got an advance as an author, as is the NYm subtitle for their article "The $80,000 Pasta Bible Jackpot for unemployed slot-machine engineer and heretic" –  the web page title is the more reasonable "The Case For Intelligent Design: Spaghetti as the Creator". The point about him getting the advance is already covered in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster section of the article, in reasonable terms. We don't seem to mention him being unemployed or a slot-machine engineer. If you think that's worth adding to the body of the article, put the case on the article talk page, and try to find another source. However, it's my opinion that this isn't significant enough to put in the lead, which should summarise material in the body of the article, and it certainly shouldn't be presented in a sensationalist way. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Magazine is a reputable "popular culture" reference and not simply a "gossip column" 

message: [cross-posted from User talk:Snalwibma - I don't understand why it was placed there instead of here in the first place... It's a response to this edit. Snalwibma (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see how Henderson's employment status is relevant to the subject of the article, and the suggestion that he did it for the money while a lowly slot-machine engineer who couldn't get a job looks like a gossip-column-based slur. The source is indeed a gossip column. No doubt "valuable information" if you wish to cast the FSM and the motives of its creator in a certain light, but hardly balanced and neutral. Snalwibma (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Intelligent Design page, this is stated and upheld (by admins) as germane: "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity" and also, "consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience." These are *facts*, but they cast "the motives of its creator in a certain light". Bobby Henderson as a physics grad is important, but him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer isn't? If him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer casts him in a "certain light", then the mention of him being a physics grad also casts him in a "certain light". The point is, both are FACTS, and both are GERMANE. The source is NOT a "gossip column"... according to Wikipedia *itself*:  Your views about Bobby Henderson and your desire to "cast him in a certain light" are not at issue, what is are FACTS, and the fact is that not only was he a physics grad, but he was also an unemployed slot-machine engineer. Both are true, both are germane.Supertheman (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I could be persuaded that his physics degree from wherever is also irrelevant. Snalwibma (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed previously on my talk page and posted above for information, WP:BLP requires particular care, and while the NYm no doubt carries worthy news stories, this does seem to be a gossip column putting a spin on the situation. The amount earned for undertaking writing the book is already shown in the article, further biographical details should appropriately appear in the body of the article rather than the lead, with good sources rather than gossip columns. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I have gone ahead and shifted the detail about Henderson's background and employment status from the lead to the body of the article. What do you think? I'm still not convinced of the need to include this material, given the WP:BLP policy, but at least it seems better balanced in this position. Snalwibma (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's going to be in, it should be set in context, so I've put the point in date sequence and expanded it a bit. The FSM website sidebar shows the Gospel with a blurb from the Scientific American "Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny", so unemployment's not a big deal. The NYT noted that he'd stated on his web site that he was desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas", and the subsequent reports appear to have spun this as "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". Bit of a cheek, really, since scientists are by no means engineers, as my son (doing mech eng) would tell you if he was here himself. Anyway, it's worth reading Henderson's Feb 02 blog about how he's spending "a lot of time trying to avoid a Real Job". :o) . .  dave souza, talk 11:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, that looks much much much better. Thanks. All seems to make perfect sense now, and IMHO it looks reasonably fair and balanced - but I only wandered in here by mistake, and I'm a semi-unemployed biologist, so of course I'm not really qualified to comment, given that a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility ... Snalwibma (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, given its provenance the statement that he was "desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas" may have been a joke – do they have slot machine programmers? The subsequent reports of him as a slot machine engineer may have had some other source, or may have been typical journalists spicing up their story, or may just mean that, like some people, they had no sense of humour. Who can tell? .. dave souza, talk 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a world of difference between being "a physics graduate" and being "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". The first is a simple matter of fact (either you are or you aren't). The second, as Dave souza has shown, appears most likely to be a slightly tongue-in-cheek (or possibly mischievous) interpretation of a humorous remark by Henderson himself, an expression of a feeling more than a matter of fact. In which case it seems entirely appropriate to say that he was the one and was described as the other. If you think he is not really physics graduate, by all means add a "citation needed" tag, or some such (though personally I think it would look rather silly). And no, I will not go and attend to the intelligent design page. Do it yourself if there is something there that bothers you! Snalwibma (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (repeated from above, relevant for discussion here) The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion. I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics. More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar. I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion. Laberdere (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As he has now written and published several books on various aspects of the FSM and Pastafarianism and is probably coining a small additional fortune from the worldwide sales of various related items, how about instead we refer to him as an "author and successful internet entrepreneur"? One suspects he will be able to live very comfortably for the rest of his life and in some luxury, without the hassle of ever having to get a real career. Time will tell on that. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's WP:OR, unless you can cite a WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, did you think I was being serious? I was just taking a jibe at this nonsensical and tortuous discussion about his employment status. Although I still don't think he will ever need to work again on the back of this money making opportunity. The man is not daft. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was assuming good faith. It appears that my assumption here was misplaced. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The creator of The Flying Spaghetti Monster 

message: I'm reading Dawkins' God Delusion, and on page 53 he says "by the way, it had to happen - a Great Schism has already occurred, resulting in the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."  He cites the following website:(Link to LULU removed, it was blacklisted).  I also found the Reformed Church of Alfredo: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Church_of_Alfredo.
I think the trend should be mentioned in the article.  The other organizations may not be officially "recognized" by the main Church - but that only helps the analogy to other religions.  Whenever new sects split off of a larger religion, they aren't recognized, in fact they are typically denounced as heretics.  Also the mention in Dawkins' book I think qualifies it as academically noteworthy and not original research.  Thoughts?VatoFirme (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I was just thinking about this yesterday.  I think it's noteworthy enough of inclusion.  Kit Berg (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If it was just based on Uncyclopedia then definitely not, but as Dawkins does mention it it ought to be worth a sentence or so. Hut 8.5 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schism 

message: Does anyone else think it might be useful to have a page for Bobby Henderson's biography, distinct from the Flying Spaghetti Monster page? Tim Ross (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt it. You'd need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, and all sources mentioning him will probably only give trivial mentions connected with the FSM (and hence a redirect here is more appropriate). Hut 8.5 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate page for ''Bobby Henderson''? 

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

message: This commentary by an anonymous poster on Slashdot concerning the article Hubble Survey Finds Missing Matter, Probes Intergalactic Web sums it up best:  It is a noodle like structure. FSM 1 ID 0.   I assume by ID he meant Intelligent Design and not the Freudian construct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you saying there is a connection between Pastafarianism and String Theory?  Newell Post (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Universe as a bunch of spaghetti strands 

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

message: Now, as much as many users here dislike it (and they do, at great length, regardless of whether their personal feelings against Pastafarianism followers can conform to Wikipedia policy or not), the repeated criticism and complaints by users over whether this is a "real" religion or specifically a parody needs to be settled.
I propose a section on the "Non-Parody" following of Pastafarianism. As while the founding denotes parody, its successive existence has taken on an entire new meaning. Now, whether the current incarnation and its "sects" (if any) may also in fact be parodies, they being actual legitimate followings may also be true.
While obviously a working title ("Non-Parody Following"), I propose that if such a section can be sourced according to Wikipedia policy, as with the rest of the article, confirming that it indeed does have a non-parody following, it allow that following and their beliefs on Pastafarianism/FSM to be referred to as a legitimate religion/religious/belief movement as is seen in any other article on "cults", religions or dogmatic followings. Without of course the ever present problem of revertation. 
In this way, both the fact Pastafarianism was created and continued as a parody will be met, along with the continued problem of its actual legitimate religious aspects to people not being be met. As its creation as a parody can be mentioned easily alongside its actual legitimate practitioners.
It seems the "parody" religion itself meets all the requirements for a genuine article on a religion, except for its founding as a parody, which holds no weight on what its current incarnation is or considers itself, hence the problem of editors reverting its mentioning as a legitimate religion on the basis they believe it is not (sorry but "I think its not" or "people believe its a parody" isn't a legitimate reason why those who do practice it as a faith are not legitimate) rather than presented sources for why ALL of its practitioners are just lying and EVERY follower (even in the face of users testifying to the opposite) is playing along with the parody. We go through the same problem with the Xenu section on Scientology, and if we were to find out today that Scientology began as a fake religion (no wise crack guys, im making a point on what constitutes a "real" religion) to make money, we would still not be allowed to designate it as a scam.
So that is it.
I propose a section on the non-parody following of Pastafarianism. Only, and I repeat, ONLY if the section itself provides LEGITIMATE and RELIABLE sources for sections of the "movement" being a legitimate religious following outside of its parody beginnings.
I propose this so we may find out who is opposed to such a section and who is in agreement with it as a way to solve this continued problem of parody Vs. religion. I propose this so a section can be created without an edit-war by overzealous editors immediately reverting or deleting any mention of it as a legitimate religion because they believe its vandalism.
Yes/No?
This is just a courtesy of course, if a section can be created in accordance to Wikipedia policy that establishes a legitimate non-parody following, many editors will have to deal with it. Just as many so-called practitioners will have to deal with it if reliable and legitimate sources cannot be found to establish it has actual non-parody followers, which the problem so far has been attaching those sources to cover the entirety of Pastafarianism not being a parody (which cannot succeed). 60.230.201.144 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources saying the FSM is a parody religion, and until someone finds sources saying it isn't the article is going to say it is a parody. Hut 8.5 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: The image of the FSM creating trees, mountains, and a "midgit" should be included, and described. Badagnani (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per , watermarked images cannot be used (or i'm pretty sure they can't be). --MattWT 11:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing 

message: Is this image possibly relevant to your interests? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: As shown by http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4285201.html there has been an increase of pirate activity in the latter part of 2008. This coincides with recent drops in global temperature. See: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/ This continues to show "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation"
Please at least READ the information before reverting changes. Please consider it for less than a quarter of a second.
You have a section on showing "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation"  There is then a graph on the increase of global temperatures and number of pirates.
1. So we have an increase of pirates recently.  READ THE ARTICLE above
2. We have a decrease in global temperatures. READ THE ARTICLE above
I am not vandalizing, I am showing the that there is still a correlation even when the trend reverses.  Thus still showing the "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation"
You may want to refer to:
Number 3 of the The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"
:3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.77.93 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not vandalism: The trend still holds 

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

message: Perhaps it is not clear what my dispute is.  Not the word Parody, but the word IS.  Is should never be used in a scholarly paper, since it is a conclusion that must be proven.  Having references and citations that support a hypothesis does not prove something is anything.  It supports that it may be what the author asserts.  Knowing the Earth was the center of the universe did not make it so, back in the middle ages.  There were plenty of sources asserting the Earth centered universe.  When astronomical proof demonstrated the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around, it did not change reality.  Writing in absolutes, gets a red circle in about any academic paper turned in.  
it can be cited that many world religions consider others to be cults or fakes.  That does not make any of them more or less so.  That 1/5 of the world is Muslim does not make it any more correct than the 4/5 that are not.  --K3vin (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See sophistry. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and :E-Prime, suggest a construction of the data in such and see it floats people's boats, but there's a hell of a lot of articles out there needing e-priming.--Alf melmac 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about matters of verifiability and fact here.  I think E-priming articles is an awful idea.  If you think this is a good idea, you should take it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) first rather than beta-testing it here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I should have put a :p or something by that last bit, I was suggesting K3vin wrote that one line in e-prime to see how it looked... --Alf melmac 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

message: ::All Reliable sources requires a pretty heavy burden of proof.  I just did my standard citation search on the subject just to see if I could find a diversity of opinion.  I have found non-judgmental examples, giving "good faith" attention to the subject at hand.
--K3vin (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by involved parties

message: *"The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created in 2005 by computer scientist Bobby Henderson" - 
::
* 
*"Why shouldn't we comment on God, as scientists? And why isn't Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, equally immune from scientific scepticism?"
::
*Afshin Beheshti, PhD
::“As a scientist I believe that when presented with a new idea every possibility should be considered so we can eventually find the truth. It would be very biased if the only possibilities presented would be regulated by some authority. As a scientist I am biased towards the theory of evolution, but this does not mean that everyone should be forced to only learn this and believe this. Putting this aside, I feel if the government feels the need to regulate what students need to learn, then all ideas should be taught in school. Not only Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught, but the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) should also be taught. In my scientific opinion when comparing the two theories, FSM theory seems to be more valid then the classic ID theory. There is more data to back FSM then I have ever seen for ID. The graph which was presented should alone more convincing then anything ID has ever presented. I endorse the FSM theory.“ –Afshin Beheshti, PhD
::
*"That reality may include God, or the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - we won't assume any specifics from the outset. ."
::
 
*"You could worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster,1 or Zeus, or the Morrigan, so long as you did it with respect and love".
::
--K3vin (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these sources appear to contradict the assertion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was constructed as a parody.  What is needed here is a direct statement "FSM was not constructed as a parody religion," along with enough substantiation to make it plausible.  The burden of proof is a heavy one, given that one would need to overturn the fact (as far as it goes) that the religion was developed as a parody of Creationists' attempts to have biblical creation ex nihilo taught alongside evolution in science classrooms.  It would need to be shown that this was not a parody, and that there is some actual evidence of a religion having existed prior to the lampooning of the Kansas City Schoolboard.  None of the sources you cite comes remotely close to addressing these issues.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

text: This is all hand-waving. Do you have reliable sources that assert that this is not a parody? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely not. The standard on Wikipedia is WP:V. And even if you we  had a reliable source saying that K3vin takes his FSM belief seriously we'd still have massive undue weight issues. The bottom line is that we have multiple reliable sources including the New York Times calling this a parody religion. Without reliable sources asserting otherwise this isn't helpfu. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I apologize if I come off insincere.  I have strong opinions when it comes to freedom of religion.  That this may or may nor be a parody is not my point of contention.  It is the declaration of such.  Where is the line drawn on what is considered parody.  Is "al Keida" (sic) a parody of Islam?  Are "snake handlers" a parody of Christians? Is "spiritualism" a parody? are the "anti-Missourian Norwegian Lutheran" synodites a parody of the Evangelical church of Germany?  At what point do we stop following popular opinion and just keep opinion to be silent, or declare it opinion?  Thats what I am doing.  To anwer, yes I am, in good faith,  trying to make WP better by not allowing declaritive statements that clearly are not from a neutral point of view.  --K3vin (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you at the definition of parody: "work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation". None of your counterexamples might be considered a parody. As both reliable sources and common sense will indicate, FSM is a parody. — Matt Crypto 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

message: *I'd hesitate even to call this a parody religion.  it seems to be satire, pure and simple.  When Tina Fey plays Sarah Palin on SNL we don't say that she's a 'parody vice presidential candidate'; she's doing a parody of a vice presidential candidate, and there is no suggestion that she might actually be a vice presidential candidate in her own right.  likewise here - the FSM was created entirely and specifically to ridicule a political movement by applying its logic in an absurd way; we should not suggest it was actually ever considered a serious religion.  at best, I'd say something like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is character created as part of a satirical attack on the intelligent design movement in the US. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also known as "Pastafarianism", was created by...".  --Ludwigs2 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making a judgement that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies. Objective3000 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Objective3000 - no, I have a rather low opinion of the Intelligent design argument.  however, ID (as silly as it is) rests on the tenets of a well-established religious perspective: it was not intended as a mockery of anything (though I dare say it was a manipulative political gambit that has little to do with faith).  the distinction I'm making is between an argument that's made which serious intent (and there is no doubt that the Christian far right was/is seriously concerned about the damage evolution theory does to central tenets of their faith), and something which is intended as sarcastic or sardonic humor.  different language games entirely...  when person A makes a serious attempt to do or say something utterly ridiculous, that's embarrassing or pathetic or annoying.  when person B acts like person A in order to point out how utterly ridiculous what person A did was, that's (hopefully funny) satire.  --Ludwigs2 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was not refering to Intelligent Design. I was refering to religion in general. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Well, even so, Ludwigs2's comments are still apropos. Sincerity, or the lack of it, is what distinguishes a parody from what is parodied. In particular, something is not a parody merely because it's false, or absurd, or distasteful. To be honest, I believe this is obvious to everyone. The only reason it's debated here regularly is because people want to push the joke as far as possible, motivated by a desire to lampoon religion. What's fine as a joke, however, is not appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia. — Matt Crypto 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's just that they want to push the joke.  there are a lot of people out there who just despise religion (and religions have, historically, given some pretty good reasons to be despised...).  the problem is that a lot of these people see their position as objectively true (usually through a reference to some scientific or rationalistic understanding of the world), and can't quite accept that what they have is merely a perspective on a far more difficult question.  but, whaddayagonnado?   Objective has backpedalled to the point of saying that he thinks all religion is self-satire, but we obviously can't include that perspective (since we're not going to find reliable sources that agree with it), so let's go ahead and revise the lead and be done with it.  --Ludwigs2 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, where did I backpedal or say anything was self-satire? What I am saying is that FSM is a parody of religion in general, not ID in specific. And that a judgement is being made that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies. Objective3000 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but in fact religion in general does not fall to the level of the FSM, either in satirical intent or quality of reasoning.  saying so would imply that primary sources like the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, the Buddhist scriptures and Hindu vedas (as well as innumerable religious and philosophical secondary sources) were all written with humor in mind, and are not ever taken seriously by anyone.  that assertion flies in the face of common experience, and makes light of the millions of deaths that have been caused by religious warfare and persecution, and of the billions of people who have looked to religion for salvation.  Further, there's no reliable sourcing to the effect that the FSM people were criticizing religion as a whole - they were quite explicitly focussed on the Intelligent Design movement and its political efforts.  Don't get me wrong - I appreciate your belief that religion is absurd, and I'd even agree with you to a limited extent.  however, if you want to make that claim on wikipedia, then find some sources that make the point, and argue them in on the article pages of real religions. don't use the Flying Spaghetti Monster article as your personal vehicle to make a point that you can't make in more appropriate places. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think my statement was very clear. Yet you keep misinterpreting it. 1. I did not say religion in general is satirical. 2. I said nothing at all about my own beliefs. 3. I am not trying to make any personal point about religion at all. Please stop reading things into my very simple statement. That is "You are making a judgement that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies." Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, that's definitional.  it is the nature and purpose of a parody.  --Ludwigs2 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: As the person that began this string, I want to re-emphasize my position.  It is not' that FSM is a parody, or that religion is a parody.  But that just because many objective resources says it is, is not enbough for a neutral point of view document, such as Wikipedia to say it is, within the context of its firsty paragraph.  Any reader can discern for themselves without such labels, whether or not they take it seriouesly.  I state again support for my position is cited in the refernece secion itself,  where accredited institutions of higher learning classify FSM as a religion, negates any assertion that All reliable sources claim it to be parody.  WP:Weasel words has been brought up.  ALL is beyond recognition in a world of infinite opinions.  --K3vin (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no source which casts any doubt on the (entirely obvious) fact that FSM is a parody. Move along. — Matt Crypto 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: without supporting the current lead (which isn't so good), please note that issues of context and wp:weight come into play here.  if in fact there are academic sources that classify FSM as a religion, then I'd like to know what that classification scheme is (because I suspect they classify it as a religion under the legal definition of religion in the US, which self-consciously errs on the side of caution).  further, the fact that some sources classify it as a religion might present a noteworthy opinion should be included, but weight means that we have to present to primary view in reliable sources with greater weight and prominence.  clearly the primary view is that it was presented as a parody, not establish as an active faith.  and please, common sense:  at this point in time, FSM is a purely intellectual exercise, with no adherents, no rituals or practices, no places of worship, no established structure or canon of beliefs, and no real meaning except in reference to other religions.  in a hundred years, if FSM takes off and becomes a proper faith in its own right, then we can have this discussion again.  for now, though, it's not.  --Ludwigs2 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: well, since discussion here is a bit sludgy, I'm going to edit in the change I suggested and see what response it gets.  --Ludwigs2 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! too!--K3vin (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, let's see if it'll stick.  Now I need to go get myself a plastic FSM for my dashboard.--Justfred (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: lol - you really should get an FSM antenna bobble, you know - it's supposed to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC comments 

message: Another big change! I'd like to suggest the page is moved to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the page is about the organization, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a sensible idea. Note that if the page is moved then an indirect will be set-up by default. So old links to the page will still work. If there is anyone who objects to the move, then please speak up now! Pnelnik (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose that move. The claim that it's about the organization is debatable, and beside the point. A reader who wants to find this page will look here, not for the more convoluted title. P.S.: There is already a redirect from the "Church..." title to here, for anyone who does look there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with tryptofish.  --Ludwigs2 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 

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