Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

This isn't a joke, so stop it.

This is borderline religious oppression, I mean it. I'm serious, you guys, quit messing with the article and just let the Pastafarians say that some say it's a parody and some don't. You guys are really being borderline racist here. Would you say that people who believe in New Age theories are following a parody religion? What about sects? What about denominations? Are they parodying the "actual religions" out there? No, you wouldn't, and I don't think that you should with Pastafarianism either. Maybe it was made to make supporters of ID look at how ridiculous they were being, so what? It's a religion now and a religion should be respected as a religion. Quit being intolerant and let the article go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.240.16 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with the ongoing discussion by reading the sections above, then replying to whichever points you disagree with. Please refer also to WP's standards of attribution and notability; what we here think about FSM is unimportant. The fact of the matter, as referenced, is that FSM is widely considered a work of parody or satire. Kasreyn 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "messing with the article" seems a strange accusation to level, since the consensus revision of the article includes the parody language with no disclaimer; one might suspect that "messing" would be more appropriate when used to describe those repeatedly altering the article against established consensus. Cheers, Kasreyn 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, just saying so does not make it so. And the sources for the CLAIM its a parody are CRAP.Hypnosadist 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about sources - or at least you complain a lot about other people's sources. Can you find a reliable, believable source that says it isn't a parody? One that demonstrates, say, a non-parody wedding service or funeral? Or even a non-parody service at all? One that shows that this is not (as intended) a parody meant to point out the irrationality of intelligent design?--Justfred 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and may contain material which you find offensive. I'm sure the Kansas School Board would find the Evolution page objectionable, but they can't mess with that page either.

Wikipedia policy says that disputed facts need to be backed by reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In saying FSM is parody we have referenced four sources which meet this criteria, including the very well respected New York Times. We could add four more if pressed. If you want to be taken seriously in your claim that this is not a parody then you will need to provide at least one reliable source. Original research or your opinion is not enough. I await your posting of a reliable source, according to the reliable sources criteria linked above. --h2g2bob 04:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To play the devil's advocate here, I think there may be room enough to release the FSM movement from the bonds of being labelled a parody. If the FSM is a metaphor for the idea that a god can not be understood, characterised or known then the substance of the religion itself is a rejection of the idea of assigning attributes to a god through the use of parody. As such the religion itself is not a parody, but rather it uses parody to illustrate the point that knowing a god is impossible. Nina 137.111.47.182 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pirates chart

The graph of pirates vs global warming has disappeared, apparently deleted... anyone know why? mattbuck 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the commons deletion log for this image has an edit summary of "no permission", presumably like most of the other images of it that can be found on google image search, it had www.venganza.org on the bottom right.--Alf ^melmac 22:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, deleting an image simply because it shows up on google seems a bit stupid to me... But oh well. We need a replacement, as it's one of the central aspects of the theology. mattbuck 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for an undelete - the graph is from the Open Letter, which I think is either public domain or very liberal permissions. --h2g2bob 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's noncommercial use only.[1]. I'll upload to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. --h2g2bob 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Metaphysics of String Theory

I have added this, with assistance from a colleague, mainly because if you start to explore a parody or satire you see links and proofs everywhere. They then become part of the parody itself.--Edmund Patrick 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The very definition of original research. Off it goes again. If you want to explore the deeper meanings of a made-up religion, feel free to do so on, say, Uncyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference #4

1. ^ Wolf, Gary. "The Crusade Against Religion", Wired News, October 23, 2006.

is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.137.137 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 3 May 2007

Thanks, I've found an article from the monthly archive of that site which is or say the same thing.--Alf ^melmac 10:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What the...

I stumbled on this page, and began reading. I immediately thought, "What is this, an Uncyclopedia article?" Seriously, if anyone copied the entire page and put it on the Uncyclopedia, it would be fit in perfectly. -4.225.189.24 22:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why? Kasreyn 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit ridiculous. But that's the problem. Take Shelley the Republican - is that fake or the real thing? It might be satire, but it's not beyond the realm of believability. mattbuck 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro clearly states that the religion is a parody and places it in context. This is a non-issue. Chris Cunningham 08:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he's wrong. I agree it's not really an issue though. mattbuck 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The fact that is uses a self-published website for most of its material makes this whole entry a joke and an insult to what WP is supposed to be.MikeURL 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it is non notable. If you require other sources, then mayhaps one could cite the book published by Random House. And (HHOS) maybe you proposing double standards and expressing fake outrage to articles you disagree with is the actual insult to Wikipedia.--Shadowdrak 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The venganza website is probably notable. The spaghetti monster is notable only as a feature of Bobby Henderson's commentary on the Kansas BoE. This article should be deleted and/or merged into a page about Bobby. But this FSM thing is cute and people like to have a whole page devoted to it. Oh yeah, I don't have a double standard WRT this page. My position has been consistent now for quite some time. I also am a LONG ways away from "outrage" but thanks for your concern about my emotional state.MikeURL 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

FSM Hell

I have restored the Pastafarian doctrine of hell, which was removed as "irrelevant vandalism." It is not. Quotation from "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," p.83:

Q. If there's a Beer Volcano and a Stripper Factory in heaven, 
    what's FSM Hell like?
A. We're not entirely certain, but we imagine it's similar to FSM 
   Heaven, only the beer is stale and the strippers have venereal diseases. 
   Not unlike Las Vegas.

oops, forgot to sign Hypnopomp 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You claimed (on my Talk page) that I'd made that removal. I don't recall seeing that quotation, or removing it. It would help when making a remark like that to give a reference so that I (or whoever you're addressing) can see what you're referring to. For example you could say "the edit you made". (There may be a way to reference the change without using an external link back to WP - maybe someone can suggest how?) --John Stumbles 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You did. here. For what it's worth, you were perfectly justified in removing it at the time. Chris Cunningham 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the diff link. And thanks Hypnopomp for restoring the quote with the reference that shows it's genuine: when I first saw it I just thought someone's larking around putting in their own view of FSM hell. --John Stumbles 13:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a great example, by the way, of why cross-pollination of self-published sources used on a related subject eventually lead to an article that is absurd and not encyclopedic.MikeURL 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Noodlefest 2007

Should we mention Noodlefest 2007 here?

and yes...it was held on may, 8.

Source: http://www.venganza.org/2007/04/11/noodlefest-2007.htm

--Xinjinbei 23:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

Link #1 www.venganza.org appears to be broken. Until at least 2 weeks ago it was the official website for the FMS church, anybody know what happened to it? 68.42.180.179 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, it works for me. Copy-pasted from your post even. -- Ec5618 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FSM moved to a new server recently, and there was some downtime. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WWFSMD? not mentioned

WWFSMD (what would flying spaghetti monster do) should be mentioned. 84.177.53.90 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder

How many of these 'pastafarians' have never prayed to 'God' for anything. Or asked God to save their kid's life. Or end the suffering of disease for their mothers. And do these 'pastafarians' have parents, children or loved ones who believe in God? Do they tell their co-workers about this 'belief'? Do they have services?

If they can honestly answer the above then I guess they have the right to mock religion and God-believers. But otherwise it seems like a hypocritical and cruel type of entertainment.

And there should be a criticism section in this article.

Xavier cougat 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it would matter if any of "them" ever believed in a fairy tale called organized religion; I used to believe in Santa Claus but never really cared much for the Easter Bunny. The fact that so many "true believers" insist on cramming their religions down everyone else's throats - trying to get things like "Intelligent design" (just updated creationism) taught in schools; the fact that our nation's leader is slashing science spending while promoting faith-based education, and doing asinine things like trying to fight AIDS (and apparently "immorality") in Africa by teaching abstinence; this whole trail of lunacy gives us not only the right but the obligation to mock and assault their cause.

You want to believe in God? Fine. Just shut the hell up about it and don't use your insecurity as a rationalization for prosthletizing to others, especially other people's kids. And try to learn that there's a difference between religion and science.

And there doesn't need to be a criticism section in the article; but if you think there does, go ahead and write it instead of sitting here complaining about it.--Justfred

A reminder that the talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not soapboxing. Xavier, if you have criticism that is reliably sourced then feel free to add it. JoshuaZ 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well do you think that JustFred's comments here were meant to help make the article better. Seem like he was just ranting. Seems like he is just against Bush and the right wing. Should he be soapboxing like that here?

My point is that almost any article should have a criticism section. Telling someone to 'shut the hell up' to me is uncivil. He says he wants to 'mock' a cause. That sounds hateful to me. And that is not what these talk pages are for.

I am going to try to find something to balanced this article. Xavier cougat 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, JustFred's comments were also off-topic. If you can find decent sources for criticism of FSM, then by all means include it, but there may not even be any...and remember to be careful with your own biases: it's difficult to write from the NPOV when setting out to add negative stuff on a topic you dislike. — Matt Crypto 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. When I wrote them I felt I was responding to Xavier's question/rant by example, but it turns out I just went off. The whole point of FSM (it seems to me) is to attack the religious status quo. Asking if "they" believe in god, or trying to convince people it isn't a parody - these seem to be people who just don't get it. In any case, apologies for my tone.--Justfred 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rant? Try being civil please. Please apologize now for referring to my comments as rants. This is not a place to vent your anger towards theists or whatever. Try behaving better. Please. Xavier cougat 11:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see many here writing on subject they do not like. In fact many articles are written almost completely by antagonists of the subject. Anyhow I posed my concept to see if anyone else felt the same way. I do not think I could make a change here unless the proponents would let me but I do not think that is going to happen. I just feel the article is very one sided and POV. I will see what I can find to balanced it. Do you feel it is POV? Xavier cougat 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The subject matter -- the FSM parody itself -- represents a bias, but that's fine. And from a quick read it seems we describe the topic neutrally enough (i.e. we describe, not endorse). What parts do you feel are POV? — Matt Crypto 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no article should have a criticism section. Criticism sections almost always become negatively biased, and all sections should be NPOV. Ghettoing of criticism makes the rest of the article positively biased. Feel free to integrate criticism into the article, for example starting a "reactions to FSM section" if needed. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So let us say we have an article on George Bush and only show his accomplishments but none of his failings would not that be POV? Xavier cougat 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I am seeing it the POV that FSM is actually equivalent to God or Jesus or the whole parody religion can be contrued as a real religion. I think that is the point of the pastafarians. To make a mockery of religion. See it is an invalid point. Like I said the meanness of the whole thing is not brought up. It is more than a light hearted parody. It is mocking people. Xavier cougat 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying - to take your example - criticism of GWB's handling of the Iraq war should be integrated with the section on the Iraq war, rather than in a separate criticism section. Keeping things together means there will be criticism of the Iraq war in the relevant section

Some "Pastafarians" are really agnostic or atheistic, and some may well be offended by your assumption that they would ever pray to a god, even in times of need. What you are offended at depends a lot on your point of view. However, it may be good to have reactions from different communities if we can find some sources. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are saying some Catholics would not be offended by mocking God? That is my point. This article is a little offensive. And we do not have appropriate balance. Xavier cougat 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A reminder tat this is all irrelevant. If there are reliable sources that discuss criticism then we should include it. If not, we shouldn't. It isn't any more complicated than that. JoshuaZ 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. however another article I brought up something that I had read somewhere but did not remember the source and another editor knew the source and gave it to me. This is the same here. Someone might read this and remember a source and post it here so the criticism would be reliable. I know I am a little offended by the pastafarians. There must be others and if there are others there must be resources somewhere.

Can we make a comparison chart between what pastafarians believe in and say what catholics believe in? The implications here are faulty. Xavier cougat 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work - key beliefs like those related to pirates have no obvious connection with Christianity. Plus other beliefs have a wider context than just Catholicism - a lot of the arguments parody either religion in general, or the intelligent design movement in particular. The article already makes some comparisons where needed, such as the 10 commandments. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the FSM has no recorded history. No mention in ancient books. Has no prophets. Has no son like Jesus who was a historic person. To believe in the FSM is not the same as believing in the Abrahamic God. And why is it a spaghetti monster? There is no logical reason to assume that. Make sense? Xavier cougat 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right: the first sentence says it's parody (to the annoyance of some pastafarians). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Childish

This parody seems too childish to be in an encylopedia. Are there other parodies that gain this kind of status? Xavier cougat 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes: see Jedi census phenomenon.--Alf ^melmac 13:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard this cult mentioned before, so I'd think it's popular enough to merit an entry. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Deskana (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we a criticism section? Xavier cougat 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're so predictable. Grow up. --Deskana (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can if you find some reliable sources to prove there is notable criticism besides "I'm religious and I think this is the devil's work". Malc82 12:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See Russell's teapot. Not a parody though, just a way to show how ridiculous blind belief is.

The entry is notable, which is the main requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. It far exceeds the notability criteria of multiple independent sources (references include NY Times, Wired and the Randi Foundation; while other sources include the Telegraph [2] and New Scientist [3]).

You are welcome to add criticism if you attribute sources. I quite like the idea of a "reactions" or "reception" section if we can get a wide scope of views from different communities - ie range of Christian reactions, other religious and theist reactions, and the reaction of nontheists too. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also covered by Al Jazeera (Wayback link). They don't say much, but could be used as an example of its reach. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I browsed through Google News a bit, but could only really find quotes from Bobby. However, there is a post from the Discovery Institute. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd note that ALL the reliable source cites on this page are not primarily about the FSM but are primarily about Bobby and his relation to the ID debate. So much of the confusion is that this page is about the FSM rather than Bobby and how he influenced the debate on intelligent design in the classroom of public schools.MikeURL 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)