Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

OFFICIALLY A RELIGION. Remove use of 'parody religion' and replace with 'religion'

This is ridiculous. This article, and the amount of Wikipedia users denying strict policy in favour of personal bias they justify with a simple "no, it is parody, obviously, because it obviously is", should have drawn enough attention of rule abiding admins and moderators by now...but alas it seems we are saturated by those who seem to think the rules do not apply to them because, as I state again, "obviously I don't need to back up, it obviously is a parody".

No, im sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. In fact it was specifically designed to cease such ignorant bias that can easily be refuted by the other end of the spectrum of their opponents providing the exact same reasoning for justification to.

Let's look at the problems and facts.

- The origins of Pastafarianism have no baring on a Wikipedia article about whether or not it can be classified as a genuine religion or belief system without having a pointless "parody" tag added onto it at every instance. As per the rules. So even if it can be sourced and established that it began as a parody religion, it has no weight in flat out declaring it has no actual religious followers or is not an actual religion. It can ONLY carry weight if there are no sources to refute or criticise that stance AND (not just or, but 'and') that stance is backed by an, unprecidented to, stance that it could never be anything else. Which would be entirely original research as such sources do not get to define what constitutes a real religion. So on top of carrying no weight regardless, the origins of Pastafarianism being a parody hold about as much weight as Scientology being originally a scam. We are not, in any way, allowed to change the description of Scientology to "a scam religion", yet are allowed to do so here for no other reason than many users "just say so". Nobody has said that Pastafarianisms parody nature should not be recognisd in its history, however as Scientology, it can NOT be included in the description. And there is far, far more sources (verified and meeting Wikipedias standards) that it was created as a scam religion than there is for Pastafarianism as a parody. And as such it is included in various points on the criticism/controversy pages of that series of articles.

Conclusion: The origins of Pastafarianism do not define it's current status and supercede it as a religion and/or belief system. It is against Wikipedian rules to establish they do so as it contradicts every other religious articles definition based on it's origins and history.

- The repeated, again and again, statements of "it is a parody religion, don't pretend it isn't", "obviously it's a parody, everyone knows that" and other variations including "nobody actually believes in it genuinely" in response to the continious outrage at the bias, the allowed bias, in this article is a huge problem. Almost all of the time, after many users specifically abide by Wikipedia policy and bring up discussion on the change of the article, the usual, most of the time ONLY, responses given as to why such a POV and bias thing (against Wikipedia policy given the facts) should be allowed is with responses like "people don't actually believe in it". That's nice. However, users on Wikipedia do not get to decide the legitimacy of a religion because they personally do not believe in it. We do not allow various sects of other religions to go around and define religions as parodies or "not real religions" simply because they personally do not believe in it. It is AGAINST THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA, and the rest of Wikipedia would be outraged enough to disallow them that bias, POV power even if they had majority on that article.

Conclusion: That you personally do not believe that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion, or that it is a parody, that does not justify editing or reversing the article to represent the view it is a parody. That is against the rules.

- Sources detailing original research in relation to Pastafarianism being a parody religion. If the source (read: so far all sources) you are presenting as justification to continue the "parody" status in the description or edit it back to that contains original research, it REMAINS original research. You can include it in criticism or history per a single persons oppinion, if you insist on stretching the rules. As such, regardless of the sources for it being a real religion (as I shall discuss below), decribing it as a parody is not the default. In fact, given Wikipedia standards in relation to articles given similiar justification, the default is that it is a relgion.

Conclusion: Unless a source contains factual information detailing a non-subjective reason why it is a parody and not a real religion (yeah, good luck finding that), it is original research. In effect being some published person detailing the same ridiculous bias of "well, I think it's obviously a parody, I provide no proof of that, but my statement it is should be enough to define religion real or not...despite the fact such has never been done so in the history of human kind" that many users are doing. As it is against Wikipedia's rules, the sources given so far by users justifying their edits that it is indeed solely a parody carry no weight. They have no place as sources for the POV and bias on this page.

- The issue here does not seem to be that is must be justified as a religion but that the users who edit (and vandalise) this article to remove any reference to it being a belief system or religion, opposed to those who refuse to include anything about it being a religion or belief system without then adding on "parody" unjustifiably, are doing so because they think it not be specifically decribed as a parody religion somehow justifies it as a religion "being true".

Final Conclusion: Given that no justification, according to Wikipedia's rules, has been given for including parody in the description, it must be removed. The issue seems to be that the article needs to be REWORDED to exclude not only parody but also any "justification" as an "actual religion". Until the article can be reworded, the POV issue of including the statement of it being/only a parody MUST be REMOVED. It is POV and bias. It is nobodies fault that to reword it to remove the POV (something against Wikipedia's policy) results in the default issue of it then being called a religion passively. If you take issue with it, then reword it yourself to somehow remove it being justified as a religion ALONG with parody being removed (good luck).

Point of Interest: This is an issue. This article is here to stay. And from the degree of opposition from those with their own personal religious bias clearly visable as to their criticism, even hatred at times, of Pastafarianism being anything but written as unjustified as possible, it appears this issue will continue to carry on. Especially from the fact all the pointless anti-Pastafarian remarks from users on this board that deny the same remarks for "actual" religions are the very thing Pastafarianism mimics the hypocracy of.

What will happen when published, very respected articles or groups state Pastafarianism is an actual religion? Or famous/professional people being quoted on such? Things that are not mediocre sources and things you CANNOT ignore, even the admins and mods who passively, sometimes actively, contribute to the POV bias in direct contradiction of their position. No doubt the same ignorance on this board will complain about and revert any removal of it being a parody religion still. Do we really need to wait until it becomes a serious problem before fixing it?

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. 203.206.42.83 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Harlequin

Thank you for the thread necromancy, but it does not appear that any WP:CONSENSUS has changed since the last time you wrote this. Recycling the same non-source doesn't improve the argument either. DP76764 (Talk) 17:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture?

FSM was in an episode of Futurama. Does anyone care about that?

98.80.24.24 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No doubt someone somewhere does, but WP:TRIV. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A popular creature often used by parents to scare children into eating all their food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.141.7 (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence, Please. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't scare them into not eating spaghetti and meatballs. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Parody Religion; follow the sources.

Regarding whether Pastafarianism is a parody religion, the sources cited in the article do not establish that. They establish that it started as a parody religion, and one could argue that they establish that it was still a parody religion in 2005 and 2006.

So, would it be acceptable to reword the article to indicate this? For that to be a legitimate change, the editor making the change needs to add citations to reliable sources that establish that some Pastafarians now claim that it is a non-parody religion. No doubt such a search will also show that some Pastafarians claim that it is a parody religion, so the revised wording would be something like

"Pastafarianism started out as a parody religion[citations go here] and is still generally considered to be a parody religion.[citations] Some Pastafarians claim to be followers of a legitimate religion that should be treated like any other religion[cites]".

The key concept is that we should only say something in Wikipedia's voice if it uncontested. As soon as we determine that there are reliable sources establishing that some Pastafarians disagree with the "parody religion" label, the article needs to show that there are two views on this. Probably a mainstream view and a fringe view, from what I have seen in the sources.

The above suggested wording is rather wordy for the lead, so perhaps deleting "a parody religion" from the lead and inserting the statement somewhere lower would be appropriate.

This, of course, presupposes that those citations to reliable sources exist. I would suggest that those who want the change gather your citations, write a paragraph with the wording you prefer that includes those citations, and present it here on the talk page for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

From the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website:

"Q: Is this a joke?"

"A: It’s not a joke. Elements of our religion are often described as satire and there are many members who do not literally believe our scripture, but this isn’t unusual in religion – it’s only more obvious in the case of our particular religion. A lot of Christians, for example, don’t believe the Bible is literally true – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t True Christians."

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Where are the secondary sources from reliable third parties to verify that some Pastafarians are seriously religious about it? If such sources are presented, it may be appropriate to add language to the body of the article (not the lead) noting that in the view of some Pastafarians it is srs bzns, keeping in mind that ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.

Self-published sources may be used for information about themselves, so long as "... the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim..." Strictly speaking, that only says the FSM website may be used for information about the FSM website.

Without getting into spurious tu quoque arguments about the bases of traditional religions, it is plain (and sourced) that Pastafarianism is a recently fabricated parodic phenomenon, created to demonstrate the disingenuous inanity of intelligent design. _ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, it is up to the editor who wishes to make that change to add citations to reliable sources that establish that some Pastafarians now claim that it is a non-parody religion. I don't want to make that change. I am just saying what is required of someone who does want to make that change: WP:V, WP:RS WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.

It works the other way as well. Those who wish to retain the present parody religion claim need to provide citations to reliable sources establishing the claim. The origins of Pastafarianism are irrelevant to the question at hand unless you have a citation to a reliable source that establishes that no religion ever changes from what it was when it was founded.

Do you believe that the present article meets Wikipedia's standard for making the parody religion claim in Wikipedia's voice rather than reporting what the sources say? If so, on what basis? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the existing citations, stating the parodied nature of this IS "reporting what the sources say" and not "making a claim". If you look through the archives, you'll see that this has been debated ad nauseum; I highly doubt that the label in question is there in a way that doesn't comply with policy. DP76764 (Talk) 14:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I recognize your good faith and desire to reserve Wikipedia's voice for bulletproof assertions, but you lost me at "The origins of Pastafarianism are irrelevant to the question at hand..."

Recognizing that physical and social phenomena follow different rules, calling for sources to verify that "no religion ever changes" strikes me as similar to calling for sources establishing that ¹⁴C decay rates have remained constant in the relevant recent epochs.

Before making any change, let's wait until someone brings credible sources that say a notable set of adherents regard Pastafarianism as an authentic religion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said, I do not wish to say what Pastafarianism is, and I will accept any sourced definition. The current definition is unsourced. You cannot use a source for how something started to support a statement about what it is today. If we allowed that, we would have to accept claims that RCA Records is The Victor Talking Machine Company, that Dianetics has no connection with religion, and that the correct name for Rubik's Cube is "The Magic Cube" - I can provide reliable sources that each of them started that way and you are telling me that citations for how Pastafarianism started establish what Pastafarianism is.

You are saying something about Pastafarianism that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster denies is true, and your only sources refer to how Pastafarianism started, an origin story that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster agrees with. And you insist on doing so in Wikipedia's voice in direct violation of WP:YESPOV. Our policy on this is crystal clear: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Nowhere does it say that it has to be contested by a secondary source or that primary sources contesting it do not count. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster contests the "parody religion" claim. We do not put statements about organizations that those organizations say are untrue in Wikipedia's voice. Instead we report what the sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not extrapolate from what I have actually said, if you wish to be consistent about putting things in this voice or that one. You just called some sources "my" sources; nope, those sources were around since well before I showed up. Shenanigans like that do not help Wikipedia.

You seem to suggest that we should take a site seriously that says the Church of the FSM "existed in secrecy for hundreds of years," which is bullshit. Another clue to the tongue-in-cheek leg-pulling nature of the site is "millions, if not thousands, of devout worshippers..." To me, that looks like a clear case of walking and quacking like a parody.

I used to think some arguments aren't worth having. I still do. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith of wanting to find a way to accommodate the wishes of editors like the one who started the thread above, but I have a feeling that the performance artists won't let up until we fully adopt the joke, with nothing about there still being some sources that say it's a parody. No mention of parody!! Religious persecution!! And I think that changing the lead would be giving WP:UNDUE emphasis to the deadpan joke. I suppose, however, that it would be reasonable to report lower on the page how the official website denies that it's a joke, and follow it with some sources that claim to be a true religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has explained why it is OK to violate the clear wording of WP:YESPOV. Having established that, I am going to WP:COAL now. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate the integrity of your efforts here. Thank you. For an explanation of how the current wording relates to YESPOV, consider the bullet point that starts with "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." As I see it, the word "seriously" is a key. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. (...said the fellow who isn't here (smile).) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

To give the lead more context, I revised it to read,

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a satirical deity used in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to promote Pastafarianism, a parody religious movement that challenges the intelligent design form of creationism promulgated by the Seattle, Washington based Discovery Institute.

I also changed the lead in parody religion from A parody religion or mock religion is a parody of a religion, sect or cult, to read,

A parody religion or mock religion is an imitation belief system that challenges spiritual convictions of others through qualities such as humor, satire, and burlesque.

We could handle this Pastafarianism "parody religion" issue by revising the lead to something along the lines of

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a satirical deity used in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to promote Pastafarianism, a movement that originated in 2005 as a religious parody to challenge the intelligent design form of creationism promulgated by the Seattle, Washington based Discovery Institute.

We all agree that the reliable sources support how Pastafarianism originated, so we keep that in the lead. Since the dispute is over what Pastafarianism has become, we can leave that issue out of the lead yet keep "parody religion" in the lead so the reader has some context (which is bolstered by that Flying Spaghetti Monster image to the right of the lead and the unlikelihood of a parody religion created seven years ago changing to something else). I don't think there is a need to tell the reader what to think since the elements of this proposed revision are there for the reader to draw their own conclusion. Plus, even if the raising of this Pastafarianism parody issue issue here and there is performance art (thanks, Tryptofish), I think the above proposed change to the lead will improve the lead. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it. A lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few more tweaks, but I don't think I changed it substantively. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Some sites often pick up only the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. Providing too much information about Pastafarianism in the first sentence of the lead gets off topic (e.g., the Monster) at some point. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

A recent discovery by the religious prophet BobicusIX sheds light on the spaghetti monsters place in modern day religion prior to the church forming in 2005. What seem to be detailed anatomical diagrams of the deity were found on stained glass windows inside an active christian church astounding both atheists and anti-theists from around the globe. The most remarkable aspect of the discovery is that the diagrams have been present since at least 5 years before the formation of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The implications of these findings are as yet unknown but some members of the FSM movement are already suggesting that there could have been links between the two religions as far back as 200ad. If found to be true this not only proves the existence (at least in human consciousness) of the FSM prior to the church's formation, but also (ironically) offers evidence to disprove the atheists who initially founded the church. Until further analysis of the findings by theologians no such claims can be substantiated.

Sources http://imgur.com/a/T1FXv http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/w5ynr/ive_been_dragged_to_this_church_for_15_summers/

82.11.144.238 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Complete bollocks.--Charles (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait...what? Since when does something being complete bollocks disqualify it from inclusion in Wikipedia? How do you explain THIS???

(Note to the humor impaired: No, I am not being serious.) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We have lots of notable bollocks that is documented here using reliable sources.... ;-) It's all part of "the sum of human knowledge", and documenting it is our mission. We get our fingers into deep shit sometimes! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Satire

An adverse side-effect of this discussion is that I looked again at note #1 of the three notes above ("About" at the FSM website[1]) to see what words they use about "genuine" etc. (Mostly "real", probably not useful for our discussion.) But I noticed the way they treat the word "satire" in the third Q&A item. It caught my eye because there's recently been some reverting over whether sourcing exists for using satirical as a descriptor in the lead. So, at the risk of upsetting our genuine consensus, let me raise the possibility of changing "a movement celebrating" in the first sentence, to "a satirical movement celebrating". Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. LK (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanks! I think it was you who objected to the previous form of it, so I guess that means we agree on this approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated

OK, so if I've been following this discussion correctly, the most recent revision of the revision would be this:

---

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a satirical movement celebrating lighthearted irreligion and opposing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. Although some adherents state that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion, it is generally recognized by the media as a parody religion.

Notes

---

Do we have consensus for making that change? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Yeah, fine by me. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Y OK __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Make it so. LK (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on three green ticks and Guy's approval of "genuine," I went ahead and did it. __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hail meatsauce, full of beef, truly His Noodly Appendage has touched this page. R'Amen. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that worked out so well! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The monster's image: who drew it?

See subject. I'm sorry if I missed it in the entry, but it seems rather important, no? Shlishke (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The artist is Arne Niklas Jansson. See [ http://www.androidarts.com/fsm/index.htm ] and [ http://www.androidarts.com/ProfileFAQ.htm ] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The place on the page where it currently says that is the second paragraph of Flying Spaghetti Monster#As a cultural phenomenon. Should we make the mention more conspicuous? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added the artist's name to the caption of the lead image, omitting the "Arne" in deference to the statement in his profile, and for compactness. (IRL I knew another Scandinavian whose first name was Arne. He never used it, preferring to go by his middle name.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, because he wrote that "Arne is [...] the name I use to sign drawings with" we should use that name in the caption. Also, I think it would be appropriate to add links to the two web pages I listed above. That should satisfy anyone who is curious about the image or its author.

BTW, he also says on that page, "If someone ever donates a high-resolution photo of the Sistine Chapel roof painting, I can make something which will survive print. The current version does not." Do we have such an image? Not sure what the copyright status of an image of the Sistine Chapel roof would be. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at those two sources, and I agree with Guy that we ought to cite them, so I'll add them now. I also tend to agree with Guy that Jansson seems to be saying that, at least sometimes, he does use the Arne, so I don't see any problem with adding that as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)