Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article.

Quite Silly

I find it somewhat Ironic that this article is allowed, however an article about the game isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.228.208 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

POV intro

"makes a mockery of the concept of an intelligent designer"

No it doesn't. It makes a mockery of the negative-proof argument for creationism, IE the false dilemma fallacy. "We don't like some of the evidence for theory A, so the answer must be magic". The idea is that there is no more proof of Christian creationism than ancient greek mythology, or any other creation myth, which includes, for parody purposes, spaghetti monsterism. Furthermore, there isn't really any "positive proof" evidence provided for creationism.. just criticism of evolution. I wouldn't even say FSM is a mockery.. it's just a parody. It uses the exact same logic and argument.

The entire intro sounds POV to me, not just this "error" which says that FSM mocks the designer. (When in fact it mocks the fallacious logic behind CLAIMING that there must be a designer.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.109.131 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

please remove the pic of Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH), as FSM donot give the permission of doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.148.70 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This entry is making me hungry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.31.30 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The image seems to be okay by all copyright and wiki standards? Please elaborate.

Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that that request for image removal was made by someone attempting to be funny (no comment on whether they succeeded in that regard) and not a legitimate request. As far as I can tell, there is not a legitimate reason to cut the image and plenty of good reasons to keep it around. --MisterB777 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP?

With Bobby Henderson redirecting here does that mean this page must be held to BLP standards?MikeURL 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond his notability as the creator of the FSM and his subsequent media appearances, is there any information about Bobby that could be used to make this a BLP segment? -EarthRise33 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Information about a person must always be held to BLP standards. That is not an excuse to act paranoid about information tangential to the person. Try to be reasonable about this JoshuaZ 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that I have heard nothing about Bobby Henderson's upbringing or lifestyle beyond his a) parody religion, b) media appearances, and c) unemployed physics grad status. I've no source for it. -EarthRise33 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Information about Henderson must be well-sourced since he is a living person, and BLP applies to any details about him. Does that clear things up? JoshuaZ 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BLP. Sorry if I gave the impression I was opposed to such information. I'm asking what we should do if no other info is readily available. -EarthRise33 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we don't add any other info. I mean, in general we shouldn't add info that we can't verify, right? JoshuaZ 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I shall fall silent. -EarthRise33 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Google's cite of Wikipedia apparently knows more about Bobby than Wikipedia does. I looked for 'Bobby Henderson' + born and got July 18, 1980 (1980-07-18) (age 26) Roseburg, Oregon, United States. -EarthRise33 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion. I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics. More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar. I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion.Laberdere (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

$1,000,000

Are we sure that BoingBoing's offer was made in reference to James Randi's offer concerning supernatural abilities? I was under the impression that it was solely in reference to Kent Hovind's challenge, an association that is more relevant to the FSM's sociopolitical position. -EarthRise33 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's cool, I'm erasing it for lack of supporting material. -EarthRise33 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Falling

I'm pretty sure one of the pasterfarian beliefs is 'Intelligent Falling'. 'Intelligent Falling' is intended as a competitor of The Theory of Gravity as explanation as to why objects fall. It states that all objects fall as the result of the FSM's noodly apendages pushing them down, and argues that Gravity is 'just a theory'. It parodies the creationist argument that 'Evolution is just a theory'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.49.110 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also claimed that the reason that people are taller these days is because the FSM has only so many appendages to push people towards the ground with. Fewer noodles to go around leads to taller people. -- 68.49.10.155 (talk)

Italians are for this very reason much smaller than northern europeans as they live in a more pasta rich environment. Noserider (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirates graph

Please join the discussion about which Pirate Graph to use to illustrate this article. See: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 31#Image:FSM Pirates.jpg. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "Pastafarian"

First time I heard the term "Pastafarian" was in a Russell Peters standup bit - "What you get when an Italian and a Jamaican marry". And this was before 2005. So I gotta ask, is it possible Henderson had that word in mind when he invented the FSM? --Fshafique (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I Have heard 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' before, either it was on the simpsons, or futurama, but it is definately not souly of this mans creation. very hilarious though. -kc

'Pastafarian' is the appropriate term for true adherents to the FSM because it conforms to the strand of teaching that 'His reach is long, his is the straight and narrow path but our human understanding curls back on itself before it finds the true sauce of wisdom' -DJP 27 May 08Pelagianism (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Pelagian

Academic attention

A friend of mine, an artist associated with the Church of the Subgenius, passed along an article from CNN that indicates that FSM is getting some academic attention. This is not a topic I'm particularly interested in working on myself, so I am passing this along; it should be a useful reference, and someone may want to follow up to some of the individuals involved.

• Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster, Associated Press / CNN, November 16, 2007.

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CNN seems to have eliminated that link, now, but the text can still be found here. Tim Ross·^talk 12:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Age and History

While the article says this religion was founded in 2005, and while the first historical appearance was indeed in May of that year, in that letter, with 10000 people and numerous books and literature, it may be that this religion existed earlier and was only discovered or exposed in modern day and not founded. This is made more obvious from the fact that the theory of Intelligent Design is so well researched and has so much evidence at the time the letter was sent which you can't just come up after a few days of binge drinking. So it may have existed for many years before that and have many historical references (was it on the Mayflower? What role did it have in building the pyramids? etc) and the religion could have been founded hundreds or thousands of years ago by a prophet to whom the Flying Spaghetti Monster communicated.Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got a point there actually! I'd like to request that the "founded in 2005" bit was changed to "publicized in 2005".

--PPastafarian (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One could question the necessity of the paragraph that begins "In November of the same year the Kansas State Board of Education..." for its relevance to the article. It is a legitimate event with legitimate sources, but it's inclusion alters the tone of the article inasmuch as it appears in the form of a supporting argument for debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiesullivan (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Idea Before 2005?

I recall a reference to FSM that long predates 2005 but I cannot find it. I vividly recall a friend (who died in 1996) retelling a point he had read somewhere that man makes God in man's image — e.g. a bearded old white guy — and this form was strategically chosen to make God relatable. A religion where the supreme being took the form of a flying spaghetti monster would not thrive because the object of worship would not be relatable to humans. I would like to see some reference to this original concept in this article. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming Henderson stole the concept. I believe he very appropriately expropriated the idea and applied it to a different purpose. In fact, Henderson's parody was better not referring to any prior concept. But I'd like to know where it was first published. Does anyone recall who originated the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (long before 2005) to explain the man-like image of God in religions? --Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I followed the link to Russell's teapot and managed to find many derivative links from there. The teapot was the earliest example that I could see. Many of these examples focus on the futility of trying to prove a negative, however, rather than specifically targeting religion. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

religion?

this articles syas that this is a "religion"..is this a mistake,or is this far fecthed story true..?96.224.176.40 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a parody religion, i.e., it has all the ornaments of your standard religion, but is recognized to have these parts in order to make a point through satire. -EarthRise33 (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is very clear in describing it as a parody religion. Visit the provided Wikilink to learn more about what is a parody religion. TechBear (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As much of a religion as Christianity. 99.247.165.148 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In a sense is true in that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a Religion, it is a Deity -- if you are asking if it is real or not you would have to ask someone of faith as no Muslim Jew Buddist Christian or insert religion here is likely to answer no to any Deity who is not their own. Meanwhile, I'm sure we've all seen people who pray to numerous things for numerous reasons. If you are uncertain about this question forget about it and ask yourself the two bigger questions of what is a religion and what does a religion do -- wait, don't ask that question ask what is a religion supposed to do. Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The opening of this article cites a report on creationism for a source claiming it to be a "parody religion" rather than a religion, however, according to the official site of the religion itself:

"The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, only recently came into the mainstream when this letter was published in May 2005.

With millions, if not thousands, of devout worshippers, the Church of the FSM is widely considered a legitimate religion, even by its opponents - mostly fundamentalist Christians, who have accepted that our God has larger balls than theirs.

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 can be read here: [1]

I therefore firmly believe that Pastafarianism should be classified as a religion, since the creator himself does take it seriously and has never referred to it as a "parody". True devotees of the religion make their stance very clear. Symphonien (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep I agree with Symphonien and as a "true devotee" (though i'd rather not use those exact words, hehe) I can say that my stance is the same as thousands of other Pastafarians in that in order for our religion to reach the public it had to be first shown as a parody, a satire and an insert-whatever-here just to spread the word a bit. Needless to say, this worked amazingly well.

So, while it can be misleading at some times because of the route we took to becoming well known, don't make the mistake of thinking that Pastafarianism is not a real religion because at the end of the day, it is!

--PPastafarian (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lacking

This article will eventually need to be amended to address the offensiveness and perceived bigotry associated with this subject. Like it or not, many people react to this concept as am implicit statement of anti-religious hatred, not comedy. The article is almost entirely positive in its portrayal, which is not a neutral POV.

1: The judge who ruled on the Dover Cove case needed to be placed under federal protection for his ruling which was neither comedic nor anti-religious (nor hatred) in any context (except it didn't admit Intelligent Design). So we must accept the notion that this article will always be (even if it actually is) too positive and dismiss any non-constructive claims it is positive and all because it will always be perceived by some as offensive and anti-religious as easily as a neutral judge was targeted. Any perceptions might be too clouded by irrational POV and any complaints would obviously need to extensively examined as a few bad eggs with no ability to make sound rational judgments may be around to further muddy the waters for those of us with clear heads or legitimate enhancements. Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

2: This article should not be any more offensive to any particular religion than it is to any other group that are more centrally involved like the Kansas School Board, Kansas, or American, etc. This was originally not a Parody of God or Religion as much as it was a retaliatory response to the subversive attempts to circumvent the system and (re)introduce "Intelligent Design" a rewritten hack of creationism into a school curriculum. Most of the offense was taken by defenders of Creationism not necessarily by any particular religion, but any offense in removing "God" and replacing it with "undetermined force" should more offensive to more people (including even some religious people in having God taken out of the equation indifferent of the supposed good intension) than removing "undetermined force" and replacing it with "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The FSM loves all his creations equally, even those with blasphemous beliefs in non-FSM gods.

Should an element of hostile POV be introduced to this article, then this should be the case in all other religious articles. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Pastafariaism is not bigotted in condemning those who follow other religions and if those people find this offensive then surely this is an aspect of their belief system not Pastafarianism Streona (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Links

I deleted the Uncyclopedia link. There was no reason for an Uncyclopedia link to be in there. If you feel I'm wrong, please re-add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.4.115 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here, it's also a good idea to put a brief description or reference to "see talk" on the edit summary. It didn't seem a bad idea to link a parody of this parody, so I've restored it, but not a big deal either way. ... dave souza, talk 11:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Category

Added [[Category:Creator gods]] Pingnak (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I removed it. Much as I love the FSM this is a parody so does not belong in that particular cat. Sophia 08:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I put it back. There are 74 other deities so listed, at least some of which seem to have no more substance than FSM (perhaps less). Since part of the FSM story involves creation, the cat does make sense. Tim Ross 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'substance' in this context amuses me. The cat definitely belongs here. 144.32.59.199 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum

Why was the reductio ad absurdum aspect of FSM removed from the article? What was the justification? --Macrowiz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, Pastafarianism is not a reductio ad absurdum, based on the true (and not oft quoted) definition of the reductio. -EarthRise33 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be less simpler? What are the true and oft quoted definitions? --Macrowiz (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the oft quoted definition is, "If a line of reasoning can be used to deduce an absurd conclusion, then the line of reasoning is incorrect." RAA, or proof by contradiction, involves assuming that which you aim to refute and deriving via logic something contradictory or otherwise impossible. In other words, "FSM doesn't prove or disprove anything - it only contends that neither do similar arguments made in support of the traditional YHWH hypothesis, which is thus incomplete. Put another way, proving something unproven is not the same as disproving it." (to deliberately plagiarize the words of two users in a past thread.) -EarthRise33 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New York Magazine is a reputable "popular culture" reference and not simply a "gossip column"

Discussion from my user page, moved here in date sequence for information. .. dave souza, talk 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "Founded by Milton Glaser and Clay Felker in 1968 as a competitor to The New Yorker, it offers less national news and more gossip, but has also published noteworthy articles on city and state politics and culture over the years." The article on Bobby Henderson was germane as his creation is parody and the fact that his creation provided a financial windfall for the (at that time) unemployed grad IS factual and important as to same.

From Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" page:

Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

There is no doubt that the creation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster IS a matter of "popular culture" and The New York magazine is a publication that address popular culture in a respected manner. Therefore this contribution *is* of value and the reference (New York mag) *is* perfectly within the intent of Wikipedia's references guidelines.

Please re-read the guidelines on popular culture references before you haphazardly delete pertinent contributions. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of popular culture and fiction it's certainly a reasonable source, but even the best news magazines have gossip columns, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy requires particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, high quality references are required, and the article must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The statement that his creation provided a "financial windfall" for the (at that time) unemployed grad indicates a violation of WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and is a sensationalist way of saying he got an advance as an author, as is the NYm subtitle for their article "The $80,000 Pasta Bible Jackpot for unemployed slot-machine engineer and heretic" – the web page title is the more reasonable "The Case For Intelligent Design: Spaghetti as the Creator". The point about him getting the advance is already covered in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster section of the article, in reasonable terms. We don't seem to mention him being unemployed or a slot-machine engineer. If you think that's worth adding to the body of the article, put the case on the article talk page, and try to find another source. However, it's my opinion that this isn't significant enough to put in the lead, which should summarise material in the body of the article, and it certainly shouldn't be presented in a sensationalist way. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The creator of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

[cross-posted from User talk:Snalwibma - I don't understand why it was placed there instead of here in the first place... It's a response to this edit. Snalwibma (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC))]
Info about the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not "irrelevant". Also, the contribution was WELL sourced, with a footnote leading to the webpage of the article. Please quit erasing pertinent content that you find "irrelevant", your opinion is of no value, the guidelines of Wikipedia clearly allow for such contributions, see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. The creation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster provided a financial windfall for the creator, that is valuable information as altruism has often been credited as the source of his effort. The public has a need and a right to know that this creation meant hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bobby Henderson. This is important information and NOT "irrelevant".Supertheman (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how Henderson's employment status is relevant to the subject of the article, and the suggestion that he did it for the money while a lowly slot-machine engineer who couldn't get a job looks like a gossip-column-based slur. The source is indeed a gossip column. No doubt "valuable information" if you wish to cast the FSM and the motives of its creator in a certain light, but hardly balanced and neutral. Snalwibma (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Intelligent Design page, this is stated and upheld (by admins) as germane: "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity" and also, "consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience." These are *facts*, but they cast "the motives of its creator in a certain light". Bobby Henderson as a physics grad is important, but him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer isn't? If him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer casts him in a "certain light", then the mention of him being a physics grad also casts him in a "certain light". The point is, both are FACTS, and both are GERMANE. The source is NOT a "gossip column"... according to Wikipedia *itself*: Your views about Bobby Henderson and your desire to "cast him in a certain light" are not at issue, what is are FACTS, and the fact is that not only was he a physics grad, but he was also an unemployed slot-machine engineer. Both are true, both are germane.Supertheman (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could be persuaded that his physics degree from wherever is also irrelevant. Snalwibma (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussed previously on my talk page and posted above for information, WP:BLP requires particular care, and while the NYm no doubt carries worthy news stories, this does seem to be a gossip column putting a spin on the situation. The amount earned for undertaking writing the book is already shown in the article, further biographical details should appropriately appear in the body of the article rather than the lead, with good sources rather than gossip columns. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already been over this, Wikipedia itself says that New York Magazine is: ""Founded by Milton Glaser and Clay Felker in 1968 as a competitor to The New Yorker, it offers less national news and more gossip, but has also published noteworthy articles on city and state politics and culture over the years" Also, *your* interpretation of New York magazine is unimportant, the bottom line is: it is fact. It is irrelevant if the source is "distasteful" to you, the point is the facts are *correct*. The person who did the article did the fact checking and this was his status at the time of mailing the letter. It is fact, and it is germane just as the fact that he was a physics grad is germane. I've already linked you the Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction which clearly states: However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources.

I have just added an additional reference noting his status at the time from a column in The Dallas Morning News by Clarence Page. That should put to rest the reliability of the source.

The FSM is a parody religion and is certainly a item of popular culture, therefore references that are *allowable* under Wikipedia's Reliable sources are completely relevant and germane.

Finally, a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility in certain instances. For example, a tenured university physics professor's opinion concerning matters of physics is of the utmost importance to the reliability and relevancy of his opinion. Bobby Henderson wasn't a professor, he was a physics grad who was an unemployed slot machine technician and that certainly is pertinent to the viability of the FSM as a serious criticism of introducing Creative Design into the Kansas educational system and to the relevance of his opinion as to said. Beyond that, it is simply FACT, just as his being a physics grad is fact. Repeatedly undoing my pertinent, germane contribution (clearly within the guidelines of Wikipedia) and simply parroting WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP will not erase the facts about Bobby Henderson that should be included in this item of popular culture.Supertheman (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, "a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility in certain instances", but this is absolutely not one of those instances. Henderson's status as a physics grad who was an unemployed slot machine technician is utterly irrelevant. It has no bearing on his credibility in this case, or on his entitlement to make a point about the idiocy of the Kansas educational system. As I said above, I think maybe it would be best to delete the physics grad status from the lead as well, because that is in fact equally irrelevant. But either way, dave souza is absolutely right - no problem including these facts in the article, but the lead is not the appropriate place. Putting it there does absolutely raise issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Take it out of the lead and build it into the body of the article. Snalwibma (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and shifted the detail about Henderson's background and employment status from the lead to the body of the article. What do you think? I'm still not convinced of the need to include this material, given the WP:BLP policy, but at least it seems better balanced in this position. Snalwibma (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's going to be in, it should be set in context, so I've put the point in date sequence and expanded it a bit. The FSM website sidebar shows the Gospel with a blurb from the Scientific American "Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny", so unemployment's not a big deal. The NYT noted that he'd stated on his web site that he was desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas", and the subsequent reports appear to have spun this as "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". Bit of a cheek, really, since scientists are by no means engineers, as my son (doing mech eng) would tell you if he was here himself. Anyway, it's worth reading Henderson's Feb 02 blog about how he's spending "a lot of time trying to avoid a Real Job"."Bobby Henderson's blog". Retrieved 2008-02-07. :o) . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dave, that looks much much much better. Thanks. All seems to make perfect sense now, and IMHO it looks reasonably fair and balanced - but I only wandered in here by mistake, and I'm a semi-unemployed biologist, so of course I'm not really qualified to comment, given that a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility ... Snalwibma (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, given its provenance the statement that he was "desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas" may have been a joke – do they have slot machine programmers? The subsequent reports of him as a slot machine engineer may have had some other source, or may have been typical journalists spicing up their story, or may just mean that, like some people, they had no sense of humour. Who can tell? .. dave souza, talk 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I still have a couple problems, one, why is he stated *defacto* as a "physics grad", but his status as a "unemployed slot-machine engineer" only "described" by the Dallas Morning News? We need a direct reference that he is a "physics grad" or this also must be written as how he is "described". Also, I wonder if Dave and Snalwibma would direct the same fervor to whit they have fought to bury the employment status of Bobby Henderson to moving the reference that basically all of "the proponents" of intelligent design are members of the "Discovery Institute" to a more appropriate place on the page? If Bobby Henderson's status is unimportant in the first section, then the affiliation of the "proponents" of ID is not appropriate in the first section of ID.Supertheman (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between being "a physics graduate" and being "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". The first is a simple matter of fact (either you are or you aren't). The second, as Dave souza has shown, appears most likely to be a slightly tongue-in-cheek (or possibly mischievous) interpretation of a humorous remark by Henderson himself, an expression of a feeling more than a matter of fact. In which case it seems entirely appropriate to say that he was the one and was described as the other. If you think he is not really physics graduate, by all means add a "citation needed" tag, or some such (though personally I think it would look rather silly). And no, I will not go and attend to the intelligent design page. Do it yourself if there is something there that bothers you! Snalwibma (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I restrained myself from saying "Yeah, right" after saying "check out the ID page", but I knew it was about as likely as *seeing* the FSM.<grin> In the meantime, I have written a letter to Mr. Henderson asking him to clarify his employment status and to confirm his status as a physics grad. Hopefully he will respond with citations as to said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(repeated from above, relevant for discussion here) The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion. I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics. More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar. I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion. Laberdere (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that his "real job" is as pertinent as his status as a "physics grad". If we remove one, we remove the other. I agree that neither belong on the page. Is there a consensus on this?Supertheman (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Schism

I'm reading Dawkins' God Delusion, and on page 53 he says "by the way, it had to happen - a Great Schism has already occurred, resulting in the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." He cites the following website:(Link to LULU removed, it was blacklisted). I also found the Reformed Church of Alfredo: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Church_of_Alfredo.

I think the trend should be mentioned in the article. The other organizations may not be officially "recognized" by the main Church - but that only helps the analogy to other religions. Whenever new sects split off of a larger religion, they aren't recognized, in fact they are typically denounced as heretics. Also the mention in Dawkins' book I think qualifies it as academically noteworthy and not original research. Thoughts?VatoFirme (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I think it's noteworthy enough of inclusion. Kit Berg (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was just based on Uncyclopedia then definitely not, but as Dawkins does mention it it ought to be worth a sentence or so. Hut 8.5 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Parody?

No references. See the note at the top of the page and the talkpage archives.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to request that either the word "parody" be removed from this page or that it is added to every other religion as Pastafarianism is just as real as they are. I appreciate that Pastafarianism was originally publicized in such a way that it was thought to be a parody, a satire and whatever by many however, a fair few 'modern' religions have also taken this route to gain fame and help them spread. Anyhow, i'm basically just requesting that the words "parody religion" are either removed completely from this article, added to every other religious article on wikipedia (something i'll do ASAP if i'm given permission, believe me) or just simply changed from saying "is a parody religion" to "has been publicized as a parody religion" for example. Personally, I think the third option would be best for everybody. PPastafarian (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Pastafarianism was created as a parody, hence the label. All religions are not parodies, most are created in good, ahh, faith. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Check the archived conversations for a discussion of the role of 'parody' in this religion. -EarthRise33 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC) All you need is one reliable source talking about real people seriously worshiping the FSM. You'll get a lot of support for its inclusion. Until then you're out of luck.MikeURL (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I also agree that this word is offensive to practicing pastafarians, and request that it is removed. 70.16.204.109 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC) That probably won't happen, considering that even the Prophet himself recognizes that the religion is a tongue-in-cheek parody, and only serves as such. -EarthRise33 ([[User 72.130.164.235 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)talk:EarthRise33|talk]]) 16:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC) What prophet, we have no prophet, please the word parody is offensive to practitioners of this faith, This is absolute religious discrimination, and legal action may be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.34.1 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Please take it, we can all use a good laugh. And what is the objection to discrimination, anyway? Does not the whole FSM thing intend to discriminate against believers? Not that I care much. Let's get to the **real** issue: does the parmesan cheese of the FSM proceed from the meatballs AND the spagetti, or from the meatballs THROUGH the spagetti? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.145.198 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) You should at the very least put some sort of a tag up, directing people here for a discussion of the use of the (thoroughly objectionable) term parody. Or, better yet, put parody religion in the heading of all articles on religion. Besides, how do you know any of those were founded in good faith? I'll bet you don't have any verifiable sources. :P Druworos (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Object away; it will not change the truth that FSM is a parody. And good faith can be verified in serveral religions. For Christianity, try Greenleaf's "The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence" I am not entirely convinced by these arguments, but the good faith of the religion's founders is there. More that I can say for, say, Mormonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.145.198 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Pastafarians like myself know it is no parody. I would like to follow up on the original person's demand to either take the term out, use it in a different sense, or add it to every article on religion. I've never seen the word "Parody" on Catholicism, and our teachings are more realistic! Glory to the Monster of Great Spaghetti! We will not be seen as parodists! 72.130.164.235 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) FSM is defined — by it's creator — as a parody religion. Catholicism is not a parody religion. Christianity is not a parody religion. There are eyewitness accounts of the works of Christ, miracles and rising from the dead. There are no (serious) eyewitness accounts of the FSM. Believers in Christianity do not define this religion as a parody. Lets keep the tongue in cheek where it belongs.Supertheman (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Bobby Henderson is not a "creator" of Pastafarianism, but rather a prophet delivering the word of FSM to the masses. The parody part in Pastafarianism comes from acknowledging that the creator deity has a sense of humor, which is self evident to anyone who looks at the universe. It doesn't make the Flying Spaghetti Monster any less true. You could say it's a test of faith, which people who reject Pastafarianism as "parody" fail. • Maurog • 13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Just thought I'd bring it all of your attentions that, once again, there have been five competing changes and revisions over the word "parody". So, if I may make a suggestion, what if the word "parody" were replaced with a less loaded term like "satirical" which gives the same general meaning without trivializing the Church of the FSM. Even if you take the view that FSMism has comedic value and pokes fun at other religions, neither the founding documents, nor the ideas they espouse fit the generally accepted definition of Parody, instead falling far more easily under the heading of Satire. Of course, this is a semantic argument university English majors have all the time, but I submit "satirical" as a less offensive, les point-of-view driven option. Discuss. --MisterB777 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Once again, my comments have been deleted for absolutely no reason. Is this not the place for discussion? Why are my comments being deleted then? Simply because I wish for the term 'parody' to be removed? It's ridiculous that people like me, as a pastafarian, have to put up with this kind of stuff. All we want is to be treated fairly, when you label our religion as a 'parody' it's not fair. Why don't you label every other religion parody, since they have just as much evidence that prove their legitimacy as the Church of FSM? I will be taking out the word 'parody' as of 8:15PM Eastern Time tonight, as my religion is not a joke and I along with other Pastafarians should not be subjected to this kind of discrimination. Kingofattendance (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) It is verifiable by reliable sources that FSM is a parody religion, so that is what the article says. If there are other sources which indicate that FSM is not a parody religion, then we can quote those. Please spare me the eristic arguments about how there are no reliable sources indicating that Catholicism is an actual religion. The point is not whether we can verify the obvious fact that Catholicism is an actual religion, but that the sources indicate that FSM is a parody religion. Until other evidence is brought up, all of this discussion is pretty obviously offtopic for the article. So, will any of the people who reverted my archiving please put down some reliable sources? Or shall I just archive this section again? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Holiday Question

Today is Friday, 3/21. It's Good Friday, Eid, Purim, Narouz, Small Holi, Magha Puja... Does Pastafarianism have a holiday today, too? 'Cause I really need the day off.--Justfred (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hide egg noodles all over your house, and have children search for them? (P.S. Yeah, yeah, WP:FORUM, I know, I couldn't resist) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiding egg noodles seems quite pertinent to such a holiday, however hiding eggs to celebrate the resurrection of Christ makes no sense whatsoever. My suggestion would be that Pastafarians should not follow in such footsteps lest it belittle their holiday as it has EasterSupertheman (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Separate page for Bobby Henderson?

Does anyone else think it might be useful to have a page for Bobby Henderson's biography, distinct from the Flying Spaghetti Monster page? Tim Ross (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. You'd need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, and all sources mentioning him will probably only give trivial mentions connected with the FSM (and hence a redirect here is more appropriate). Hut 8.5 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletiong tag explanation

Just thought it would be good to put a note in here as to why I pulled the Speedy Deletion tag on the Pirate Graph image. While the graph, by itself, seems to be nonsense, it actually has a valid basis in both Flying Spaghetti Monster history and, really, just needed a better caption to make it understandable. As the text next to the image (and now the image's caption itself) points out, the graph showing a correlation between Global Warming and the Number of Pirates is intentionally absurd so that it can illustrate the ridiculousness of claiming that correlation equals causation. As such, while the image represents an absurd concept, it does not seem to satisfy the Criteria for Speedy Deletion as it is not, in fact Patent Nonsense or Gibberish. Definitely needs to be talked through if it is up for deletion. --MisterB777 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Universe as a bunch of spaghetti strands

This commentary by an anonymous poster on Slashdot concerning the article Hubble Survey Finds Missing Matter, Probes Intergalactic Web sums it up best: It is a noodle like structure. FSM 1 ID 0. I assume by ID he meant Intelligent Design and not the Freudian construct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying there is a connection between Pastafarianism and String Theory? Newell Post (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

I just uploaded Image:Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pirate Dragon Con 2007.jpg, in case you guys are interested in using it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Another blot on Wikipedia's name

This article, its length, its evident stance, and its absurdly calibrated tone are screaming to the world that Wikipedia is a juvenile enterprise. The thing itself is nothing but tired one-note joke that has already been told many times over in every era. There is no value in preserving the elaborations and epiphenomena of this version of it. --Nehushtan (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific concerns, please elaborate. --Onorem♠Dil 05:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is covering a topic not worthy of notice. If the article is in Wikipedia at all, it shouldn't be more than a few lines long. What else is there to say? --Nehushtan (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And are you the sole arbiter of taste and culture, in terms of notability? There are lots of articles in Wikipedia that I do not necessarily feel belong, but I usually leave specific comments regarding specific problems I have with an article instead of "I'm-so-above-it-all" generalities which only serve to make one seem snobby. Icarus of old (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But I am above it. And you should be too. I have given a specific problem with the article: it's too long. Of course if I were to try to completely eliminate the article or replace it with something more appropriate to its intellectual value my edits would be instantly reversed by a teenager. You want more specific? Here is my stab at what the article should look like: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The parody was initiated as a mocking response to fundamentalist Christianity and creationism in the United States in the early 21st century". Maybe a reference or two after that, and that's all. --Nehushtan (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The religion may be a parody of other belief systems, but I don't see anything juvenile about the article, nor its contributors - to me, your comment betrays your lack of neutrality by labeling the other contributors as "teenagers". What exactly makes the article "not worthy of notice", in your opinion? Why should this article be any shorter than the one for Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (which although famous historically, is not nearly as relevant today)? I could see an argument for trimming a few minor things out of the article, but I don't think a major downsize of the article is appropriate at all.Corfe83 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call them or you all teenagers. And the juvenility I was referring to in my first note was to highlight how the article has become a compendium of the goofy side-jokes that the main joke has spawned. It doesn't matter how polished the article becomes over time as the various contributers strive to rein in the excesses of earlier contributions, shoot for a neutral POV, and shellac on a scholarly tone. At some point the article as a whole has to be evaluated to determine if the subject itself is worthy of the degree of attention it is being given. Swift's satire is mature and has stood the test of time. There have been hundreds of minor pranks and jokes in the past 200 years that are not mature and have not. This is destined be one of those. --Nehushtan (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This subject has been covered in plenty of books and national newspapers. There is no point including a limited amount of relevant, encyclopedic information when there is plenty available. Hut 8.5 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would argue precisely the opposite: there's enough information out there to be googled that you don't need much in the article at all. The value of the subject itself determines how long its article should be, not how much could be included. --Nehushtan (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Not every topic on Wikipedia must have a length in proportion to how valuable you personally consider that topic to be. (This may not be what you think, but it's how you're coming across.) 2) That information is available on Google in no way necessarily reduces the need for it to be in a Wikipedia article. 3) I actually think a strong case could be made that this article includes too much unencyclopedic material that is scarcely mentioned, if at all, in reliable third-party sources about FSM, and that a fair amount could readily be jettisoned. Unfortunately, commentary about how the topic is "absurd" and "juvenile" and "beneath you" doesn't really set the tone for a constructive debate about that. — Matt Crypto 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this attack on my faith offensive. Just because some people view Pastafarianism as a joke, doesn't make it so. It's a very fulfilling religion whose core tenets are equality and tolerance and lighter attitude to life. It is followed by many thousands of people, and covered by the media frequently. How would like if someone proposed to remove the article on Christianity, claiming there's enough information out there to be googled that you don't need much in the article at all? Just because the followers of Flying Spaghetti Monster are usually peaceful, cheerful people who try to avoid conflict, it doesn't mean you can walk all over us. • Maurog • 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)