Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 3

message: Maybe put up a section for references to the FSM in popular culture?  Television, media, etc?  It appears as a drawing, posted on a wall in the back of the IT room on the television show The IT Crowd --Fitly 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in Popular Culture? 

message: Once ANY person can find one sentence where Bobby says it's a parody religion, then perhaps we can change it back. Until then, this religion is actually trying to get itself to be an official one, so dismissing it as parody is ignorant and subjectively centered. I, for one, am indeed a Pastafarian, whether you like it or not. My edit is much more factual than others, as the previous article only represts a non-Pastafarian's views, which, obviously, are not Wiki's standard. It is a religion, albeit not an official one. If it is ruled to stay described as a parody, then I shall have to be forced to edit all other religion pages, dissmissing it a equally false. It's one or the other, and if you can't see that, then I'm sorry to say, but you're very, very ignorant. -AAbattery 19:31 EST, 7/1/06
"Please don not pretend FSM is a serious religion?" I am in every way abiding by that, as I do not pretend, I believe...and I used to think ignorance was not Wiki's strong point. This certainly proves me wrong. That is probably THE most offending thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Well, no, second most...my school actually banned me from even speaking about it as a serious religion. AAbattery 19:45, 1 July 2006
:See the FSM FAQ (http://www.venganza.org/faq.htm), specifically question four. Bobby Henderson states he has a problem with accepting supernatural explanations.
:Right, now we can reset the timer, and wait for the next person to exclaim their love for the FSM by undermining everything it stands for. -- Ec5618 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I have already raised this issue after talking with User:Ministryoftruth, who is espousing the same nonsense.  Per Undue weight, the opinions of "real" FSM believers are in a decided minority compared to those who recognize its satirical intent.  If we had any reliably sourced information that such a thing as a "true believer" in FSM actually existed, I'd say it would be worth noting with a single, short sentence.  Otherwise, the article stays as it is.  Kasreyn 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a parody, whether by truth or by majority acceptance. If Bobby Henderson were to seriously believe FSM is a real religion, then he would be contradicting himself when he says that he has problems with supernatural explanations for things. Please, read further into things than the first layer. Vancar 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AABattery

message: Just for you, AABattery.
*NY Times 
*USA Today
*Scientific American 
*The Oregon News-Review
*The Daily Telegraph 
*The Kansas City Star
*The Orlando Weekly
Some choice bits:
:"Henderson said he's merely using the time-honored tradition of satire to illustrate his personal views. ... 'Originally it was just a letter, and it was sort of a joke,' Henderson said in a telephone interview Monday."
::The Register-Guard, Eugene, OR
:"'It was actually a very clever satire, really getting at the heart of the argument why creationism probably should not be taught as a science,' Rod Henderson said of his son's letter."
:and
:"'I am not too worried about the angry religious people who e-mail me,' Henderson said. 'Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of religious people are not nuts, and most of them understand that the FSM project is not an attack on religion, only on dogma.'"
::The Oregon News-Review
:"...Bobby Henderson’s satirical Web page (www.venganza.org)..."
:and
:"'I think it’s weird that it’s still going on,' Henderson told me in a phone interview."
:and
:"Henderson thought, if Kansas was open to teaching nonscientific theories, then why not his: that the world was created by the 'noodly appendage' of a Flying Spaghetti Monster.  So to mock the decision, he asked the Kansas board to also teach his theory." (emphasis mine)
::The Kansas City Star
Other editors, feel free to add more sources to this section as you find them.  Kasreyn 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources Describing FSM as a Parody or Satire 

message: I have deleted the entire section on pirates, as it only attracts more and more cruft as time goes on. I believe this sentence from the Beliefs section tells us all we need to know about how pirates are linked to the FSM:
:"Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in numbers of pirates since the 19th century."
Shoehorn 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree it's a bit long, considering the actual beliefs of Pastafarianism are largely irrelevant. A brief mention of the Pastafarianism interest in pirates is justified, but little more. -- Ec5618 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm willing to wait for consensus on this issue. My position is that this entire section is cruft which places undue emphasis on the subject simply for the sake of amusement. Shoehorn 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can certainly stand to be trimmed, but I'd say it's at least noteworthy that Henderson not only attacks Intelligent Design's conceptual basis, but he also attacks some of the specific kinds of pseudoscience they use (such as misleading graphs and post hoc arguments).  Ie., FSM not only mirrors and parodies the belief system of ID, but also its methods.  Kasreyn 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we get that idea in the first paragraph of the article. Only a very broad presentation of how FSM accomplishes this is necessary. Shoehorn 05:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trimmed a little. I disagree. The article would be incomplete without details on specific absurdities and FSM's ways of logic attacks. Femto 12:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still 99% cruft. The second paragraph repeats the second bullet under "beliefs". The graph is cruft. The third paragraph has an informal tone and adresses a crufty subject, the aforementioned graph. The last paragraph is the cruftiest of all. And, since the first paragraph is just an introduction to the other three crufty paragraphs, it is superfluous, as the connection between pirates and the FSM is already presented in the section on beliefs. Shoehorn 22:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, removed this redundancy. — Of course it's cruft. Not 99%, the whole freaking religion is 100% cruft. All religions are cruft, that's the whole point of FSM, isn't it? The graph illustrates a central belief of this religion. You can't describe the cruft without presenting details on the cruft, and I think the article is well within Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards as it is now. Femto 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta agree with Femto. We're talking about a Flying Spaghetti Monster. 67.102.65.179 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pirates 

message: Hey guys, i've added a line (the fsm appears in a new york dolls video), but this is my first try in eglish, so hopfully sombody can correct the grammar (i dont think ist that correct :) ). im frank_n_stein in the german wikipedia, so feel free to contact me!
greeting
--217.15.4.248 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearence of FSM 

message: why delete the myspace stuff? I'm replacing. Mccready 13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A virus? Just another Flash worm? Was the vulnerability internal to myspace, or were website visitors infected? Why "in order to promote", if the origins are unknown? It's unsourced, rather incoherent information with no way to check notability. Femto 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No dispute it happened? I've rewritten and sourced. Hope that's OK. Mccready 14:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe my spaceworm has nothing to do with the real FSM. --Weaponofmd 05:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  myspace 

message: I forgot to put an edit summary, but I moved one statement from history about the New York Dolls to a new Section "FSM in Pop Culture" and added a few instances of Pop Culture FSM. All the info was pulled off the official site which has already been referenced several times, so it would have been overkill to reference them all. Also, the Playboy article may need a reference, but I have no way of getting my hands on a Jan. '06 Playboy for reference info. Reed Braden 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. It's an obvious section this article was lacking. You're right about needing references, thuogh. Still, nice. -- Ec5618 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a section

message: In this edit, I draw a distinction between "proving the absurdity" of ID, and "disproving" ID.  I'd like to explain in slightly greater detail than is possible in an edit summary.
ID cannot be disproven.  This is one of the major reasons why ID is not a scientific theory; falsifiability is a requirement for a theory to be scientific, and ID cannot be falsified because it cannot be tested.  From what I've read of his writings, Henderson seems to understand this quite well.
Therefore it's silly to say he was attempting to "disprove" ID; Henderson seems to be perfectly aware that ID cannot be disproven.  Rather, he is attempting to mock it by creating a reductio ad absurdum argument:  he has created an equally-unfalsifiable, equally-unscientific theory about a farcical designer, to illustrate the unscientific nature of ID.  I hope this explains things a bit better.  Kasreyn 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely on this point Kasreyn.Hypnosadist 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that three, well explained. Femto 12:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Prove/Disprove 

message: shouldn't there be a part saying that some people thinking it's silly nonsence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.200 (talk • contribs) .
:Why? Unlike with other religions this should be blatantly obvious, even to (most of…) its followers. Femto 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the whole point of the FSM is that it's retarded. The only kind of criticism it gets is from people who say the founder of the FSM's church will burn in hell, but no one cares about what these idiots have to say anyway.Dali 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to discuss the religion. --InShaneee 21:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: critism

message: 1: Well written, etc: Check
2: Accurate, verifiable: Check
3: Broad in coverage: Check
4: NPOV: Aye.
5: Stable: Aye
6: Images: Probably. However, I would like a double-check on copyright status of images: HAVE they been releases into the public domain? If so, can you say where this is stated in the image information.
...Whilst there are some doubts, I'm going to assume good faith about the images, and let the article pass. Please fix it ASAP, though. Adam Cuerden talk 13:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA - Pass

message: Shouldn't this have a criticism section where people try to disprove the existence of FSM are represented.  That would be great.
: When a "criticism" section is added to the Jesus Christ article, then it should be added here.  X96lee15 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See, because most religious people recognize FSM as a parody, they don't feel the need to "disprove" it. And since no-one has disproven the existence of FSM, that would be just asking for editors to come along and add original research. Also note the section about the BoingBoing challenge under "History and developments". --Grace 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I talked to Jesus the other night and he said that the FSM doesn't exist.  Shouldn't that be enough? Cowicide 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just add something like "In November 2006, Jesus said that the FSM does not exist" to the Jesus article as soon as there is a reliable source. --Danogo 07:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus has since retracted his statement to me.  Apparently Jesus and the noodly one hang out somewhere on Mars together on occasion.  Anyway, I'm thinking there are ppl out there that are critical of not the premise of FSM but the effectiveness of making a point via the creation  and celebration of FSM.  I'm sure we can find a wacko out there somewhere who want to desperately "disprove" the existence of FSM, but that's not what I"m saying... I'm saying there may be ppl (who are far less wacko) out there that are critical of the purpose behind FSM, etc.  Just a thought. Cowicide 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Why the heck did these nitwits choose a spaghetti monster for this "religion"? Why didn't they choose a giant mouse or dog or something? Why a spaghetti monster? 4.159.5.97 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume because he felt it would be the most ridiculous thing possible.  I gather from your response that he was right.  Kasreyn 08:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't choose the spaghetti monster...  the spaghetti monster chose them. Cowicide 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramen Brother, Ramen.MikeURL 19:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaghetti, of all things 

message: Are there Pastafarian holidays?  Specifically, is there a winter solstice holiday?  Do they have seasonal music, or do they just play "O Sole Mio" or "Fifteen Men on a Dead Man's Chest?"  If you ask for time off, when is it, and how long?  This isn't really a serious question, but in the light of the parody I wonder if there's an answer.--Justfred 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it myself, it's "Holiday".    Don't suppose it's worth mentioning in the article.--Justfred 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fridays are holy days. Halloween and Holiday are religious celebrations. - Corbin Be excellent(TINC) 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot "Talk Like A Pirate Day".  And ye be calling yeself a believer, maytey?--Justfred 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holidays 

message: Would it be reasonable to mention that the Discovery Institute has made public statements that accuse Pastafarians as mocking all Christian thought?  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html -EarthRise33 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has mainstream media discussed it? If some people are just shouting into the wind all by themselves, it's not Wikipedia's job to act as their soapbox. But it's different if it has sparked non-fleeting non-trivial public discussion. Weregerbil 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not finding anything on it. Nvm, then. Thanks. -EarthRise33 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the DI would seem to be relevant...  Intelligent Design is basically their brainchild, and FSM was clearly deliberately crafted to mock ID.  It would seem to be a straightforward rebuttal.  I say we include it.  Kasreyn 23:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: DI's opinion on this matter is inherently notable and relevant, because DI is the ID organization, and FSM is a parody of ID. If FSM was a parody of Catholicism, the Pope's opinion would of FSM would be inherently relevant; for the same reason, the Discovery Institute's opinion is inherently relevant to this article. -Silence 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this brings up another point. FSMism is only portrayed in a positive light by the contents of this article. Might it be wise to include a generalized "Criticism of FSM" section that encompasses all notions of dissent, from the one board member who chided Bobby for sacrilege to the complete disapproval voiced by the DI? -EarthRise33 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, by all means.  Put the DI's criticism and that of any other notable source in a criticism section.  I'm not sure where you get the "positive light" part, but it's true that we've mostly been covering the issue from the inside-looking-out viewpoint.  Kasreyn 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure put it in. I wonder though if the DI realizes that making loud noises about his this is an attack on religion undermines their claim that ID isn't religous? JoshuaZ 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should I be the one to put it in, or is that the territory of a Moderator? -EarthRise33 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to edit it. In general, anyone can edit almost anything (Wikipedia also doesn't have moderators, but admins who functions more as janitors than anything else. See WP:ADMIN. JoshuaZ 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The DI's opinion of the FSM

message: it says "fictional diety." At what point to dieties become more than fictional? MotherFunctor 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful now. That's treading on religious offense. The FSM can be held as fictional since the religion was created solely as a satire, and the followers (for the most part) don't actually hold that the FSM exists. -EarthRise33 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is "fictional" bolded? Gurko 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fictional diety

message: Do we really need to mention the FSM Myspace worm? It seems awfully unrelated to the actual Pastafarianism concept. -EarthRise33 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Myspace worm

message: Since no one seems to be reading it before they post, please check the above section entitled Sources Describing FSM as a Parody or Satire, and please refer to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V when considering arguments that WP should portray FSM as a genuine religious faith.  If anyone can find further sources documenting Henderson's intention of FSM as a satire/parody (as if any more were needed), please feel free to add them to the above section.  Now can we all start working on something more important on this article than just continuing to futilely rehash this single point?  Cheers, Kasreyn 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repost:  Sources. 

message: The reference added by Glen S to "appease" people on the parody needs to be examined more closely. Henderson claims the church has existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, and has millions of devout worshippers. Either Henderson is delusional, or this link is not meant to be taken seriously. As it stands, the reference is little more than fancruft, albeit fancruft contributed by a Wikipedia Administrator. So much for that Good Article status. Shoehorn 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our job is not to decide whether Henderson is "delusional" or not, or job is to report the facts. There is no denying Henderson claims this is legit on his website - reporting it should not change whether or not the article reaches "good article status". Besides, this is a wiki, if you feel strongly about it - change it! I was just trying to find a happy median and end the edit warring. Glen 08:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia editor must be able to tell the difference between humor and reality. Weregerbil 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we can tell the difference but wikipedia policy states anything wikipedia says should be backed up by notable and verifable sources. As to "This may be a case were the parody is implied by the absurdity of the claims." well thats how i feel about ID that its a parody of science but i can't start the ID article off with a statement like that. Hypnosadist 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, stop being disingenuous. You understand full well the distinction between parody and genuine belief, and we all know what is going on here. No reasonable person could contend that Flying Spaghetti Monster is anything but parody. You want to make the argument that real religious belief is as absurd as belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fine — indeed, that's the intent of the parody itself — and you are entitled to make that argument elsewhere. However, disrupting a Wikipedia article to make that point is not appropriate. — Matt Crypto 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read the above comment. PS i'm not "disrupting a Wikipedia article to make that point". Hypnosadist 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's exactly what you are doing. — Matt Crypto 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be civil, stop throwing accusations around.Hypnosadist 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This may be a case were the parody is implied by the absurdity of the claims. It should be noted that satirical newspaper The Onion dose not state anywhere on it's web site that it's a parody, yet it's described such such in it's article and by almost every third party source. Every joke dose not come with a disclaimer. Seano1 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the Onion state categorically on its website that it is 100% legit however? If it did, I am certain this should be included in its article. Yes we all know its a parody, but the fact the founder states outright that it is completely legitimate on the official site is clearly encyclopedic IMHO. I will not edit war however, it seems the decision has been made Glen 10:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Onion boldly proclaims to be America's Finest News Source, so yes, I'd say it makes as strong a claim to be legit as Henderson does. Yet an encyclopedia should not claim that the Onion editors genuinely think everything they print is true. Surely we can tell reality from jokes this obvious? For those who can't, fortunately WP:RS discusses the issue of self-published sources. However "official" a web site is, it is not immediately an encyclopedic source. Weregerbil 10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently 3 of the references for this article go to http://www.venganza.org/.  Perhaps those, and the material they relate to in the article, should be deleted as well?  In fact, references 9,11,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 19 look questionable with a few that are clearly not RS.MikeURL 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glen S and what Henderson believes