Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hyperbole and colloquial origins

NOTE: While FSM was brought into the mainstream consciousness in 2005 with the "Intelligent Design" debate, it and its kin have been part of casual academic argument for much longer. However, without the proper context of an OPEN public debate, such parody of sacred beliefs often and historically falls upon deaf ears. As such, these types of arguments are dismissed out of hand as rude or ignorant. This note is a commentary, take it for what it is ... but don't think for a second that Henderson was the first to use such an argument. He just spoke up at the right time. Kudos. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• The editor above and I disagree about this edit: [1], with the other editor making the argument above and in the edit summary (also at my talk page), and me arguing that we have sourcing for Bobby Henderson as the original proponent of the FSM, so that no citation-needed tag is necessary [2], and that, while there certainly have been other parody religions in the past, that is not the relevant point. This page is not an article about parody religions in general. Rather, it is about this particular phenomenon, the FSM specifically. As such, Henderson first described the FSM, and the fact that there were other, earlier parodies does not change that fact. It is incorrect to say that anyone before Henderson "created" the FSM, or that Henderson merely "brought to public attention" an FSM that previously existed, and it is equally incorrect to say that the FSM was "originally" intended as anything other than a protest against the Kansas board decision. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• That might appear as philosophical disagreement though I would think that we're speaking about concrete parody in this article and while ideas do float around, we'd need a concrete citation for prior usage of this specific parody, i.e. Flying Spaghetti Monster, to cast a doubt, and not the other way around. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a plain and simple edit to make the statement ambiguous, in an attempt to avoid this type of debate. Perhaps it would've been more "persuasive"(Tryptofish) to not give my reasoning at all? ... If that's your methodology. Given that I do not have a citation at the ready to contradict your interpretation of just what happened I'll point you to the closest confirmation I could find. [3] Compare the earliest definition "first publicly postulated" (Aug 2, 2005), to the second earliest "created" (Aug 18, 2005). 70.15.11.44 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, Urban Dictionary does not qualify as a reliable source. DP76764 (Talk) 21:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Worth a shot. Although, it's by that same reasoning that unreferenced Wikipedia is not a reliable source. FYI. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why reliable 3rd party sources are used in articles. :P DP76764 (Talk) 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion, itself, is descending into parody. I think we are getting close to consensus that there would have to be reliable sourcing to justify the claim that previous religious parodies were actually about the FSM specifically. If all the IP editor can do is make snarky remarks at me and cherry-pick quotes from the Urban Dictionary, perhaps it is time to bid farewell to that unsourced claim. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what are we arguing about here? With all due respect to the IP editor, why make the statement ambiguous when it is clearly attested by, for example, the BBC h2g2 article or this Washington Post article. Even if "it and its kin have been part of casual academic argument for much longer", Henderson is the person who created the unique concept of the FSM; although similar to the idea of Russell's teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn it is neither of these, which are both lacking in noodly appendages. Captain Screebo (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Does it state unequivocally that ORIGINAL intent for the argument of FSM was to target the KSSB? Omitting this word ("originally" in reference to Henderson's intent) is a simple concession to reason. The intent is still being stated. And the meaning is only just tweaked, so as to remove the presumption of knowledge unknown without verification. If left in, it either requires specific citation to the impetus of the "FSM" (conceding the historical record of Henderson as credited creator) being created for the KSSB letter, or it is original research. Though I personally will still go on record in stating that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER was around (by that exact name) years if not decades before 2005. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do, they being the sources, have you bothered to read them? If not, I have cherry-picked the best parts for you so that you can see that the references or citations that you seek are written in plain English:

• "There's been no lack of commentary since the Kansas State Board of Education began debating whether to teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution in the public schools. One of the more unusual submissions to the board came from Bobby Henderson, a 24-year-old graduate of Oregon State University with a degree in physics."
• "The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or FSM, is a fictional deity which forms the basis of a religion founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson, a graduate from Oregon State University, in order to protest against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in the Kansas School Board's curriculum."
• "Not that he ever saw himself as a rival to Mohammed or Abraham. The divine inspiration that came to the 25-year-old one night earlier this year was originally intended as a satire on attempts by some Christian groups to change the way evolution is taught in science classes in some American schools." (my emphasis)
• "The FSM was born in a satirical letter Henderson sent last year to the Kansas Board of Education"
• "Now, Mr. Henderson says on his Web site, "over 10 million people have been touched by His Noodly Appendage." But what does that mean?"

These quotes are taken from 5 of the first 13 sources to the article, there are 75, I didn't have the time or the inclination to open and read them all, and they include the Washington Post, USA Today and the Daily Telegraph website.

Three of them specifically mention the protest against KSSB and the FSM's creation for this purpose.

One definitely says "was originally intended as a satire".

Finally, the use of originally is justified not only because it is a sourced and verifiable citation, but also because it underlines the huge difference between the original intent and the subsequent far-reaching and planet-wide impact it has had (see last quote).

As for going on record and so on, as you probably know (and are sick of hearing?) Wikipedia is about verifiability and reliable sources, so do some research and find an academic paper, or find a book, that uses the exact term "Flying Spaghetti Monster" that predates Henderson's letter to the Kansas Board and then go ahead and modify the article accordingly. It's that simple. Captain Screebo (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lazy logic and hobby worship. But I agree completely with your statement :

"Wikipedia is about verifiability and reliable sources, ... do some research ..., or find a book, that uses (counter-claim) that predates (claim) and then go ahead and modify the article accordingly." Cheers. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not about claims and counter claims, it's about first mentions. If you claim there is an earlier mention than the earliest mention by an academic source specified, then by FSM you will provide an earlier academic source which mentions it. Should be easy if it was "going around for decades". • Maurog • 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Colander as religious head

If anyone dares to include it in the article, in Austria a guy was allowed to wear a colander on a picture for his driving license, citing a rule that this is allowed for religious stuff. Original Article in German Google Translate TFTD (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems trivial and needs more/better sources. DP76764 (Talk) 15:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the BBC acceptable? Sorry, but this is my first time contributing (sorry about the poor layout). I think this falls under influence as a cultural phenomenon heading as it demonstrates how the religion is becoming more mainstream and accepted, despite it being a parody. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.208.230 (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@DP76764 Just for my curiosity, did you check what/who ORF is? But as stated above, BBC should work to? Otherwise, Spiegel Online has it, too. TFTD (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Spiegel or BBC would be great, and ORF, apparently (was not familiar with them). Preferably articles written in English, of course. Good enough coverage for a 1 sentence addition. Cheers! DP76764 (Talk) 18:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this article (German) the story isn't as reported and has grossly exaggerated "Even the rumored three-year waiting period was, according to the Vienna Police Department is not correct. "The license is completed since October 2009. He was not only picked up," said Reinthaler"" (Google translate). Al it has become notable I don't think we should revert the edit, but I suspect it needs qualifying as being disputed. Kiore (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the license was issued on 2009-10-12 appears to be corroborated by the photo in the article; see 4a on the license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.217.163 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Name

Realistically shouldn't this article be called Pastafarianism? The Christianity article isn't called God or Jesus as they are separate articles. Shouldn't this logic be used for all religious articles? Thanks Jenova20 11:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Past discussions about the title here and here, though neither mentioned "Pastafarianism". Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Title#Deciding_on_an_article_title. No opinion either way myself, yet. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jenova20. Gorton k (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As the name of a religion i propose a change from this name to Pastafarianism.

The previous 2 discussions decided the current name, not the name of the religion.

Unless Islam and Christianity are renamed God and Allah then this article should be renamed.

What do you think?

Jenova20 14:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable rename (with a redirect left for FSM (or a whole article, if there's enough material)). Would like to see more input on it first though. DP76764 (Talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've commented on the proposal below, but please note that we do, indeed, have articles about God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, and so on. There's nothing mutually exclusive about having this page here, and another page on Pastafarianism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Flying Spaghetti Monster → Pastafarianism – This is the name of the religion and this article should be named after that rather than their worshipped deity. By the same logic that Christianity is not God and Budhism is not Budda, this article should be Pastafarianism not Flying Sphagetti Monster. Jenova20 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Those other deities have their own articles; FSM doesn't. As long as the deity and the religion are covered in the same article, we should use whichever term is more recognizable. FSM has that by a country mile. Powers ^T 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with FSM as a redirect to Pastafarianism?

Thanks Jenova20 15:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I already told you; FSM is more recognizable to the general public. Powers ^T 17:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A redirect from FSM does make sense. As LtPowers rightly says, the deities that Jenova20 states above also have their own articles, so this is more a discussion about whether this article should be titled FSM or Pastafarianism (or, I guess, have both as separate articles, though I am not backing that). See below for why I think the change would make sense. As for recongnisability of terms, FSM is much more recongnisable than Pastafarianism, I agree. But they are not synonyms; one describes the movement (or religion), one describes the deity. The movement encompasses the deity, so an article titled according to the movement rather than the deity makes more sense to me (if it is a choice between the two). Gorton k (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree, if this were a "real" religion. In this case, however, "Pastafarianism" is just the word that was coined to describe "worship" of the FSM; the FSM is the important figure and the originating concept. Powers ^T 17:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• In favour. The article would flow better and encompass more if the focus were on the religious movement rather than the deity of the movement. Thinking in venn diagrams, Pastafarianism would completely cover the FSM, but the FSM does not completely cover Pastafarianism. It makes more sense to me to have an article which is already on the entire movement to be titled appropriately. Gorton k (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Actually, we have pages about both the "deities" and the "religions", so there's no reason not to do so here. Keep this page, and start a new one called Pastafarianism. You can have your meatballs and eat them too! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a bit of a Pastafarian heretic, I would throw in some pesto too, to go with those meatballs. Go for it, there must already be different Pastafari branches so start the article - I can't wait to see the "major groupings of Pastafarianism" subsection:
  • the "al dente" Pastafarians
  • the "fresh, eggs only" Pastafarians
  • the "let me tell you about my mother Mamma Mia!" Pastafarians
  • the "we really, really, really believe this" Pastafarians
• and so on, hey, haven't any of you heard of The Church of the SubGenius? Or maybe organised religions are just parodies and this stuff is for real but now we're getting out of wiki-territory and into reality. ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:How2title: (1) The topic is a named entity that has exactly one clear, natural and obvious name with regard to how reliable sources refer to this topic... Flying Spaghetti Monster, and (3) this name is not used to refer to any other topic, therefore (9) that's the title.

  But, if you want to go through the principal naming criteria analysis anyway, Flying Spaghetti Monster wins on Recognizability and Naturalness, Precision is a wash, Pastafarianism wins only on Conciseness, and Consistency is not applicable (it's a unique case).

  Finally, let's remember that this is not religion at all, but, rather, a parody of all religions, and its most notable aspect, by far, is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment: For what it's worth: Google hits for "Flying Spaghetti Monster": about 3,790,000. For "Pastafarianism": about 138,000. That's a huge differential in favor of the page title we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Split eventually but not yet. In other, more -er- developed religions, we would have both articles, and a lot of the material here would be under Pastafarianism. But until this is too long for one article, there's no benefit to that; the reader curious about one will want to know about the other, and the Principle of Least Surprise suggests that we should use the more common title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The FSM as an actual deity is solely notable in conjuction with the religion; there is absolutely nothing that can be said about the FSM other than that it is the figurehead for the parody religion in question. A split would simply be a concession to those trying to turn this into an article on a "real" religion, which we absolutely do not want to encourage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose FYI for any new editors out there, we have WP:UCN. You'd have to show that 'pastafarianism' is a more common term for a move, or that 'pastafarianism' meets WP:N without the FSM for a split.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Could those in support of this, like, actually read our naming guidelines? Thanks, folks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That's kinda rude, don't you think? The support argument is not that far-fetched. Powers ^T 13:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I note that we have articles on Christianity, Christian, and God in Christianity. The corresponding articles here would be Pastafarianism, Pastafarian and Flying Spaghetti Monster. At least for now they're all combined in one article, and the name most commonly used in association with these topics is Flying Spaghetti Monster. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And the corresponding terms for the Omnian religion would be Omnianism, Omnian and The Great God Om. But it turns out that Omnianism is a construct of Terry Pratchett designed to highlight the potential tyrannies of the Church, rather than an actual religion, and as such we do not slavishly document its made-up customs as if they were real things (even if some people get carried away with the joke and actually carry them out. Hell, even if there were a Web forum for these people). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—I'm pretty sure FSM is the more common name. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pestofarian etc

Can we make mention of pestofarianism etc as offshoots of pastafarianism? I can't find any good references but it is an interesting twitter reaction. Gregology.net 10:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't find any good references because they don't exist. WP:MADEUP applies just as much to "Twitter reactions" as it does to schoolyard daydreams. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Google results for pestofarian = 9, pestofarianism = 1. Chris is irritable but correct =) nice schism idea though...Gorton k (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The USA Today Article did not Quote Bobby Henderson as saying it was Fake

The USAToday article contains an insertion of the INTERVIEWER'S views/additions, NOT Bobby Henderson's. This is why it is in parenthesis. Source: Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., sec. 13.68.

I am sick to my stomach of the "unbiased" moderators who think they have a right to decide what is or is not classified as a religion. Yes, obviously Wikipedia is based on sources and verifiable facts, but is the creator himself of this religion not the ultimate authority on his past and current intentions? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm

Furthermore, it is irrelevant or at the very most should be a small part of the article as a whole, what other people conclude about the Religion. Bobby Henderson says on his own website "Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental." This is indisputably evidence that he believes it to be a real religion. Others obviously do as well. To question his honesty is speculation and thus obviously bias that does not belong on this website. http://www.venganza.org/about/

Despite all of this which has shown that the "unbiased" moderators have inserted their bias and hatred into this site, it is obvious that how this system of beliefs was started is completely irrelevant. If you are still unconvinced as to the legitimacy of this Religion being classified as such, I ask you to consider Buddhism and other belief systems. The Buddha never considered himself to be a god, nor did he advocate such holy worship for godlike figures, yet obviously this Mahayana and other branches of Buddhism have evolved into such a Religion with these elements. There are many other examples of Religions with origins of a creator that did not have a "real" religion in mind.

In other interviews prominent Pastafarians have referred to Pastafarianism as "our religion" and noted they "celebrate holidays such as 'Ramendan.'" This sounds to me very much like people who believe in Pastafarianism as a Religion and mirrors the definition of a traditional Religion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/jedis-and-pastafarians-re_n_925801.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotPocketman (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have believed in Pastafarianism since I was fifteen years old and I cannot believe that such bigotry has emerged. At the very least look at Wikipedia's own definition of Religion: "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values." NOWHERE does it say that the origins of a Religion dictate its current status as an accepted Religion. In the name of tolerance and decency, give this Religion the respect it deserves as you have so clearly given respect to the hundreds of other Religions already in existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Thank you.

OFFICIALLY a religion, not a "parody" religion

We have repeatedly tried to deal with this existing and further growing problem of ignorant individuals, sadly even mods, violating Wikipedias guidelines and rules to instantly revert any establishment that Pastafarianism is not solely a parody religion or even is held as legitimate for some members. It was a simple attempt: to comply with Wikipedias rules and define Pastafarianism as a religion first and a parody as a historical second. Easy and non-POV.

And now...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8272651/pastafarian-wins-right-wear-colander-in-licence

Pastafarian Wins Religious Right To Wear Colander In Licence Photo.

Austria has officially declared Pastafarianism to be a religion and has granted a member of that religion the legal right to wear previously denied items, a pasta strainer, in his government approved licence photo as part of his religion. That's right, this is now official. It doesn't matter how many ignorant posters cry and complain about it begining as a parody, it is an actual religion NOW. To deny the removal of the heading declaring this solely to be a "parody" religion is to allow such changes as declaring Scientology to be a "scam" religion instead of just 'religion'.

No, before you even start, im afraid the ridiculous fallacy of "he doesn't actually believe in it" or "nuh-uh! he's just doing it as a prank!" are not going to fly. Such claims are unsourced and not backed up by anything even remotely resembling ANYTHING accepted by Wikipedia. Strangely enough that ridiculous logic didn't fly when, despite sourced and detailed arguments from believers, those same people claimed every single one of them was "kidding". Anyone who attempts to claim that this man (who took his case to court to prove his dedication to his faith) is somehow lying or "doesn't actually believe it, come on" is proving nothing to this article.

In light of this new, sourced, evidence that a government officially recognizes Pastafarianism as a religion AND a member of the public officially believes in and follows the RELIGION of Pastafarianism it is all too clear that with the consensus in favour of the change (as we see in every archived discussion on the subject), the fact consensus (if it wasn't currently in favour of the change) against change is to be disregarded in the face of sourced facts, the mountain of sources stating it as both a religion and a parody religion, the complete POV pushing and against rules reverting of any attempt to fix the problem and now the undeniable fact that it is officially a religion, it is a REQUIREMENT that the POV use of solely "parody religion" in the lead description of this article be changed to "religion" and the use of "parody religion" moved to later contextual descriptions of it's origins.

The term "parody religion" is to be replaced with "religion".

To deny this is a violation of Wikipedias rules and clear POV pushing. It is well sourced and detailed it's parody religion origins. However it is now officially in the article stance as any other religious article where it is also against policy to declare it solely a parody religion in the lead sentence or description, especially as a first point.

I encourage every user, every true Wikipedian, to report ANY and ALL (moderator vandalism especially) reverts or edits to this article trying to POV push the use of "parody religion" in replacement of "religion" to the lead as it's description.

Pastafarianism is finally, officially, an actual religion on Wikipedia. PASTAFARIANISM IS FINALLY, OFFICIALLY, AN ACTUAL RELIGION ON WIKIPEDIA!

We won guys, we won. :) 203.206.82.196 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I'd give Niko Alm a Templeton Prize if I could. But the article you linked does not deny that FSMism is a parody, and there are plenty of reliable sources that confirm that it is. I'm sure I won't be the first to direct you to WP:BATTLEGROUND or Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"The next step, Mr Alm told the Austrian news agency APA, is to apply to the Austrian authorities for pastafarianism to become an officially recognised faith" [5] sadly, they're not quite at the official religion in Austria stage... besides, whether or not a religion is "official" somewhere does not impact on whether or not that religion is a parody, or anything else. The phrase "parody religion" is well-sourced. See the FAQ. Gorton k (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued all religions are possible parodies as there is no scientific proof of a God.

If we're doing this route then Wikipedia and the contributors can not logically reject a religion no matter how far-fetched as a parody, even if it admits itself to being one.

Wikipedia is fact, not opinion Adrian.

Thanks Jenova20 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It could indeed be argued that all religions are possible parodies. However, such claims are not made in reliable source material. Verifiability! And you are correct that Wikipedia and the contributors cannot reject a religion on the grounds of being a parody. What is your point? Gorton k (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1 (or a few) sources contradicting a larger body of sources doesn't mean we need to change the article to reflect that viewpoint. Clearly this all started as a parody religion (well sourced) and the fact that people are taking it seriously now doesn't change that. DP76764 (Talk) 15:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@OP: I don't know where you got those "facts" from but no, he did not "fight in court" to get his photo accepted and no, Pastafarianism is NOT an official religion in Austria. --188.23.45.128 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether started as a parody or not this article is about a religion and should be treated as the others are.

Wikipedia does not comment on the other religions possibly not being real and shouldn't on this one.

The fact of the matter is that it can't be proved there is a God and so this religion, whether a parody or not is the same as the others that have been around for 1 year, 5 years or 1000 years.

Thanks Jenova20 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with your logic there. None of the other big religions have reliable sources covering their parody origins like this one does; thus your argument of equivalence with them is false. WP comments on what information sources provide; sources for this say it's a parody, thus that's what WP says. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". DP76764 (Talk) 15:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back here on Earth—all we have here, folks, is a determination in Austria that a person, who self-identifies as an atheist and who says in interviews that he was protesting a privilege given to religions, was allowed to use a colander as religious headgear. Is there any sourcing that Austria has made a legal decision that Pastafarianism is now listed on a government document as a recognized religion? Is there any sourcing that anywhere else in the world there is official recognition of it as a religion? Is there any independent, reliable news account of this that does not make note of the humorous or stretch-like nature of the event? No. All the wahoo-ing above is just POV-pushing or trolling. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: OFFICIALLY an article, not a "parody" article CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

But the talk page does descend into parody... --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

L.I.F.E. = Living In False Ecstasy (from one Pastafarian to another ;-) ) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you're just joking, but don't assume anyone is a Pastafarian just because they edit here. Someone who follows all of my edits would be hard-pressed to infer just what I do or do not believe. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the wink says just joking, but is the parody of a parody the truth? And I only (try to) assume good faith. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper treatment of this this issue would be to update the article to state that while multiple sources identify Pastafarianism as a parody religion, there are followers who by all accounts appear to be genuine, and there are cases where Pastafarianism has been officially recognized.Joshreeves11 (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Which cases?--Charles (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that according to the much more nuanced and detailed coverage by the Austrian newspaper Der Standard (they also organised an online interview with Alm where everybody could ask him questions), there was no official recognition at all. It turns out that there was an information brochure with incorrect information: It claimed that there is a religious exception, but there is no legal basis for this. Anyway, being allowed to wear something on a driver's licence photograph, in a country in which everybody is obliged to have a proper passport or identity card, so that driver's licences don't double as proof of id, is a very minor achievement. Hans Adler 09:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Read their website. It is not a "parody religion". Your "proof" means nothing. I could find "proof" of Christianity being a false religion, yet it is not claimed as so. You find "proof" of Pastafarianism being a "parody religion" so what makes that so? Christianity is only a religion because Christianity says it is. Pastafarianism is a religion because Pastafarianism says it is. Read their site. It clearly states "Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental. Pastafarianism is a real religion. " 66.233.0.64 66.233.0.64 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.130.190 (talk)

Read their website. Their website is a parody. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• the Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science and al dente pasta and juicy meatballs. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And all complaints boiled down to "nuh-uh, it's not a real religion because it's a parody". Sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.103 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all the complaints boil down to "nuh-uh, it's a real religion because we want to pretend that it is, no matter what the reliable sources say." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The people who have been pushing for Pastafarianism to be listed as a religion are missing a few points. First, being a "parody religion" doesn't make it a "fake religion" or even not a "real religion." The word "religion" is in the phrase "parody religion" for cripes sake! It's a "parody" because it satirizes aspects of other religions and it's a "religion" because it consists of a belief system which deals with the supernatural and how to live. Because it does consist of a belief system, it is perfectly possible that there are people in the world who adhere to the belief system, but that does not negate the fact that it is indeed a "parody religion." Look at Discordianism to see an example of a parody religion which isn't afraid to call a spade a spade even in the face of the fact that there are a few neopagans who actually believe in it. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)