Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

self-published sources (examples)

An article about a self-published book may use that self-published book as a source.

Suppose a self-published book, gains great notoriety in the press. Many articles are written about it. It would be acceptable to use that book as a source because the WP article would be about that book. Example Mein_Kampf

As an adjunct to this it is important to note that Hitler's self-published musings on his notable book would not be an acceptable reference.

An article about a self-published website may use references from that website.

Suppose a self-published website, gains great notoriety in the press. Many articles are written about it. It would be acceptable to use that website as a source because the WP article would be about that website. Example Yahoo

An article about a person may use references from that person.

Suppose a person gains notoriety in the press. Many articles are written about him/her. It would be acceptable to use that person's self-published works as a source because the WP article would be about that person. Example Bill_gates

However,

Suppose that same person uses a parody religion and many articles are written about it. It would be unacceptable to use that person's self-published website as a source because the WP article would be about that parody religion and not the person or the website. Example Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.

Henderson's self-published musings on the notable parody religion he started do not pass WP:ATT.

MikeURL 23:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"As an adjunct to this it is important to note that Hitler's self-published musings on his notable book would not be an acceptable reference." False. As long as we could confirm that they were indeed the musings of Hitler and not of some other person pretending to be Hitler they would be relevant and valuable. It is amazing that you keep pressing this very artificial and unrealistic distinction under which the creator of a parody religion is not a reliable source for the contents of the religion and the author of a notable book is not a reliable source for the contents of the book but you ignore the much more crucial distinction, which unlike yours addresses a realistic possibility for abuse, which is the distinction between those things the creator/author is the only expert on, and those things on which he is not only not the only source but not necessarily a reliable source. Please stop this absurdity, it ceased being funny long ago. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's self-published thoughts would be appropriate as a reference on Adolph_Hitler but not Mein_Kampf. There is a real distinction between the two and there should be. I don't think this is a silly point but I'll abide by the consensus of the RfC. I am, in fact, rather curious to see what the comments will be.MikeURL 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: venganza.org

This dispute is about whether venganza.org can be used as a Reliable Source to describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other items related to the parody religion.00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

A self-published source may only be used if the article is about that source. Bobby Henderson is the progenitor of a parody religion, of which the Flying Spaghetti monster is a part, but this article is not about Bobby Henderson so his self-published website ought not be used as a reliable source for this article. MikeURL 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is an obviously silly interpretation. Could the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, by themselves, create a website to describe the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Clearly not; the idea is absurd. By the same logic, we could not ever include anything from any self-published book, no matter how notable the book might be, because it is not the book that wrote the book. Can we have a quick end to this silliness, please? The prohibitions on self-published works, like all Wikipedia rules, exist to serve a purpose, not to be slavishly followed to ridiculous extremes. The prohibitions on self-published works exist for one purpose and one purpose only (and this is shown in the exceptions spelled out to those prohibitions) and that is to keep people who have no expertise in a subject from being treated as experts merely because they self-published. But, pardon my shouting, no person on Earth is more of an expert on what the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are than Bobby Henderson is. Insistence on pedantically and artificially separating FSMism from Henderson, for no other purpose that I can see other than to try and disallow Henderson as a source on FSMism, is of no benefit to the encyclopedia.
  - Thanks for the refactoring. I'm sorry but including content regarding this parody religion from a self-published website is original research. I really don't think there is any way around that. I addressed your objection regarding a self-published book being used as a reference in detail immediately above this section.MikeURL 02:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Please read the bolded sentence above. No person on Earth is more of an expert on what the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are than Bobby Henderson is. If you disagree with this sentence, explain who is more of an expert. If you agree with this sentence, explain what benefit Wikipedia could ever possibly get from barring the official word coming from the expert on a subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      - This sounds a lot like an appeal to authority. Maybe we should start writing verbatim everything Bill Gates says about Microsoft? After all, who is more of an expert on Microsoft than Bill Gates.MikeURL 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        All right, I refuse to address this farce any longer. There are, indeed, grey areas on which issues the word of self-published sources is sufficient, and on which it is not. In fact, I've already addressed this very issue, by pointing out that we can take venganza.org as the authority on what the doctrines of FSMism are but not on how many of the "followers" of FSMism, if any, actually take it seriously. But this is nowhere near such a gray area and in fact if MikeURL were to acknowledge such grey areas it would ruin his attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        ATT is one of, if not the, most important policies on Wikipedia. The allowance for the use of self-published sources is very narrow. Following what you are suggesting would open up every article on wikipedia to self-published sources with the argument that the source is "the expert" on <insert subject>.MikeURL 01:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All material about the doctrines of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism which are supported by the official material of venganza.org are well-referenced. I do not think there is any way that anyone could be plausibly misunderstanding that point anymore; one might as well claim that an article on a self-published book may not contain anything referenced to the self-published book because the book is self-published. That would have the same amount of plausibility, i.e. none, which is why I can no longer assume good faith. However, there is a distinction between the doctrines and the followers. Venganza may declare that the doctrines of FSMism include a "strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster" and we can accept that claim. When it claims that there are over 10 million followers of the FSM who seriously, truly believe these doctrines, however, this is an extraordinary claim for which Venganza is not a sufficient reference. I would appreciate not having to explain this again, since it should be manifestly clear by now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree "venganza.org is thus a source for factual content on what the content of the parody religion claims" which is what it is used for in this article. Venganza is also an appropriate source for Henderson quotes. Swift's work is called a parody in wikipedia because notable sources say its a parody (many books have been written on who, what, where and when was being parodied and how this was done) this is the principle of verifiability and is the basis for this project. What i have asked for is that notable sources (james randi is atleast that) are found to say FSM is a Parody, thats all! Hypnosadist 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, I hate to harp on this one point over and over, but we already have such sources. I added them to the talk page more than half a year ago here, and they have been ignored ever since. I don't know whether the WP community considers these sources notable, since no one has ever responded to their addition and AFAIK they were never added to the article proper. Kasreyn 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether FSM is a parody or not has nothing to do with this at all. http://www.venganza.org/ is the self-published source for info on the entity's of the FSM and the Church of the FSM. If you think that mis-identified sources is a real issue here then sections that discribe FSM ideas could be clearly marked accordingly. PS all the http://www.venganza.org/ quotes were part of this article when it got its GA status. Hypnosadist 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

strong pro-venganza: Every other source on FSM can trace its existence back to venganza.org. Everything anybody knows about FSM is based on what they, or their sources, or their sources' sources read on venganza.org. This is information-laundering. One more step removed from the subject doesn't magically transform an unreliable source into a reliable source. It's more likely to have the opposite effect. The policy on self-published sources is crap. Plenty of published sources are less reliable than some self-published sources. Besides, NPOV is sort of inconsistent with wontonly ignoring self-published sources. We're not here to determine the truth, we're here to report who said what.

Comments

Not a reducio ad absurdum

Look up reducio ad absurdum before trying to revert my edit. It clearly does not fit the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

That's "reductio". Or have IBT? Care to explain why it's not? Kasreyn 05:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a reductio ad absurdum, or at least meant to be (and in fact, the whole creation of Pastafarianism is part of a reductio ad absurdum argument against religion, isn't it?). The argument is as follows (compare the examples on Reductio ad absurdum:

School science classes teach Darwin's evolutionary theory.
Kansas Board of Education: "We should also allow teaching creationism as an alternative explanation for where man came from (since evolution is just a 'theory')."
Pastafarian: "Well, then we will also have to add Pastafarianism as yet another alternative (and, following Henderson's argument, equally plausible) explation (although this would be the pinnacle of being absurd, tracing the origins of man to flying pasta and meatballs...)."

Naturally, you can critize Henderson's argument that, essentially, FSM is just as valid as creationism, but there should be little doubt about the logic of his argument. (By the way, I don't think the term "strawman" argument applies here. A strawman argument criticizes something which isn't there, e.g. by misrepresenting someone's intention, but this doesn't apply here). -- Semper discipulus 08:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You left out that creationists have tried to change the definition of the word science. That is partially why it would be considered absurd.

The story of FSM follower Bryan Killian

I removed the following part from the main page, section "History and Developments":

In March, 2007, student Bryan Killian of Weaverville, North Carolina's Buncombe High School was suspended from school for wearing an eyepatch in class as part of his stated religious beliefs. [1]

The part doesn't really seem to fit in, at least not in this form and in this place (Killian apparently claimed that he was a follower of FSM, that wearing an eye patch was part of his belief, and that his personal religious freedom was being curtailed by not being allowed to wear that patch -- But this is not really part of the development of FSM). It might fit into a separate section like "FSM followers". I'm personally not convinced that such a section would be important for this article, but if someone feels up for it, please go ahead. -- Semper discipulus 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is something that (made the news) then I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of a one or two line entry. If it became its own spin-off article I would vote to delete on an AfD but we aren't there yet (of course, if it made it to a few higher courts, that would be a different case). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Chalk up another third-party, impartial source which describes FSMism as a "parody religion". Thanks for the link, Semper! ~~I'll add it to the Sources describing FSM as Parody section immediately.~~ Oops, looks like one can't edit the archive. I'll restore it here, then. Kasreyn 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources Describing FSM as Parody Religion (reposted and revised)

Some choice bits (in my opinion):

"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."

The Kansas City Star

and

"...a satirical attack on the teaching of Creationism in American schools."

The James Randi Education Foundation

Note to editors: These sources are intended as justification for the article's flat description of FSM as a parody religion. (Ie., for reasons of notability, verifiability, and NPOV.) This single adjective is one of the most frequently disputed single pieces of the article, with at any given time typically a single editor challenging the strong consensus that FSM is a parody. It's becoming quite a waste of time reinventing the wheel every week by writing another whole section on this just to reassert the consensus. Some highly contentious articles have FAQ pages (for instance, Evolution) to deal with frequently-disputed issues, in order to avoid pointless timewasting. I suggest that this section could help in a similar time-saving fashion here. Please, if you agree, do not archive this section. Thanks, Kasreyn 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I might want to point this out- NONE OF THOSE SOURCES SHOW BOBBY HENDERSON SAYING IT IS A PARODY. Others call it a parody, but that doesn't mean thay can be cited.

The NY Times source says "Long before that, Bobby Henderson, a 25-year-old with a physics degree from Oregon State University, had a divine vision. An intelligent god, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, he said, "revealed himself to me in a dream."" yet does not mention parody till the end of the article and NEVER claims that FSM is a parody religion just implies it. Clearly a much better source to say that this is a TRUE religion divinely revealed.

I also continue to dispute this claim to concensus and to this only one person against the parody part. It is needlessly insulting! Hypnosadist 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Eris has revealed that Discordianism holds all the rites on being kinda parody kinda religion. Thus FSMism is a stright parody.Geni 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You've made your point. We're up to two at once now: a new record for this talk page. As to the consensus, I really don't think putting this to a vote would serve any useful purpose. WP's editors' opinions are just OR anyway. The consensus of verifiable third-party sources, by comparison, is clear. Kasreyn 23:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the NYT article, it does not merely "imply". Consider:

will ... Pastafarianism do what it was intended to do - prove that it is ridiculous to teach intelligent design as science?

This is NYT clearly stating that the intention of FSM is political and temporal rather than religious.

Parody is a lot of fun. And parody begets more parody, especially on the Internet. It's contagious. But has anyone ever converted to a parody religion?

All right, so the NYT is being coy. So what? How about we have a vote on which parody religion we each think the NYT was referring to in this paragraph? Get real, and get a grip on Occam's Razor. The reality of the situation is, the NYT clearly considers FSM a parody. Only the most unlikely legalistic chicanery could hold otherwise: that for some unknown reason, in the middle of an article on FSM, the NYT would suddenly interject a paragraph referring to some mysterious unspecified OTHER parody religion - and then go back to talking about FSM! Because that is what you would have to propose in order to claim that that paragraph is not a description of FSM as a parody. Are you really prepared to go out on that thin branch? Think hard now. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 23:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"The reality of the situation is, the NYT clearly considers FSM a parody." thats just your OR (oh what a good way to dismisss any comment you don't like, i'll have to remember it!). What an article says is much more important than what you think it says. Also as i say again this source is not notable because its an arts reporter not an expert on religion. Hypnosadist 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, nonsense.

If the article had been in the religion section, you would have used that as evidence that the NYT clearly considered FSM to be a religion - why else would it be in the religion section? FSM's place in the arts section instead clearly indicates the NYT does not consider it to be a real religion. Thank you for that point, by the way - I hadn't noticed it!
As to the former: so you are saying that you hold that the NYT was talking about some other unspecified parody religion in that paragraph, rather than merely being coy in referring to FSM? Just trying to make absolutely sure, because once again I would hate to misinterpret or assume the worst of you: you are taking that position? If so, out of curiosity, and with no real relevance to work on this article - what parody religion do you speculate the NYT may have been randomly referring to for no reason at all in that paragraph? Because I'm really not an expert on parody religions, the only other one that immediately comes to mind is the Church of the SubGenius. Perhaps you know of some others which you could enlighten me about? I'd be delighted to learn about them.

Cheers, Kasreyn 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you know what? I'm taking this too seriously anyway (which is exactly the sort of thing His Noodleyness would most disapprove of, now that I think of it). We've managed to inform each other of what we believe, and at this point it doesn't seem likely that either of us are going to convince the other, so I'm going to bed unless some other party wants to weigh in. Somehow I doubt we two are the only editors of this page, though sometimes it feels kind of lonely in here. :P Sorry to get so worked up. Kasreyn 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article the other day while reverting some vandalism. Just to add my two cents as a non-noodly lay person (but as someone with a good background in the humanities and textual research): The beauty of parody, irony, and satire is of course that it is presented as real and serious, with its message being subtle rather than all too obvious. In order to 'get it', one needs to read between the lines and recreate the author's intention while carefully considering the context in which it was produced. Some irony is plain as the day while some is more hidden -- and of course there is always the chance that the irony and its message are missed entirely. Detecting irony is based on interpretation and human understanding, and I don't there are easy, formal criteria for 'proving' that something is irony.

That being said, FSM seems like a very obvious case of parody to me; I think there can be little debate about Henderson's intentions, given his statements and the context in which he came up with it. So I don't quite understand why this issue can't be put to rest... Well, two possible reasons for this suggest themselves:

(1) FSM has developed a life on its own and has brought about genuine believers who are offended by what they see as 'their religion being ridiculed'. If that were really so (and I think in that case, we would need very solid evidence to show that claims of 'believing in FSM' are actually based religious intentions), this should probably go into a separate section in the article, to differentiate it from FSM's humorous beginnings. Or:

(2) In line with Critical Theory, statements are never only matter of fact, but closely tied to intentions. So perhaps fundamentally different intentions what the 'purpose' of the article should be prevent consensus here ... ? (For example, upholding vs. analyzing (and therefore, quasi, debunking) parody.)-- Semper discipulus 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Semper, you're taking this far too seriously. Can't you tell this is just a parody of a talk page? --Justfred 15:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Point in case: There is no foolproof system to detect irony ... :-) -- Semper discipulus 10:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The following is evidence against the theory "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a totally serious and absolutely non-parody religion which Bobby Henderson seriously actually follows and seriously actually thought should be taught in the classroom":

"I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach Creationism in school, fine, but don't teach it in a science classroom. And don't change the definition of science so that you can teach these things. That's retarded."[2]

"Q: You are making God angry. A: I doubt it. If there's a God, and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor."[3]

These are completely consistent with the theory "FSMism is a parody religion designed as a humorous attempt to demonstrate why teaching Creationism in a science classroom is wrong" and completely inconsistent with "FSMism is a completely serious and non-parody non-humor religion." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to insist on using venganza as though it were/is a reliable source. What are you going to do if Henderson "tightens it up" a bit so there are fewer, or no, inconsistencies? Then you'll be in the uncomfortable position of explaining that it was only a RS while it agreed with your POV and once it stopped agreeing with your POV then it was no longer a RS. Never did get any comments on the RfC...unfortunately. I really did want to see what "outside" parties thought. Lord knows you and I aren't going to agree.MikeURL 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'll stick with common sense and you'll cling tenaciously to the absurdity that the creator of a religion is completely unqualified to comment on that religion. Your predictions are inaccurate, by the way; if Henderson were to remove from his website the statements which clarify that he is not favoring religions being taught in the science classroom, the fact that he had made those statements would still be cited and relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is absurd is to use questionable sources when it is isn't even necessary. There are enough secondary sources to do this article justice. Why don't you put away your strident attitude--it isn't helpful.MikeURL 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I have removed the word parody from the Wikipedia article. Let me explain why:

To say that it is a Parody religion technically constitutes bias. Parody or not, it is a religion, and as such is considered serious by a group of people claiming to be members of that religion. Ergo, I was forced to remove the word parody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.240.16 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 April 2007.

Of course it is a parody religion. It's all in fun, even if it is fun with a purpose. I love it, myself. But, I realize that it was all made up by a guy who wanted to make a point by poking a little fun at the ID folks. Where is the bias in calling it what it is? Cmichael 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section immediately above this one and refer to WP:V and WP:NPOV. HTH HAND Kasreyn 06:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with those two sections. Common sense says its a parody. I've said all I want to on the subject. Thanks for the opportunity to put in my two cents. Cmichael 13:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is not the issue. We have a large number of reliable sources describing it as parody. WP:V and WP:RS are what matters here. JoshuaZ 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an issue...we fundamentally agree that it is a parody. So, calling it what it is does not represent any kind of bias. Cmichael 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to mention that it has been called a parody religion, but imho, it should not be stated as fact given the NPOV guidelines.

It doesn't matter what it was intended to be, calling it a parody is biased, and an insult to the followers. People base their very lives on this "parody". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.137.12 (talk • contribs).

Firstly, "us people" are perfectly capable of "getting" it. Please try to remain civil.
Secondly, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~! It makes things much less confusing.
Thirdly, another thing which doesn't matter about the description of FSM as a parody is whether it might possibly offend someone somewhere. Our only concern here is recording all notable and verifiable information about the subject. Facts cannot be biased. Only the frameworks within which they are presented can be. It is a fact that FSM has been described as a parody religion by several sources. Since no one has yet disputed the reliability or notability of those sources, I will venture to call them several notable, reliable sources. It is not a fact known to me that FSM has ever been described as a genuine religion by any notable, reliable source. You'll need to provide a reference for this claim before we can include it in the article (see [[WP:NOR|no original research).

I will make an edit to reflect this reference. Please reply here if you still feel there is a problem. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FSM is a parody. Describing it as something that people believe is a parody is undue weight. The fact is that it's a parody, and we have the words of the prophet to back that up several times over. -- Ec5618 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful to see you here. The description of "widely described as" parody, was intended to put the kabbash on these NPOV complaints. For one thing, it prevents all possible appearance of original research in our phrasing.

Here is the way this article works. As I described above, at any given time there are between zero and two transient editors (as in, they arrive, they stay a while, then they move on) arguing the minority position. Whenever it happens that other editors get sick and tired, or just bored, of eternally responding to the same damn quibble (over FSM as a parody), there isn't any proof that the consensus is unchanged. So could you stick around for a while? Because a few days ago in here I sure looked mighty ridiculous: "But it IS a parody! That's the majority consensus of me, and all those other editors who I'm sure will eventually say something, right guys?" >_< So what would you do under the situation? Start an one-man edit war while loudly proclaiming, without proof, to be the representative of a silent majority? Or compromise? Naturally, the only proper thing to do was to compromise. Kasreyn 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the issue here. Bobby Henderson has stated, in reliable sources, that he imagined the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a way to mock proponents of intelligent design. On top of that, that fact is self-evident.

Considering that Wikipedia is not a democracy, the strongest argument should win, regardless of the number of transient editors who fail to read the sources. -- Ec5618 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to compromise? That's what I've been trying to do. I attempted to neutralize it by editing the article and saying the some refer to it as a parody, yet the followers take it very serously. It was deleted. I'd appreciate it if it wasn't deleted next time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.221.31.37 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 April 2007.

Ahoy there, matey. Be ye one of the Touched, a Pastafarian? If not, 'tis no matter. This youngin, she is, she be one of the Pirates of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, praise to his Noodly Appendages, and proudly she wears the mantle of 'Pastafarian'.

But, I gotta tell ye somethin', me hearty... though I take the message the Prophet Bobby is a-sendin' with the FSM real serious, the message that we should be a-keepin' faith outta places it don't belong, truly I don't take the deity Himself serious, me lad or lass. Oh, sometimes I'll go out wearin' me eyepatch on Friday, and the Eight Condiments seem right sensible, and I wish people a happy Holidy come Hallowe'en an' December, but matey... matey, I ain't serious about it, and honestly I don't know of any Pastafarian who truly, deep in their swashbuckling hearts, believes the world were started with mountains, trees, and a midgit.

If they be out there, matey, well... frankly they've missed the whole point. We should be reportin' on 'em if they do be out there, but so far I've not seen one teeny little speck of evidence for 'em. It ain't a serious religion, me hearty - just a way for the Atheists and the Agnostics and the Christians and the Jews and the Neo-Pagans and who knows who else to come together and say "Lookie here, lads and lasses of ID - we all see what you're a-tryin' to do. Knock it off." --Sparky Lurkdragon 07:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alf, Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei,

To those wayward souls in jeopardy of perpetual HotDog eating, this bull is addressed. Stop it just stop it you hear? Now get back to your crayons.

Issued this day, the 10th day of the fourth month of the year 2007. Saint-Tropez beach.

Ego Alf Discordia Ecclesiae Episcopus

Could I just put that some consider it to be a parody, others take it seriously? I realize that not everyone here thinks people take it seriously. And, frankly, neither do I. I'm trying to compromise here, is that really so bad? 68.221.31.201 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's bad, considering that we have sources proving that it isn't serious. It's a parody. Your 'compromise' completely misses theat point. FSM is an argument against teaching intelligent design in schools. -- Ec5618 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

you know what, what the hell ever. Go ahead. I'll stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.221.31.201 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

There you go Ec5618 another victory for your insult them until they leave stratagy.Hypnosadist 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any portion of Ec's comment which would constitute an insult or ad hominem attack. He was referring to 68.etc's compromise, ie. an argument. Focusing on each other's arguments, rather than each other, is precisely what we are supposed to do here. Unlike Ec, your comments seem to be straying perilously close to focusing on the contributor rather than the arguments. Please don't bother with the speculation on Ec's "strategy". Kasreyn 02:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

precedent in other (parody) religion articles

Subgenius and Discordia, both have the word parody in the intros. see Category:Joke religions for more examples. I think Discordia does it best by having a seperate sentence saying it is "widely regarded" as a parody. We all appreciate a good joke but an encyclopedia is not the place to play the joke. I think the language on parody should be nearly identical to the discordia article. -- Diletante 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Discriptions of Subgenius and Discordia are even worse as many books on the practice of these faiths have been writen. Just because we don't drink the blood of a jew whose been dead 2000 years or blow people up does not mean we don't have rights. Hypnosadist 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, please take your garbage somewhere else. Shoehorn 06:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NO Hypnosadist 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Its very simple, find some decent sources for your insult of other peoples faith.Hypnosadist 06:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If I were to attempt an inclusion that The great prophet Zarquon was a true prophet and formed the basis of a true religion because I really believe, truly and honestly that he is, and found it an affront to have others state he's not real and was just made up by some guy I hope someone would have the good sense to block my ass to Ursa Minor Beta and back again.--Alf ^melmac 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It could not possibly have been more well-said. Kasreyn 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We have reliable sources. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please

I posted the thing where the debate is still going on, but you took it down. Well, I believe, I truly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And if I believe it, and my friends believe it, and this debate is going on, then anyone who reads the article has a right to know that. Please, I ask you this: Don't take down something saying that some people believe it. Please, we (believers) don't want to fight anymore, I don't want to fight anymore, but if this continues to happen, we are going to keep trying to tell the public. That's all I ask. Xela 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I'm tired of explaing this to new editors, I'll be brief. Without sources claiming that true Pastafarians exist, you are not notable. On a more personal note, I would ask you to reconsider believing in a well known lie. I would also ask you to consider that your prophet, Bobby Henderson, who opposes blind religion, is probably not at all pleased that some people are apparently blindly following a joke. -- Ec5618 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really tired of explaining to you that there is not concensus here. You are just rude to people until they leave! Hypnosadist 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the number of people that fail to read the sources, the sources still obviously state that the FSM is a parody. -- Ec5618 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources that are not good enough for the extrordinary claim that this is a parody and in some cases misrepresented (see above). Hypnosadist 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maties, ye be makin' th' rest of us Pastafarians look bad. You are either missing the entire point of the Open Letter or trolling the Wikipedia. At this point I rather suspect the latter - you "true Pastafarians" are the ones with the extraordinary claim.

I know the adherents of Pastafarianism are supposed to be Pirates with loose moral standards, and I know you can't account for religion, but seriously: either take it to Uncyclopedia or pony up some tangible, verifiable proof that folks who seriously believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the Universe exist, something verified by the outside media as a serious event rather than one making satirical comments about the Intellegent Design movement and/or dogma in general.

I know I shouldn't be getting so worked up about what are either trolls or a very miniority religion, so minority in fact that the rest of its 'adherents' acknowledge it to be a parody, but enough is enough. --Sparky Lurkdragon 04:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sources that it is a parody do not meet wp:att, nothing academic, no-one with any training on religion let alone New religious movements or parodys. A features writer on a minor local american newspaper just do not cut it for most things on wikipedia, note wikipedia is not about what is true just what is verifiable by notable sources. Hypnosadist 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Jedi census phenomenon