Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

I would like to add that those who chose not to believe are known as "Anti-Pastafarians," or "Anti-Pastans" for short.

I think its ok for the FSM to be here; wikipedia should allow anything that exists to be documented here, as long as it is impartial Doug1984

This is really cute, but it isn't encyclopedic. Cleanup, please? blahpers 02:12, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is being proposed as a subject to be taught alongside Evolution and Intelligent Design. I'm not sure it's noteworthy yet, and wikipedia is not a place to make things worthy, but the meme may catch on. If this should be cleared out, it should be via VfD so there's time to determine whether it's big enough or not. Usually, this would deserve a nonsense speedy delete, but it does have some notoriety, so I'm on a fence. - Chairboy 02:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a revamp of the old Invisible Pink Unicorn idea, although in it's original form more amusing, and much of that IPU page could be rewritten for a page on the FSM. You could even keep the current article which I'm sure was written by a fan for the Uncyclopedia parody site, but push it down after a more considered intro. Zuytdorp Survivor 02:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The story has gotten national media attention and it's been mentioned on countless websites. I think Chairboy's wrong on this one - it's not nonsense, or not anymore. The article doesn't hurt anything, even though most of the information on the FSM itself can be found on the website that spawned the fad. - Imdwalrus 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Where would one place an article about being abducted by the FSM? It could and probably has happened, and if so, merits a place alongside those abducted by aliens and such. I don't want to lose any more sleep over this, so someone please make a suggestion.--Blockhead 23:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Cleanup

Have begun cleaning up the article. -Loren 02:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well cleaned! :) 02:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! blahpers 02:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Noteworthiness

Sitting here in Sydney, I just read an article about Henderson and his satirical submission in New Scientist magazine (Aug 6 05, Australasian edition, Vol 187/2511 page 56). Granted the actual content of his so-called 'religion' is obviously satirical, but his attempts to have his religion given due consideration by the KSBE are certainly noteworthy, insofar as they challenge the non-scientific premise of creationism (and/or Intelligent Design). He seems to have obtained offers of legal assistance to mount his challenge to get FSMism recognised by the KSBE.

I think this has progressed beyond just an internet meme, and it certainly is sufficiently noteworthy to get a spot in WP. Just my $0.02 Manning 05:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It would be easier to determine notability, based on the article, if someone who knows something about this would 1-cite sources (the one you mention sounds good) and 2-give some context with dates. When did this start? -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

HISTORY

I think that we can start up on the history or the FSM as a suppressed religion whos' latest prophet is Bobby Henderson. I suggest that we can start with the Sistine Chapel Ceiling fresco cover up by Pope Julius II leading to his demise a year later as starters. I'll try seeding that one right now.. keeping it if the artists work can be approved for incorporation into the history for now I'll assume it's OK since we've gotten the Ok for the FSM rendering.

Regarding the "history", I'm afraid that's something that's better suited for Uncyclopedia. We're aiming for a factual account here, not a joke article. -Loren 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

SPAM

The "Schisms" section on SPAM. Is it spam?

Seems to be a subsection of a site for some "open source religion" called "Yoism". I am tempted to classify it as spam since it seems built to direct readers to their main site but would appreciate it if more editors took a look and offered their opinions. -Loren 23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I would tend to agree. Would it not be better to mention that SPAM is also involved with the Kansas Board, linking to the article on SPAM? It would of course make more sense to mention the Yoism roots of SPAM in its OWN article. 06:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, it has a good deal of original humor of its own. And why would they need to mention the Yoism roots when it is clearly surrounded by Yoism's banner and directory and is introduced in a box that says "we found . . ."? Who is the "we" if not members of Yoism?

New Picture

Someone who knows how to put in pictures might want to think about this picture.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/noodly2.jpg

Alyeska 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Is it copyrighted, or has it been released? In order to upload an image, such things must be included. Also, the image is already linked to, through the link to 'spaghetti monster art'. -- Ec5618 09:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The author of the FSM webpage granted permission (and hence I've updated the template on the Image: page with commentary) - but I've yet to breach the subject of GFDL or some other free license with him. Any takers? --moof 03:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I created a 3d rendering of the spaghetti monster. link to image -> http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fsm3ga.jpg feel free to use it for this article.

Textbook disclaimers

This link has appeared, and while I am tempted to remove it for being less than entirely relevant, I would prefer to move it to a more fitting article. Could anyone offer any suggestions? -- Ec5618 09:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

How about Creation and evolution in public education. -Loren 17:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks. -- Ec5618 20:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The One True Monster

This section was pretty much copied verbatim from our entry on Uncyclopedia. Would one of you be so kind as to either note this fact, or place the uncyclopedia template thingy (If you guys use it anywhere else but Uncyclopedia) on this page? (Only because it was there before it was here.) Thanks much. You can remove it too, if you don't think it's necessary. If you do, I understand, but I'll have to cry myself to sleep --UnFlammable 22:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The section will stay! The template was removed, and has been deleted from Wikipedia. Its gone. Thanks for your work. -- Ec5618 23:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The article started out as a cut and paste of the Uncylopedia article before we cleaned it up and wikified it. Most of the Uncyclopedia stuff was removed but parts of that section were left in place. I'll make a note of it in the article. Regrettably, the powers that be decided that it wasn't nessecary to have an Uncyclopedia template. -Loren 02:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm glad that it was adjusted appropriately. I don't mind you guys not having an Uncyclopedia template. I know that, as a hotbed of facts, you can't always be bothered by satire and general stupidity.--UnFlammable 20:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"Myth" vs. "Belief"

It should be made clear that the dictionary definition of the term "Myth" does not imply or impugn the validity of that to which it is attached. Christianity is a myth. The stories of the vikings are myths. Basically, any ancient story is a myth. When in doubt, look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls!

Myth- A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary

- Proud myth-believer Ayeroxor 18:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • "An improvable story, almost always including incredible or miraculous events, that has no specific reference point or time in history."

www.organtransplants.org/glossary.html

  • "something not true, fiction, or falsehood. A truth disguised and distorted."

www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm

  • "An ill-founded belief, usually based on limited experience, given uncritical acceptance by members of a group, especially in support of existing or traditional practices and institutions."

www.gecdf.com/diversity/glossary.html

I think, based on the popular definition of the word myth as something that is definately not true, to describe any serious modern religion that a signifigant number of people believe in as a myth would definately not be NPOV. Whether or not you agree that such-and-such a religion actually is a myth, you have to think about it objectively, and realize that words mean things to most people. --Nerd42 16:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Prank/Joke/Political Statement

Is Wikipedia really the place for a Prank/Joke/Political Statement? I fail to see how this is notable enough to garner an article on Wikipedia. — Linnwood 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a fairly notable internet phenomenon and this isn't the first time Wikipedia has covered a parody religion. -Loren 16:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I mean this in the most serious way, but just how notable is it? Not that I am the arbiter of what is notable, but I had not heard of it before seeing this article. — Linnwood 16:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it has been mentioned in several blogs and a few news sites and magazines (New Scientist). And it seems to be a new cliche on Fark and one of the bigger articles in Uncylopedia, possibly I suppose, due to all the recent talk on evolution vs. ID in classrooms. To be fair, I had never heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Rintellism either till I ran into the articles on Wikipedia. -Loren 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Unlike this (in my opinion, radically unoriginal) "Flying Spaghetti Monster" meme, I saw references to the Invisible Pink Unicorn years before I'd even heard of the Wikipedia itself. The IPU seems to have come from Usenet (likely through talk.origins or alt.atheism), and is possibly more than a decade old at this point. I think we're being used to promote a meme that would not have gained much popularity otherwise, and I don't like it. --Ardonik.talk()* 09:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone, but for me it was the other way around. I'd hazard a guess and say that a significant percentage of the people coming here probably wouldn't have heard of IPU either if they hadn't stumbled on this article. I don't know if FSM was inspired by IPU but it certainly gained most of its recent popularity without referencing it. Not all of us were active on Usenet a decade ago. -Loren 09:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Google has 47,000+ results for the term.[1] I'd say it's popular enough on its own. — ceejayoz ★ 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
No kidding? All I need to get Blankety Blank onto Wikipedia is to get it Farked and 47k+ Google hits? Oh I'm SO there.
Isn't Blankety Blank already on Wikipedia? PaulHammond 12:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Just stumbled in here late on this, but for what it's worth, I came across the FSM through Cafe Press who included the thing prominently in their emails. I came to Wikipedia on the subject not because I thought that the FSM had been promulgated through the encyclopedia, but rather because I know that any lasting internet movement is going to be chronicled here. From what I've seen, the idea that FSMism is a "meme that would not have gained much popularity otherwise" is not supportable.Rastro


Well I for one at least found it informative as a reader. I have come across numerous references to it, and gathered from context its satirical and political nature. But the entry on WP clarified quite a bit for me. It seems to me to be a notable example of the use of rhetoric and satire in what is after all a pretty serious political issue. --BAW 02:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is notable and should not be removed. The originator of the "religion" has gotten responses from sympathetic members of the Kansas School Board. There is also talk of making a real legal challenge in event ID is taught in the Kansas schools. As of September 2005 "Flying Spaghetti Monster" returns 707,000 hits on Google with the Wiki entry at the top. I think this qualifies it as noteworthy. By the way, I was familiar with this concept from college (circa early 1990's) via my Psychology Professor, Daniel Friedman at Antioch College who used the example of an "invisible beanie" which could be not be seen or otherwise sensed by anyone but the wearer. The wearer insisted nonetheless that it was real. He used this as a device to think about unverifieable claims. Cylon 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ardonik, your flat wrong about Wikipedia having anything to do with its success. FSM's success comes almost wholely from blogish propagation, with the blogfuel being that (a) it was clearly targeted to mock intelligent design debate at exactly the time when it needed mocking, and (b) it actually got a responce from a politician. Anyway, its true that FSM is "just" the parody religion flavor of the year (or longer), just like Discordia, Subgenious, and IPU before it. But its not very meaning ful to say that FSM is better or worse than previous parody religions. FSM is popular now as its tailor made to mock ID. Plus, FSM will be more onfluential than Cool (song which recently got voted to the Wikipedia front page. FA status for FSM anyone? JeffBurdges 18:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Incoming

Congratulations folks, this article is being featured on Boing Boing. Expect a lot of new visitors and possibly increased vandal attacks. -Loren 08:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Worthiness

I think this is exactly the sort of topics that make wikipedia so valuable. I've seen this meme referenced once in awhile, and here comes wikipedia with a clear concise explanation.

I'm just curious what makes FSMism "worthy" while Universism, a religion with 9000 signed members and numerous media references (see the list here: http://www.universism.org/) not valid? Our group was deleted for not being noteworthy enough, but a parody religion, with far fewer professed members and less media notoriety is worthy of an article. Can anyone explain this? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion/Universist_Movement for the Universism deletion debate. G. Alex Janevski

FSM is generally regarded as worthy for its role in the ID controversy. While I would not have deleted Universism, it has had far less impact outside of the religion. Hope that this helps. --Apyule 01:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A little late, but I'll just note that the claim that FSM has "less media notoriety" than Universism is a highly questionable claim. I've never encountered Universism or any reference to it "in the wild" and I think its followers are still not grasping the distinction between "we should be notable" and "we are". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep things encyclopedic!

A big thank you to everyone who helped contribute to this article. However I'd like to raise my concerns about some of the recent additions. Our goal here is to give a concise encyclopedic account of FSM, not to be a repository of things that are really better suited for Uncyclopedia. I'd like to suggest that we lay off on some of the heavier FSM related stuff (i.e. the Photoshopped book cover, Baked Ziti Beast...etc) and concentrate on providing a slightly more serious account. As much as I like some of the jokes, we should try to avoid turning this into an Uncyclopedia article.-Loren 19:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, Bmicomp has now removed the sections of the page that BoingBoing quoted. Obviously these sections were good, or BoingBoing wouldn't have quoted them. This is a funny subject, and several paragraphs expounding on the details doesn't hurt anybody. The major part of the comedy is treating it as a serious subject, and thus Wikipedia is an obvious place for that. -21:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't opposed to listing stuff here that had appeared on the official page, such as the original "Benefits of conversion". I am however, wary of adding extra stuff from other sources, such as the "book cover", the reference to the book that was not actually part of the original site, and reasons for conversion that were not given as part of the original site. There's a fine line between providing the relevent info and turning the whole thing into a joke article, and I believe that tacking on "unofficial" stuff, funny as it may be, crosses the line. -Loren 22:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As a way of making this more encyclopedic, the article should focus more on the original letters to the Kansas Board of Ed and the responses that Henderson received as well as the Internet meme that followed. Tim22:02 UTC, Aug 19.
So, should we remove:
  • the prayer;
  • the shisms section;
    • Reformed Church of Alfredo-paragraph;
  • the image of the painting;
  • the benefits of conversion-section?
- Ec5618 22:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would support removing or reducing the Shisms section and the prayer, however I think the painting image is fine as long as the copyright issue works out. Benefits of conversion should be limited to the three reasons given by Henderson on the official site. -Loren 22:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • BoingBoing $750,000 challenge
Quoting BoingBoing: "Prize to be awarded with Intelligently Designed currency; void where prohibited by logic." At the very least, if mentioned, this disclaimer should be included. Most likely though, since it doesn't involve real money, the challenge need not be mentioned. -Interiot 01:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Though the religion itself is imaginary, with imaginary precepts and insincere followers, so mentioning an imaginary reward in the article might be okay, as long as the article makes it clear that real money isn't involved? It seems to be something that has been added to the article several times, what do other wikipedians think? -Interiot 15:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering this is only a few days old, it surely isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article, is it? Maybe if it becomes and internet phenom, but right now its just propaganda.

Actually it's been around since June or earlier, but really exploded in popularity in late July/early August. At the current stage I'd say that it's probably worthy of an article. -Loren 22:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
And, at least for me, it's beating out the real spaghetti on google, so it might pass the google test. -Interiot 23:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, this article is result #10 on a web-wide search for "spaghetti". The original article (venganza.org) is #20. I'd say it's encyclopedic! --Zetawoof 06:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed a section of the article

In an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic, I've removed a large section of it that seemed entirely arbitrary and made up (that one having to do with pastaers and holidays.) Some of it became better captions for the images. Here's the section I removed; please feel free to restore anything that's encyclopedic. --Ardonik.talk()* 18:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Some information derived from Flying Spaghetti Monster article in Uncyclopedia.

Image:FSM himself.jpg

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is typically depicted as a clump of tangled spaghetti with two eyestalks and two meatballs. [2] Images depicting the creation of the universe typically show the Monster, a tree-covered mountain, and a midgit (sic) (the latter two presumably created by Him). Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster consider comparisons to Cthulu speculation, based solely on physical appearance, and not based on any credible evidence. According to followers the Monster is composed of two separate, and distinct parts:

  • The Major Pastaer
    • The Flying: This part of the Flying Spaghetti Monster gives it flight, allowing it to span infinite distances in infinitesimal spans of time. This part is irreducibly complex and cannot be broken into components. Doing so would incur the wrath of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you could do it, and you can't.
    • The Spaghetti Monster: This is commonly recognized as the "body" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and unlike its other major counterpart, it is composed of several smaller sections. These are called the Minor Pastaer.
  • The Minor Pastaer
    • The Meatera: It is a symbol of strength and fortitude. This is the source of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's power.
    • The Spaghettien: Also known as the His Noodly Appendage, this allows the Flying Spaghetti Monster to extend its grasp across the reaches of the universe, affecting everything and anything.
    • The Saucon: This is the veil of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which renders the FSM unseen and intangible as well as omnipotent.

Benefits of conversion

Apologists for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism cite the following benefits of conversion:

  • Like the great noodles they worship, Flying Spaghetti Monsterists have flimsy moral standards.
  • Religious holiday every Friday.
  • Promise of a stripper factory and a beer volcano in Heaven.
While I tend to agree with the removal of the "One True Monster", I think "Benefits of conversion" should stay as it is considered "official dogma" from the originating site. Plus it tends to get mentioned a lot. -Loren 18:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
No problem. You know best. --Ardonik.talk()* 18:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Why was the mention of a religious holiday every Friday removed? I think it can be considered "official dogma" as well, as it's also mentioned on the official site-- I'm going to tag it back on. --Southwest

Another removed section

I just removed the following:


Several "schisms" and "cults" have developed in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism since its inception, mostly keeping in line with the pasta and parody theme:

  • SPAM (Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs), calls for a Holy War against FSM. SPAMation claims to have the One True Letter to the Kansas School Board. The SPAM website is a subsection of Yoism, which calls itself "the world's first open source religion," [3] and also claims to be the first serious religion with a sense of humor. (Though other "religions," such as the Church of the SubGenius, an intentional spoof, or Discordianism, a tongue-in-cheek semi-serious religion, predate Yoism, neither was formed as a serious religion.)
  • The Reformed Church of Alfredo, which anoints its members with various sauces according to the appropriate holy day. Alfredans believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a nemesis called the Baked Ziti Beast, which takes all that is good and noodly and turns it into a sordid, dry, casserole-like affair. Alfredans are taught to avoid ziti and its relatives penne and mostaccoli in all their forms. Fundamentalist Alfredans believe that those who do not worship as they do will spend the afterlife caked in burnt sauce and cheese on the edges of the Baked Ziti Beast's casserole pan.
  • The Cult of Oregano, places special emphasis on the composition of the sauces, claiming that "without the oregano, nothing else would matter".


The combined number of hits for Reformed Church of Alfredo, Cult of Oregano, and Spaghetti Pulsar Activating Meatballs is approximately 62, so I don't think any of these "schisms" are noteworthy enough for more than a cursory mention. Again, feel free to revert or restore if you feel I did wrongly. --Ardonik.talk()* 20:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Related satire

I have pre-emptively removed this section (recently added by 24.241.230.140 (talk · contribs) because I think it will be a back door for adding more irrelevant links to fansites. I'd rather not be in the business of deciding what's notable enough to be "related satire". So here's what I took out:

--Ardonik.talk()* 07:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is the most popular wikipedia entry right now

http://www.blogsnow.com/bnxwqq

"Most popular" in the minds of whom? The same site says the article Wikipedia is only linked to 3 times, and I know there are more links to this site than that. --Ardonik.talk()* 19:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Most linked to by recent blog entries. FSM is a current event, WP is not. --Zetawoof 06:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep the FSM

Though this is techinically something that is a work in progress, it is a viable entry into the Wikipedia entries. I say we keep this, because it is a current event article of something that is a valid argument. If "intelligent design" is a valid entry, than something according to this line of thinking is just as valid. Maybe this is something that could use editing to follow the lines of something as asinine as "inteligent design", but it deserves as much consideration as the mentioned.

Those sentences barely parse as valid English. Perhaps you meant to add them to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster (but please don't; there are a number of worthless anonymous and sockpuppet votes there already that were evidently spurned to participate because of a LiveJournal posting, and they're all going to be ignored, just like yours. Enough actual Wikipedians approve of the article that it's probably going to be kept anyway.) --Ardonik.talk()* 16:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


Be careful with the reverts

Ec5618: In your last revert (15:31 21-Aug) you:

  • Erased a non-confirmed or erroneous "code of conduct".
  • Erased a factual "code of conduct".
  • Changed updated numbers by outdated ones.
  • Erased a paragraph in "developements" and the whole section of "references" which show the interesting claims made by Henderson from factual information taken from the official webpage of the religion.

Thanks for erasing the first item, but i think the rest of the actions of your revert were detrimental to completeness and correctness of the entry. That's why i reverted the other three items. --62.57.112.98 16:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. I've had dealings with another editor, who is continuous adding his POV, refusing to acknowledge that other points of view can exist, and that his points have been debunked or even criticised. I'm afraid the experience has significantly lowered my reversion threshold. I'll need to exercise greater caution.
Nevertheless, this article is on the brink of being overrun by uncyclopedic content. -- Ec5618 16:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you ment to do it during your last edit, but you ended up deleting all of the Codes of Conduct, including the ones that could be considered "official", being from the original site, as well as the Benefits of Conversion which were also given by Henderson on the original site and could be considered "canon". I'm restoring the "offical" ones for now, minus the ones that the anon added. -Loren 21:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I did actually mean to do that. I feel that these specific details are irrelevant in an article that seeks merely to report on a new internet phenomenon. Its funny quirks are part of the joke, no more. Also, such details do seem to invite rediculous additions. "Their symbol is a simple fork, tines raised to the sky in thanks." and the like. -- Ec5618 21:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you view the history of the page you'll find that the stuff about the fork was added later, I'm all in favor of deleting that. However I believe that we should keep the original stuff in there as they are legitimate information on what distinguishes this "religion" from others. -Loren 21:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Whilst the purpose of the article may be "merely to report on a new internet phenomenon" I feel that it's relevant to point out that Henderson is engaged in a form of political action in an attempt to deal with a situation that he presumably feels is untenable or objectionable, and not simply the amusing creation of an internet meme, although of course the current classification may be inaccurate, and dispute about which details to include is valid. danla
So any form of political action that furthers someone's agenda in a specific dispute, no matter how poor of a candidate it is for any encyclopedia, should get an encyclopedia article?

Possible lock?

I'm no admin, and am not versed in the vagaries of WikiRules (there seem to millions) but this page has attracted an undue amount of attention both within Wikipedia and the "outside" as well. With multiple changes/reverts and the notoriety this page has attained, perhaps it should be locked against changes for a spell, until such time that things "cool off"? --Sirimiri 21:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would support such a move if more editors agree, however bear in mind that this could be considered a "current event" and new updates might be necessary. -Loren 21:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, though the reasons are purely personal, and do reflect my understanding of Wikipedia policy. Overzealous editors are making this article unreliable. Specific additions (if properly referenced) can be made by an admin, if need be. -- Ec5618 21:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
For now I think we've got a handle on it. My hope is that these aspiring Uncyclopedians will move on after the VfD is concluded and this meme is no longer "hot" (truth be told, it wasn't all that funny to begin with.) --Ardonik.talk()* 22:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The article is still shaping up well, and I think that it's getting less and less likely that this will be needed in the foreseeable future. --Apyule 14:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD debate

This article was formerly listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster. The ensuing debate resulted in a consensus to keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

purpose

Not sure why this section was removed:

Purpose
The aim of parody is to heap ridicule upon the very idea of permittting the intelligent design theory to enjoy the same standing as the materialistic theory of evolution.

Wasn't this the purpose of the parody? Based on the fact that the originator of the spag monster corresponded with board members on the defeated side of the issue.... Uncle Ed 19:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • This section was removed because it repeated what was said in the article's first sentence. User:Bbpen 08:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Where should mythos expansion occur?

As this mythos develops, where should documentation and discussion of the expansion take place? I for one see a whole expansion explaining elements of the universe under this mythos. For instance, "Space is clearly cold because the FSM requires refrigeration to keep his noodly appendages fresh and flexible". I also appreciate the explanations of string theory that I have seen that tie in with this mythos. Shoud these items be in the Wiki, or on a seperate web site? - bcRIPster 16:46, August 24, 2005 (MST)

Uncyclopedia, or somewhere else. Not here, please. --Ardonik.talk()* 06:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Not here yet. If the mythos ends up sticking around and turning into "official dogma", it may be worth mentioning it in the future. We're in the business of reporting what transpires, neither encouraging nor discouraging it. -Loren 07:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Parody religion" vs. "religion"

It is a parody religion. Calling it a "religion" does not remove bias, it introduces inaccuracy.

First, Bobby Henderson created it as a parody religion. (cf FAQ [4]: "...Accepting a supernatural explanation is a cop-out. It's faith, NOT science. Religious nuts: please stop emailing me about that..."). Second, it has not -- at least at this early date -- morphed into an actual religion. It strains belief that anyone believes FSMism explains the world or provides a guide to ethical behavior.

Calling FSMism a "religion" takes the joke too far; save that for Uncyclopedia. User:Bbpen 08:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


I disagree. That quote hardly implies it's a parody religion, in fact it states that any religion based on a supernatural explaination is suspect, so unless you want to use this quote to argue Christianity is a parody relgion it doesn't apply. The entire point of this only holds water if in fact it's apprached with all seriousness. You can't tell someone that their faith is full of holes because you have a funny joke - IF you need a actual practitional to back this up then as of this minute I'm praying to the FSM who I fully and honestly believe created every damn thing on this planet. Except for sweet potatos because they are gross. The simple fact is calling it a "parody" on the first line of the entry ruins the whole concept and gives weight to arguements to the contrary. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide what is more valid that something else, this is a relgion plain and simple, leave it at that. Sean Bonner 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Satire doesn't make its point by being real. Jonathan Swift didn't actually want the English to eat Irish babies, and Henderson doesn't believe the creation story he invented. It makes his point -- that supernatural explanations are insufficient -- whether anyone actually worships FSM or not. Calling FSMism a parody hardly "ruins the whole concept"; it displays an accurate understanding of the logical arguments at play. Bbpen 17:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Jonathan Swift was a parodist. A Modest Proposal wasn't an article of faith.
The analogy is quite flawed, but I don't expect someone who dismisses a religion offhand to see the difference between eating the children of the poor (which was why Swift suggested they be eaten, as a way to decrease poverty) and allowing only one type of religion to be taught about in schools. It's immaterial to God whether he is worshipped or not, if He created the Universe. That is, if you believe there is a universe. Not everyone does. Pedant
I think the article would benefit from a link to open source religion. I don't know if FSM is one, but it has some similarities. Pe3 10:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
You want to believe in FSM, fine. Knock yourself out. But you'll be the only one, so putting it into Wikipedia is vanity. --Nerd42 16:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

New York Times

Reverted: On August 29, 2005 a woman reported in The New York Times : "I heard singing, and tomato sauce rained from the sky. And I saw angel hair pasta flying about with little farfalle wings and playing harps. It was beautiful." After impregnating her it told her: "You shall name Him ...Prego...and He shall bring in a new era of love."

This is a quote from the New York Times that is not labeled a joke parady.
The quote has become part of the debate of whether the Intelligent Spaghetti theory has relevance.
The opening premiss of the article includes an inferance that George Bush supports teaching the Intelligent Spaghetti theory. Now is that parody?? Or is it POV ridicule?
I believe the quotes inclusion is responsible inasmuch as it was reported in the newspaper of record in the United States.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
FSM is a parody. This woman wasn't actually impregnated by his noodly appendage. This is a joke. No matter how the New York Times reported it, it is a parody designed to prove a point about Intelligent Design. The article already contains that point. -- Ec5618 22:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, interesting, but then the New York Times further asks: "Has anyone ever converted to a parody religion?" That reinforces placing the quote in context in the article. The authenticated quote placed in the article does not in and of itself imply that it's placement is to be a parody or joke.
  • It's inclusion begins the New York Times discussion of "has anyone converted to a parody religion." I'm thinking of a couple candidates in contemporary religion....
  • It's inclusion frames the discussion of the direction the Kansas decision is going.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with including the story verbatim as it is quite obviously a joke, much like the many other "miracles" and "sightings" popping up all over the place. The fact that the NY Times happened to mention this one does not change that fact; posting it here would only invite more people with similar "visions" to start posting their stories here. I would not, however, be opposed to mentioning the growing number of devotees of FSM-ism and how seriously they may or may not take their newfound religion, and under what context (i.e. as a political protest, something fun to do online, as a serious religion... etc).-Loren 00:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, where would this article draw the line that the article itself and any of its content is or is not "being a joke?"
  • If the motivation of Bobby Henderson is to make a joke of Intelliegent Design, then why would including content arising from that joke be denied.
  • If the article is taken as "serious" then why would it not be vulnerable to credibility by inserting content that supports stating it is a joke by including the so-called parodys it has spawned.
  • If the editorial conclusion is that this is all parody, must we wade through all Wiki material and delete any content of a parody nature? Would that include contemporary relgions?
  • The decision to include an article also includes including the genre of that article. Is testimony to that article, or parody of that article inclusive of the genre of that article?
  • If a parody became so widespread, or a testimony became incorporated into the doctrine of this relgion, then where would the line be drawn that it had achieved such notice that it could not be denied inclusion in the article?
  • Within Wiki articles depicting the myths of various religions, are they to be excluded because they are considered by some to be jokes or paradys?
hmmm, looks maybe Wiki has a unique set of editorial conundrums in this article...
I still support the New York Times quote. And I appreciate your ongoing input.Kyle Andrew Brown 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well the main problem, IMHO, is that this is still a very recent phenomina. With other religions we at least have something to refer to (i.e. the Bible, Koran...etc), with FSM the best we can do is go along with anything Henderson puts out on his main site and stated in his Open Letter, which is why we have those bits on pirates and beer volcanos. The problem I have with sticking this "unoffical" (for the lack of a better term) story in is that it essentially opens the floodgates to pretty much every "sighting" that anyone cares to claim out there. Let me clarify again that I am not opposed to mentioning the incident as part of a section on how fans and devotees are taking this. What I am opposed to is posting it verbatim with no clarifications and no context, which makes the article look like the Uncyclopedia version. -Loren 03:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Changlc, that's very close to my viewpoint. I agree with your concerns. Thanks.Kyle Andrew Brown 11:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone ever converted to a parody religion? Almost certainly. I think, depending on your definition of parody, you could pretty easily include 70,000 Australian Jedi [5], and L.Ron only knows how many Scientologists [6]. Of course adherents of those two religions would strongly object to such a characterization... And I don't know how many people give their religion as "SubGenius"[7] these days, but I'm sure it's non-zero. Steve Rapaport 8 September 2005

Commercialism

I removed the clause ", at which point Henderson began selling thousands of dollars' worth of shirts and other knick-knacks" because User:208.201.238.222 cited no source to indicate that it was more than supposition. Bbpen 01:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I was irritated when it was posted on my homepage references to the sale of tshirts etc. and thanking Wiki for promoting the sale.Kyle Andrew Brown 11:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cthulhu/string theory

"It draws as much from the Cthulhu mythos as it does from the String Theory, a model of fundamental physics." This is a joke, right? It doesn't make much sense, in any case. Bbpen 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the link to string theory? It's a basic building block of the whole religion, that FSM (god) created the universe in his image:

"Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!"

So, there you have it. If there was an intelligent creator, why wouldn't he have created the universe in his own image ("noodles", or strings)? This point is found on Bobby Henderson's site; keep in mind he has a degree in physics. (You obviously don't.) -- (unsigned:65.169.36.34)

First off. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. How could you possibly know whether another editor has a degree in physics?
I get the joke. It's a joke. Which is why we mention in in the article, but we don't repeat it as fact. Yes, we all know about String theory. Spaghetti, strings, ha ha. A play of words is a joke. It is however not indicative of FSM, as a concept. Removing it again. -- Ec5618 11:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I just checked the official website, and the only mentions of string theory are in comments from other people, not an official part of the religion and not a basic building block. If we do mention string theory we should make this clear. --Apyule 13:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Notable Acts of the FSM?

Should a section be devoted to significant interventions of the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? For example, his merciful act of saving gay revelers from the sorrow and misery of Hurricane_Katrina? REF: Repent America

No, we're focused on facts here. Please take the jokes to Uncyclopedia.-Loren 02:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Religion or theory?

The article currently opens by describing FSM as "a parody religion", but I think this is incorrect. Just as ID asserts that it's not a religion, but an alternative 'scientific' theory (and therefore eligible to be taught in science classes), I would assume that FSM would also wish to be considered another scientific theory - clearly a parody scientific theory, but a ST, not a religion. I haven't checked the FSM web site to see if they draw this distinction as carefully as the ID people do - does anyone know? I haven't 'been bold' and made this change to the article, because I assume it might be contentious, but if others agree, will someone please do so? Noel (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have a point there, read the last paragraph of the Open Letter written by the Prophet (may Him be touched by His Noodly Appendage):
(...) I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. (...) I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
But on the other side, the belief in a supreme being as is implied by this theory and the set of beliefs, which surpasses the creation theory (like the belief in heaven with a stripper factory and beer volcano) should be called a religion right? And since the theory in itself is a parody of ID... a parody religion? --62.57.115.1 23:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Good point, JNC. I think it's clear that FSMism encompasses both a parody ST and a parody religion, and yet was invented as a response to the theory of ID. Perhaps the article should start:
"Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a parody scientific theory created to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow intelligent design to be taught in science classes alongside evolution. Its parent 'religion' has since become an Internet phenomenon that...."Bbpen 23:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with using "theory" in this context. "Theory" is reserved for use when describing verifiable scientific explainations, not "some random guess", see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. If we do describe it as a theory, we might consider doing so along the lines of the ID article:

Supporters of ID claim it has all the merits of a solid scientific theory. This claim is dismissed by the majority of the scientific community. Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, mainstream scientists do not recognise ID as a scientific theory and consider it to be creationist pseudoscience

-Loren 02:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term theory isn't appropiate but what about "parody theory"? we could point out that it parodizes the ID supporters calling their stuff a theory too:
"FSM is a parody theory. By claiming to be a theory FSM parodizes the fact that ID proponents equate the validity of their beliefs with a scientific theory and then try to teach said beliefs in science classrooms."
Bah I don't like the wording but you'll get the meaning "me fail english? that's unpossible!" --62.57.115.1 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing most non-notable content

Not everything that can be said about the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserves a place in this article. It deserves a place in this encyclopaedia because of its new-found prominence in the debate about the teaching of Intelligent Design. I propose to greatly reduce discussion that's tangential to that role; the external links can cover the details on the rest of the joke.

I'm going to be bold and do it, but I won't engage in a revert war about it; if my changes get reverted, I'll let someone who agrees with me revert them back before I do so myself, and if they don't I'll bow to consensus... — ciphergoth 16:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


Media coverage links

Editors have been removing the media links as they die. I'd suggest converting them instead to citations (ie, "Headline," Publication, Date) as they go. The list will remain an traceroute of the meme as it climbed the mainstream media, interesting not just to those curious about FSM but of those concerned with internet memes in general. Bbpen 18:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Relevant link

Why is the link to http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html repeatedly being deleted? That work supports Flying Spaghetti Monsterism experimentally! See the bottom of the page in the conclusions and references.

People who honestly believe in FSM

Some people are calling our religion a parody, claiming that the signs we have seen are false. Proclaim your belief and add your signature below!

  • I honestly believe --EKBK 19:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yarr!! I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, matey! --Eraboin 18:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wrr!! I'm a true pirat! --helohe 20:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not disbelieve any attempt to explain the mysteries of the Universe. I also don't consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to be a parody, even if it seems unusual for a man to talk to an angel, or Christianity, though it seems outside the realm of science to believe a man can die and be resurrected, or Judaism, just because their God told their first prophet to hide in a crack and cover his eyes to see him, or Islam, just because Mohammed named his son after a stone that was thought to be a god, or paganism, just because I don't worship naked, etc. ... and even though there are 'nutty' websites covering any one of the aforementioned religions. When we talk about Jesus, we don't stress on the point that he didn't apparently set out to create a new religion, but to fulfill an old one. Just because Islam seems to have been invented for tourism promotion according to some views, doesn't mean we emphasize that part when discussing Mohammed. Pedant 23:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not you honestly believe in FSM-ism is irrelevent to this article, the article must maintain a neutral point of view. Consequently, this means upholding the facts (that FSM began as a parody of ID but later took on a life of it's own), not using Wikipedia as a medium for prosthelyzing, and making sure that all information is encyclopedic. Informative, and constructive contributions are welcome; jokes, evangelizing, and other nonsense are not. -Loren 21:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried upholding what you said are the facts (that FSM began as a parody of ID but later took on a life of it's own), but Bbpen said (in his edit summary) that "articles should begin with a statement of what the subject is." If people honestly belive in FSM, then it currently is a belief, not a parody. According to Bbpen, what it is should come first, presumably followed by how it started. --Go Cowboys 14:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I admit that it does seem to be a touchy subject here. People can consider FSM to be a satire, a legitimate religion, or both. I suppose one similar subject to consider when writing this would be the Jedi census phenomenon where you also have a large group of people pledge allegence to a fictional religion. This whole thing may turn into a debate over what constitutes a true religion. -Loren 00:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Stop misspelling its! lysdexia 14:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Decline in pirates?

"Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in numbers of pirates since the 1800s."

I know of a lot of entertainment industry executives who would argue with that. --Damian Yerrick 20:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Many people were aware that September the 19th was International "Talk Like A Pirate" Day. Surely this is a sign that the FSM is putting his noodly appendage in, and giving us a subliminal glimpse of his existance? Many people I bumped into at school informed me that they were "Sorry, Matey!". Brilliant... John Wilton

existence lysdexia 08:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

From the official Flying Spaghetti Monster FAQ (regarding the global temperature vs. number of pirates graph:

"Also, I realize that there are several sports teams named the "pirates", and that there are millions of music/software "pirates". But *real* pirates use swords."

I think this clears up most questions, at least until those music pirates start using virtual swords. --Southwest 8:19, 10 November 2005

Proposed changes

The article is locked, but I noticed the comment after one of the news links is incorrect:

"Austin American Statesman, "Another theory of creation for Kansas" 03 September 2005 (Login required)"

No login seems to be required to access that article. Also, it is just a reprint of the Washington Post story.

Remember what this article is

This article is not about promoting a new religion, promoting new ideals, or bashing intelligent design. The article is supposed to be describing the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism phenomenon. As such, it is of encyclopedic nature, since it's a real debate publicized in many news reports and affecting many people in Kansas. Elfguy 16:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article should not promote new ideals or bash intelligent design. However, I notice that a new section, "Intolerance" was just deleted that did neither. It described the reception of FSM by people who believe in ID. Being a "parody religion", FSM's purpose is to ridicule intelligent design. A description of the pro/con arguments is neither promotion nor bashing. It's fact. The section could be revised if someone finds it to be biased, but that wasn't cited as the reason for its removal. Jon 19 Sep, 2005
I had removed the intolerance section, and for clear, if not cited reasons.
Quote: "Ignoring historical evidence and modern pasta analysis .."
Modern what now?
Quote: "Whether life came from the breath of a loving, personal God or the touch of a noodle.."
Quite. [8]-- Ec5618 21:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe the article could benefit from a factual description of the issues which prompted the creation of FSM. It has been stated in this discussion several times now that FSM is important strictly as it relates to the issue of teaching ID in schools.
I agree, "modern pasta analysis" should be removed. But "Quite" fails to explain what's wrong with the next quote. It sounds silly? We're writing an encyclopedic entry on FSM here. Tell me how the FSM creation hypotheses can be described without mentioning noodles in this context. And to say it shouldn't be discussed requires a better reason than "Quite".
Additionally, nowhere in this article does it mention that FSM "beliefs" promote Intelligent Design. That, at the very least, should be clarified. If FSM is/were an actual religion, its adherents would approve of the teaching of ID. You removed that when you deleted the section as well. Jon 21 Sep, 2005
You're reading too much into it. This was created by people opposed to teaching ID in classes alongside with Evolution. Since ID is purely fictional (faith based, not scientific) it should not be in science classes and stay in optional religion classes. To show how ridiculous ID was, they started FSM. It's a parody, and trying to find deep religious meaning to various FSM "beliefs" is meaningless. ID supporters believe ID is the truth. FSM supporters know FSM isn't true, since it's a parody. Elfguy 18:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
A proper parody of a creationist religion would make up a ridiculous God and then support the teaching of ID for equally ridiculous reasons. FSM, on the other hand, makes up a ridiculous God and demands separate teaching alongside evolution and ID. If they were really keeping with the parody they would adamantly defend ID to the death with the most outrageous logic thinkable. In that sense, FSM is a failed parody. It riducules ID's logic by adhering to the logic of a parody improperly? I honestly think that was a mistake on the part of FSM's prophet. But to be unbiased the article should mention it in some form.Fanblade 20:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sic

The quotes were a compromise worthy of old LESTER B himself, but, like all compromises, it was unsatisfactory to all, and, in this case, to the TRUTH, which is that enforcing and subjugating (by quotes) spellings which are atypical but are in fact more adherant to the phonology of the words they represent is inherently DISCRIMINATORY< especially to those who have difficulty with language and for whom such truthful representations may be easier to deal with. Removing the spelling, or denegrating it, is like making stairs out of a newly formed concrete wheelchair ramp, or at least advocating that people do that sort of thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.146.18.185 (talk • contribs) 13:55 22 Sept 2005.

Either "sic" or simply quotes around "migdit" are called for here. The sense of both is to indicate that the misspelling is intentional — not necessarily by Henderson, but by the Wikipedians who produced this article. Bbpen 18:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Both actions serve to denegrate and harass people who have learning difficulties, which you ought to read about so you'll be more sympathetic and reasonable.

I can't make out what you're trying to say. Fredrik | talk 18:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

what i'm SAYING, not merely TRYING to say, is that people like me, like who have certain difficulties with language, have a discrepency between the way a word's SPELLED and the way it's PRONOUNCED.

specifically, the word miget is pronounced with a prominent D, yet in the spelling -- miget -- no such representation!

you'd be looking for a MIG-ETTE, which, let me tell you from experience, is a lot harder to find than a miget, despite how those guys are small.

some people, when in this case, like me, like have HUDJE problems understanding the language, and are aided by spellings which are true to pronunciation, like midget.

to get rid of such spellings, then, only makes things harder for people like me, like who are already having trouble.

it is best, then, to leave them and not to insult people who have aphasic disorders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.146.18.185 (talk • contribs) 15:02 22 Sept 2005.

24.146.18.185, you look like you're fairly new to Wikipedia, so let me point out a few points of WP etiquette that help editors resolve disputes like this. First, you may want to consider signing up for a username. Second, whether you choose to do that or not, sign your posts. This is done by ending them with ~~~~ (four tildes). This helps everyone follow the discussion more easily. Third, make no personal attacks, even if you feel that you've been slighted. For example, it does not help your case to make assumptions about other editors' knowledge or sympathies — you literally have no basis to do so.

All that said, you sound quite passionate on the subject. But Wikipedia style is to use dictionary spellings (allowing for the different dictionaries from U.S., British, Australian, etc. publishers). Because this is so, non-standard spellings stand out as typos, and it is therefore helpful to denote them otherwise by using sic or quotes. Bbpen 19:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh please.

That's like saying it's the Alabama Trasportation Commission's style to keep black people in the back of the bus --- if there's room. Same appeal to societal "policy", same decision to "not rock the boat", same discriminatory and unjust result. Why should people with aphasic conditions -- whose numbers, according to your own "discriminipedia", and your own "discrininastistic" -- are growing at a rate of over 80000 per year in the U.S. alone have any less of a right to benefit from your "discriminipedia" -- in so far as anyone can benefit from it -- than anyone else? MANY companies, for MANY years, made all access points to their buildings under the same sort of "style" requirements as you're special pleading here. However, we've made laws against that sort of thing, and that's as it should be. While there may not be laws against it yet, it should be Wikipedia's policy to leave easier, phonologically correct spellings in articles where they're already in place. Afterall, it's US, not you, who have trouble with language. Having unconventional but phonologically true spellings doesn't hamper anything but your discriminatory sense of style. Phonologically untrue spellings, on the other hand, can and do cause TREMENDOUS trouble for people with aphasic conditions.

UPDATE (24.146.18.185 20:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)) This is NOT a personal attack, but it seems to me you should have respect for people with aphasic disorders. Aphasic disorders are caused by damage to specifically LINGUISTIC parts of the brain, and do NOT necessarily correlate to any other mental incapacity. I, as someone who has an aphasic disorder, feel VERY offended and HURT by the paternalistic and unencyclopaedic tone you decided to adopt in your response, as if I were someone of limited intelligence.

24.146.18.185 19:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If someone can translate the above for me, I'm perfectly willing to have a rational discussion about this, but until that happens, the quotes stay. It's standard style in most English-language publications to enclose intentional misspellings in quotes. People with learning disabilities have been able to cope with this before, and they'll be able to cope with it this time, too.—chris.lawson (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can't understand something I wrote, PLEASE highlight what it is and I will be more than glad to attempt to clarify it, to the extent that I am able. It is not appropriate to hijack a decision simply because you have trouble understanding the arguments of one of the people involved in the decision. This is especially true when it's clear no consensus has been formed.

However, I hope you understand now the difficulty people with aphasic disorders have. They are as baffled as you, except they have trouble with almost everything they try to read. If you're not sympathetic, now that you've experienced what they experience every day, it is advised you see a psychiatrist or some other competent health professional and make sure you don't have autistm, Asperger's, sociopathy, or some other mental or personality disorder, since being unable to empathize with other people is a characteristic of those illnesses. 24.146.19.164 00:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Let it be known that I just now attempted to have a telephone conversation with Chris, knowing that voice communication sometimes leads to more emphathy than textual communication, but he hung up on me when I introduced myself and apologized for calling unannounced. I take this as an indication of unwillingness to work constructively on this problem, though I myself have severe social anxiety disorder and so can understand that there are many reasons why phone conversation may be difficult for some people. I myself experience extreme anxiety when on the phone.

Dude. You're a stalker. You tracked down my phone number (admittedly, not difficult, but don't you think e-mail would have been a more appropriate first step?), you called me using a TDD relay service, and you attempted to continue this utterly ridiculous argument in meatspace.
Do not ever do that again. Is that clear?—chris.lawson (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not a stalker according to any laws or reasonable definition I know, all which usually include repeated unwanted contact and that the person being stalked inform the stalker that contact is unwanted as inherent and necessary elements. I hardly think a friendly, unrepeated phone call comes close to meeting that definition, and I think you calling me a stalker does little to rectify the situation, and certainly falls under the sort of behaviour prohibited by Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks, which you can familiarise yourself with by following a link posted earlier in this discussion, as well as verging on being libelous, especially since it seems likely to diminish my reputation and sense of honour in the Wikipedia community. I'm not sure why you object to me using a relay service. It is the only way I can use the phone. It is a good thing to learn about disabilities, including aphasic disorders and blindness. It is essential to developing a sincere, empathetic understanding of the problems people with disabilities go through and how they overcome their limitations. The reason I used the phone to contact you is because I wished to develop empathetic communication, though I now realise and agree with you that it would have been appropriate to contact you by E-mail at first, if only to reduce the creepiness of the whole thing. Needless to say, I will be more than happy to comply with your request not to contact you by telephone again, unless you later give me permission (which, frankly, I view as unlikely, now that we've gotten off to such a terrible start) or I attempt to phone someone else's number but by some freak accident (which I view as even more unlikely, being a seer of good in all men) contact you, perhaps while you're staying as a house guest at a friend's. However, there are billions of phone numbers in the world, and so the likelyhood of that is certainly low.
I VEHEMENTLY reject the implication that this argument is ridiculous or is in any way frivolous. Quotes are used to subjegate one form of a word to another. That might be fine in cases of offensive words like 'nigger', but it's NOT okay when you harass people with aphasic disorders by attacking forms of words they find easier to understand.
Good luck and God bless. 24.146.19.164 01:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Every word should be said as it's spelt. The spelling is usually "right", but the speaker is often wrong. If you want to note what people find offensive, the deluded Norman Christian monks mutated English sounds and spellings into their own versions because theirs conformed to the continental GermanoRoman scheme. So the German CH/ch became the Norman-English mutt GH/gh, which is why riht, or "richt", became "right", and so on. So "subjugate" should be said "subjugate" and not "subjegate"; and if you cared at all about writing riht and rihtly, you would not change spelling to match speaking, but change speaking to match spelling. Also, you would've written "aphasia" and "phonetic" as they are better said in the newer Greek, without a cluster or modifier, as "afasia" and "fonetic" using the GraicoRoman speech and spelling rules. Those are to keep the original spellings as much as possible, unless improved such as by elision, and to correct the manifold corruptions that the uncouth, illiterate, and deluded Roman Christians and the Romancers had and have made to the rootly loanwords. Also, you should review the meaning and history of the word "bless", and find that it was plagiarised and again-corrupted by the Norman and Celtic Christians from the pagan word in a ritual meaning to "bloody". And, it is useless to tell people what imaginary and nondescript beings should do for you, especially when you cannot make a causal and one-to-one correspondence between any suggested event outside of your own doing and that by your invocate. So, "Go bloody yourself." lysdexia 15:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight.

"Midgit" shouldn't have quotes, because it better represents (phonetically) the pronunciation of the word "midget" than the proper spelling of the word does?

I find it interesting that you make no such argument about the quotes around "noodly appendages" in the first photo caption.

I also find your argument favouring "midgit" (over "midget") as a phonetic representation of "midget" to be very weak, at best. It certainly isn't strong enough for us to contravene the Wikipedia Manual of Style in this case.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised that it better represents the pronunciation than the "correct" spelling does. MANY words in English are spelled differently than they are pronounced. To the best of my recollection, the figure is more than 20% of the language's words have such qualities. It'd be a bit of a hassle, but I'd be happy to provide a formal citation of such a figure if you doubt me. However, simple reason should convince you of my argument. Look at words like knife and draught, which do not represent modern representations of those words. (An interesting linguistical note is that they did, in fact, one one time, represent present pronunciation.) The issue of spelling reform is hardly new. Why do you think it's "colour" in the UK and "color" in the U.S.? It's because of people who realised that spellings which don't cohere to pronunciation make language more difficult for those who already are least skilled at using it. What's happening here is no different than that, and is an important step in making Wikipedia accessable to those users who have aphasic disorders, which is quite possibly a substation portion of them, as, world wide, those with aphasic disorders are increasing by hundreds of thousands every year. To put easier, phonetic spellings in quotes, as if they were any less valid than the 'orthodox' spelling, is a slap in the face to those who have such disorders. 24.146.19.164 02:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Let us "no" "hau" "yer" "campane" to "chanj" "spelingz" "werks" "four" "yew". Until then, "pleez" "leev" "thee" "kwotes" in "thee" "imaj" "capshin".—chris.lawson (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, you can cite examples 'till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that if pronounced strictly phonetically, "midget" and "midgit" sound exactly the same. That renders your entire argument moot. Next, please.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted by all involved that the issue of the quotes has been brought up for formal mediation, as per Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure, and so I would like to formally ask that they be left in the decent, non-discriminatory way at least until the dispute has been resolved. It should also be noted that clawson is continually vandalising my page by replacing its contents with false accusations of violating Wikipedia's procedures and policies. 24.146.19.164 02:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: stop stalking me and I'll stop reverting your user page.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
You've actually never said that. You've said similar things, but they also included a bunch of unreasonable requests that were impossible to fulfill. I would be more than happy to fulfill this request, except for one problem: I"M NOT STALKING YOU AND NEVER HAVE. Please stop accusing me of such wrongdoing.24.146.19.164 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole argument is rediculous. 24.146.19.164 is objecting to the concept of [sic], not just its use here. He might as well be objecting to the letter h. Anyway, this is not the place for this 'discussion'. -- Ec5618 06:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not quite sure where else this discussion should be had, since the user only seems to have a problem with the quotes as used in this article, but as I said above, I think the entire argument is moot, since "midgit" and "midget" are pronounced exactly the same way. Also, the user arguing against the quotes is now on a 24-hour block for his violation of the 3RR.
Does anyone else feel the quotes are, uh, "discriminatory?" Absent any supporting opinions, it looks to me like consensus favours keeping the quotes in the article.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

With all the ridiculousness that's gone on, perhaps it's time for some coherent discussion. ;)

We shouldn't use both "sic" and the quotes here. Either one is sufficient to indicate that the spelling of "midgit" is intentionally wrong, so using both is redundant (and ugly). I personally prefer simply using the quotes, but I won't put up much of an argument if other editors want "[sic]" placed after "midgit" without any quotes at all.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Venganza

I just added that Venganza is Spanish for revenge. Venganza.org is the name of the site so I thought that might be relevant. --Revolución (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Thomas D. Schneider article

Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design by Dr. Thomas Schneider. I was going to add it to the external links, but it might not fit the request in the HTML comment. Should this be linked to by the main article? MichaelSH 19:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Looks like just a joke page to me, not encyclopedically interesting. Bbpen 20:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
what point is made with FSM that wasn't made much better with the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It seems like a cheap rehash of the idea by a higschooler. That's a little bit sad, because it cheapens better parodies by associations, but there's not much to do about it of course. Except letting Pastafarians choose between conversion to IPU and the sword, of course :) 21:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Italian Masonic FSM Lodge Link

I've been reverting this link as spam, but this same user keeps adding it every morning. I wanted to see if I can get another editor to make a ruling as to this link's inclusion in this article.

In particular, it seemed to be just a couple pics of this guy and some poorly written text trying to make fun of Freemasons. It also seems to conflict with the direction given in the links section:

Please don't add links here unless they shed light on the role FSM plays in the Intelligent Design debate.

So, anyone have comments? --Syrthiss 13:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Freemasons can be fun indeed.

On that website there are several pages available, including the history of the FSM debate and a religious survey.

Why do you think it is Italian? --Naairuj 18:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure that anything I read on that site isn't already covered on vengaza or here, so I don't see that it adds anything. Its italian because the ip address ends with ".it". --Syrthiss 15:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not Italian. The domain name belongs to a Norvegian company headed by Tobias and Jens Persson, but I can also see how that would be misleading for a non-technical person.

Noone would dare saying that the people who started the Intelligent Design debate in Kansas are freemasons, but maybe that's the point the website tries to make.

--Naairuj 20:30, 28 October 2005 (ECT)

The linked page seems more like a personal website then anything else. As other people mentioned, it really doesn't make any new points and is not, I believe, notable nor a source of information for this article (the two main criteria for most external links). As such, I think it falls easily into the category of linkspam. I'm removing the link for now unless anyone has any objections. While I'm at it, I also suggest removing the links to the German and French sites which are much more suited as sources for the German and French language Wikipedias. -Loren 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Parody religion?

I'm not sure we should be calling this a satirical parody religion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all use elements borrowed from other religions, and we don't call them 'Parody' or 'Satire'. When you believe in things you don't understand... it's superstition. We don't call Christianity superstition, yet it relies on a belief that comes from faith in the teachings, and not on evidence and understanding.

You may think that nobody really believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and of course the name and the description are based on anthropomorphic idea of what 'HE' looks like, and of course He has no gender) but you are attacking the faith of a religious believer... many people believe that Christians don't actually BELIEVE in God either.

Let me tell you, no religion could exist without true believers.

Obviously the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will be scoffed at because of the images crafted to remind the faithful of him out of rubber bands and pipe cleaners, but some people scoff at crucifixes made of popsicle sticks. They are still valid symbols the faithful can use to focus their worship.

Just because most wikipedians are members of mainstream religions doesn't mean other religions don't exist. Wicca, Santeria, Lukumi, and Vodoun are all treated respectfully, as befits a religion or closely-held belief. There is no reason to mock Flying Spaghetti Monsterism because it is not your religion. Where's the Neutral Point of View in this article???? Pedant 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Things like this further complicate my opinion of whether fundamentalist Christians or super-atheists are more ignorant. Avengerx 14:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

keep an open mind

Religion is a very personal and private thing and I think wikipedia needs to show some tact when dealing with it. While I personally may think of Jesus as my King, the only authority I acknowlege, others may with equal validity argue that their God is the One True God, and others may with just as much authority claim that science has all the answers. The more you study science, the more apparent it becomes that there is Mystery in the Universe, and that some mysteries seem completely impenetrable, to both scientists and religious scholars. If one thinks they understand Everything, they are grossly mistaken. Every day Science, in its approach to the limit of mystery, at the same time converges on some of the deeper concepts of religion.
Who is to say that spiritual and scientific philosophies are not all equally valid. Remember, the universe, the atom and the electron are all made-up concepts, used to explain something that is not understood. Equally so the concept that God (whatever you may call it) created the Universe. If one is to have a growth in learning one needs to keep an open mind, and not ignorantly scoff at what others believe. For a scientist to scoff at the concept of a God, is as ignorant as for the Holy Roman Church to sentence Galileo to house arrest for blashemously believing that the Earth is moving. Of course we can now say that the Earth can be considered the still center of the Universe, with equal validity to saying the Universe is boundless and has no center. A flawed description doesn't change the reality. I advise an open-minded approach to this topic. Pedant 22:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The very point of FSM is that it is not a true religion. It was created to make a point, and anyone claiming to be a true believer is most likely trying to do the same. FSM was created to ridicule the ID movement, not out of any sort of religious belief in an actual monster. This point has come up before, mind you, and I see your point, but in the end, FSM is not religion any more than the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies is a list of religions. -- Ec5618 23:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
People keep saying such-and-such is not a 'true' religion, but so far nobody has made any sort of statement on what it takes to be a true religion. There is a reason for that. It is impossible to state with any clarity what is a religion and what is not a religion. In what way is Sufism or Zoroastrianism or Judaism more of a religion than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Because the image we have of the FSM seems funny to you? Because the tenets of the religion are strange to you? I think pictures of Jesus with a halo and white skin look funny to me, and I am a Christian, and I think that the Jewish dietary laws seem strange, yet by my faith I am Israel. Being unusual or seeming funny to outsiders doesn't make a religion any less of a religion. Just because someone made a parody website about the FSM doesn't mean it's a parody religion, I've seen parody websites for Jesus and Mohammed too. What exactly is the Shibboleth by which a true religion can be recognised? Pedant 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
'The very point of FSM is that it is not a true religion, as it was created to make a point.' Until that changes, FSM is not a true religion. Mind that wicca is not being trampled upon here, and that minority religions are not the issue here. FSM is a joke, and just like Last Thursdayism, not a religion. -- Ec5618 07:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Your use of the expression "____ is not a true religion" begs the question, and pretty much shows the kind of reasoning that religions are up against.
Could you please tell me what makes a religion a true religion? Are you implying that a religion has to have a real god to be a religion? I'm sure you are aware that some religions believe their God is the only one. Are they not true religions, because there are other religions with other gods? Or is there just one true religion?
How do you decide what is and what isn't a true religion? Or if you cannot answer that, maybe just list the true religions, or just the ones you want to allow to be called 'true'.
I'm perfectly happy calling the website a parody. I don't have a problem with that at all. Bringing up Wicce just confuses the issue, since many of the followers don't consider that a religion, but a spiritual philosophy like Buddhism is.
Whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster 'was invented' or not, makes no difference. All Gods are invented, if you want to get into that. Are you saying that Christ is a parody? Or that He's not a God? Or that just because he was crucified to make a point, that his followers are not following a true religion with a true god? Or that he's not the Son of God? or That He's just not the Son of this particular God? How did you decide this? Pedant 07:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Pedant. Just because we may find Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to be absurd or humorous, doesn't mean that all of its practitioners do. I'm sure that there are people whose belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster brings them a great deal of spiritual fulfillment and a deep, mystical understanding of the universe that science alone cannot give, strange as it may seem to nonbelievers. Wikipedia of all places should not be so quick to cast judgment on a valid spiritual belief and a quite possible hypothesis about the universe, and certainly shouldn't write it off as nonsense without any proof! How do you know the universe wasn't created as FSM claims it was? You don't, so you can't just say that it was, as though it was a hard fact. I expect better than that from articles around here.
What we should do is provide both sides of the issue: those who argue that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a joke, and those who profess true belief in this mysterious being, and cite sources for all such claims on both sides of the debate. Pedant's recent edit to the beginning of the article is a very necessary and important one, and helps drive home the point that we can't make claims like "X is a satirical parody religion" as long as there is no hard, definitive, absolute proof for such claims. Instead, let's say who has called Flying Spaghetti Monsterism a "satirical parody religion", and not use weasel words either. There's no need to make broad generalizations and denigrate an entire belief system to nothing but a parody as long as there are valid alternatives, like quoting a person who has called FSM a "satirical parody religion", and then offering opposing views.
After all, who are any of us to say that the universe wasn't created by an invisible and undetectable monster made of spaghetti? Anything's possible. Science has changed dramatically in the past, when Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics; maybe tomorrow Einsteinian physics will be replaced by Spaghetti Monster physics? It could happen! Until we're totally sure, we should reserve all judgments on everything. Ask yourself this: is it more important to inform people about things in a clear and concise way, or to avoid offending anyone by saying something at all controversial or in any way disputable? Clearly the latter is more important; mere information cannot heal a broken heart. -Silence 08:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point(s). Please see mine: FSM was created to be a statement. Its only purpose was to show that ID shouldn't be included in curricula to give all origin concepts equal time. Its only purpose is to state that including all concepts is ludicrous and impossible. Therefore, science class should remain focussed on science.
  1. FSM is a joke. FSM is nothing more than an argument against teaching ID in schools.
  2. Stop making this into a discussion about the status of all faiths. FSM is not a faith.
  3. I brought up Wicca only after you did, and only to show that it is not being mocked.
  4. What it takes to be a faith? Faith comes to mind.
  5. This is not about open minds. Is Last Thursdayism a true religion, simply because no-one can prove that it has to followers? Is that the test of a true religion? It must have been mentioned somewhere, and have been called a religion?
-- Ec5618 09:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
You're the one who keeps talking about "true religion". As Pedant asked above, what is or isn't a "true religion"? Where do you draw the line? Be clear, because it sounds like you're falling for the No true Scotsman fallacy; why shouldn't Last Thursdayism be a religion, if anyone believes in its spiritual value?
And what difference does it make what a religion was created to be? People have argued that Genesis was just supposed to be a ritualistic, fanciful tale with purely symbolic rather than literal meaning at its genesis, but that hasn't stopped countless people from taking it as a literal, scientific description of the universe, and are they really wrong for believing what they believe? Plus how can we know for sure that it really was created for that reason, and that that wasn't just a ruse to make people question their pre-set understanding of the universe and eventually find a deeper spiritual path in the form of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Stranger things have happened. Until we can conclusively show that FSM is always a parody (and to do something like that would require a poll of every human on the world, which is quite impractical), we can't say plain-facedly "FSM is a parody", anymore than we can say that any religion is fact or fiction. Wikipedia's POV policy is non-negotiable.
In response to "FSM is not a faith.": You know, throughout history plenty of people have argued that, for example, Judaism isn't a real religion or faith or belief, just an evil lie. People have also argued that those who don't believe in a certain religion or philosophy or scientific theory (like evolution, for example, and people arguing that ID isn't real science just because they don't agree with it!) are just deluding themselves, and they really know the truth deep inside themselves. And now people are arguing that no-one could possibly believe something as outlandish as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism; this is just the latest in a long line of bigoted and closed-minded statements about what is or isn't a real religion. When will we learn to just accept everything anyone tells us, and stop being so critical and judgmental of everything? Whether FSM is true or false is totally beside the point, and irrelevant; if some people find happiness in believing that a spaghetti monster created the universe, then isn't FSM "true" in its own, special way? -Silence 10:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
You know, it just occurred to me that this situation is a lot like the Salem Witch Trials or the Holocaust, in that people are being persecuted and told their beliefs are nonsense just because they're don't adhere to the mainstream status quo. What next, are we going to round all the people who believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism into camps just for believing something unusual? It's a slippery slope, you know: today we denigrate a whole spirituality to nothing but a joke, tomorrow we're commiting genocide! Just think about it. Do you want to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, or do you want to be Hitler? -Silence 10:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Quite. No true Scotsman. As Pedant asked above, what is or isn't a "true religion"? Where do you draw the line? At faith, my good Silence.
why shouldn't Last Thursdayism be a religion, if anyone believes in its spiritual value? No-one does, so it isn't. If people did, it would be.
people arguing that ID isn't real science just because they don't agree with it! There are probably people who do this. There are also people who use the definition of science to prove ID is not science. ID is not science. It is philosophy.
When will we learn to just accept everything anyone tells us What? Honestly? Alright, add these to the list of religions then: 'Snaar, Bigu, Dent, Sigarana-dei, kow (no capital on the last one)' I assure you, they are all religions.
Whether FSM is true or false is totally beside the point I agree. Stop making this point. FSM is not false, as much as it is not a religion. Argue all you want, but the fact is that FSM was created to be an argument against ID in schools. This isn't about religion. Where do you draw the line?
Hitler Genocide Are you kidding me? No-one is being told their beliefs are ridiculous. No-one is being put into camps. Thats the beauty of it. No-one believes in the FSM. -- Ec5618 10:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In your opinion there are no people who believe in those religions. That is just your POV! There are many POVs!! Do you have a test tube microscope measuring cup that can test whether or not someone is really faithful or not?! If not, then you can't say anything about whether something is a "true religion", and to try to interject that belief into the article without quotation marks and a source is Original Research until you write a book or appear on TV! Sorry but that's all there is to it.
And I don't care whether or not Snaar and those other words are religions or not; unlike you, I won't tell someone who believes in any of those that they aren't a religion, because I am more open-minded than that. The only difference between FSM and Christianity and all those words you mentioned above is how many people believe in them, so as soon as any of those get enough believers to be on Wikipedia, they can be listed here as religions. That is a separate issue of notability, the issue at hand is whether a religion is a true religion or not! -Silence 11:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
FSM is not mentioned on Wikipedia because it is a religion with actual followers. It is listed because it is an interesting internet phenomenon. It has no followers, though there are people, followers if you will, who are in on the joke. It is notable because it is a phenomenon, not because it is a religion. Any first paragraph that claims FSM is an actual religion is kidding itself. -- Ec5618 11:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, quite a lot of religions start with multiple people being "in on the joke/scam", Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, etc. You would be extremely hard pressed to figure out if & when Discordia got real followers, as its taken a very "post-modern" approach, but Discordia has had a very significant influence on Wicca, Neo-paganism, etc. Its just not a black & whie issue, all it takes is for some people who really want to believe in a god to descide that Christianity sucks, and FSM is better in some post-modernist sense. JeffBurdges 13:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a new first para?

I know that it doesn't solve the question about calling it a parody or not, but how about just avoiding the issue all together? The question can be removed by rewriting the first paragraph to be something like:

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM) is a religion which was initially created to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow intelligent design to be taught in science classes alongside evolution. The religion has since become an Internet phenomenon that has garnered many followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sometimes referring to themselves as "Pastafarians," a pun on Rastafarians) who claim to have been touched by "His Noodly Appendage" and preach the word of their "noodly master" as the one true religion. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is primarily the invention of Bobby Henderson, a graduate of Oregon State University with a degree in physics.

How does this sound? --Apyule 10:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I like this version a lot more, it says less so there's less for people to be offended by. It is definitely a big improvement. However, the opening paragraph is just a start; don't you think we should also remove Flying Spaghetti Monsterism from the Parody religions category, in case we offend anyone who believes in this religion by calling their religion a parody? Categories should not be used to enforce a specific POV, didn't we already rule against having a Category:Cult for things like Scientology for that exact same reason? We can categorize things under "Category:New religious movement", which exists for that exact reason, to avoid having to attach labels to disputable things like belief. The less labels and descriptions we use to make it clear what a certain thing is or isn't, the less we have to worry about accuracy disputes and the more stable and productive Wikipedia becomes! -Silence 11:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think that it should stay in the parody religions category, as most people view it as that. But I have a very broad view of categories, and don't think that inclusion in a category is a definitive statement about the topic. --Apyule 12:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, but shouldn't we clarify the name of the category, then, so people don't get the wrong idea? How about moving it to Category:Spiritual belief systems that are considered by a large number of people to be parody or joke religions, or something like that? -Silence 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, since FSM is not a religion, I'd have to say this new intro is flawed. And the Category:Joke religions contains only joke religions, such as MOOism, Frisbeetarianism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, which are undeniably joke religions. I'm not sure why you're trying to establish FSM as an actual religion. Would you call each of those 'actual religions' then? -- Ec5618 11:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't really follow your reasoning. My suggestion wasn't to establish whether FSM is an actual religion or a parody, it was as a way of avoiding the issue by explaining the creation of the religion. I don't think that we need to make a judgement about the religion, instead we can just explain it from as close to a neutral point of view as possible. --Apyule 12:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Why say "actual religion" or "joke religion" when we can just say "religion" and avoid any judgment calls whatsoever? The encyclopedic way to handle this dispute is to simply attribute claims of its being just a joke or just a parody to the claimants, not to state out-and-out that something's a joke and leave ourselves open to disputes. Readers know that encyclopedia text can be right or wrong, but quotations never lie. -Silence 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
How on Earth can you believe that a text calling FSM a 'religion' is not making any judgement on its status? It would clearly call FSM a religion. The term 'religion' is not middle ground between 'joke religion' and 'actual religion'.
This 'new intro' starts by calling FSM religion. Read it: "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM) is a religion". I am disputing that it is a religion, on what I see as solid grounds. Religion implies faith, belief, followers. FSM has never had followers, and probably never will. Not because it is silly, but because it is a self-proclaimed joke. Granted, some people self-identify as FSMist, but they do so in jest, or to protest the ID movement, as was the original intent of FSM. No-one has faith in FSM.
You continuously imply that FSM is being treated unfairly. How so? -- Ec5618 14:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The word religion to my mind signifies a religion that people really believe in (Christianity etc). I would say that the continued use of an adjective in front of religion would be appropriate to clarify to the reader immediately that it is a joke, and no one actually believes in it. Enochlau 08:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I still don't think that we need to make a judgement about it. Using a definition for religion such as "a framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world" [9] FSM fits, and it's status is made clear in the explanation about its creation that immediately follows the first disputed words.
Which would be fine, if FSM was a framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world. FSM doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural, any more than a comic strip in which a character pulls a giraffe out of a hat deals with the supernatural. It's a joke. -- Ec5618 10:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, now I really don't see your reasoning. If FSM doesn't fit that definition I don't know what does. There is a framework of beliefs, a supernatural being and it transcends the everyday world. That being said, I think that it would make more sense if we all got back to writing good articles rather than arguing over the fine points of a dictionary definition. --Apyule 12:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
My point, quite simply, is that FSM is a joke. Calling FSM a religion is like calling a drawing of a tree a tree. They may look the same, and the drawing was made to portray or resemble a tree, but they are nothing alike. And yes, let's move on. -- Ec5618 12:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a very, very nice way of looking at it :) --Apyule 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Fine, so prove that I don't believe in my beloved Monster. Cleduc 05:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly.

FSM is a joke religion and that's an indisputable fact. We went through this in Invisible Pink Unicorn long ago - you can read all about it in the talk archives. Andre (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Article name?

I feel that the name of this article should be Flying Spaghetti Monster, not Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. The former generates about 576,000 hits on Google, whereas the latter gets 126,000 hits. And "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" sounds clumsy to me, because the word "Monsterism" is confusing until someone realizes what it refers to (at first I didn't understand what a Monsterism was). This "cult" is all about its central figure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and renaming the article to remove the "ism" would bring it in line with the title of Invisible Pink Unicorn. Would anyone mind if I change the article name? - Brian Kendig 19:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Enochlau 05:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have always thought so, too. The -ism is awkward and didactic, though I understand the reason (religion vs god). Cleduc 06:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, the article is hardly about the monster though, but about the -ism surrounding it. Would more people care to weigh in? -- Ec5618 10:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As clumsy and unnatural as the term "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" may seem, and no matter how few Google results it yields, it is nevertheless the official name of the "religion", coined by its "founder". The article describes the entire phenomenon that includes the open letter to the Kansas Board, the public's reaction to it and related developments. It certainly does not centrally discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thus, I believe it should be renamed back to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. — Timwi 16:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

USD

I'm sorry, but where does it say (preferably in the original letter) that the reward is would be payed in Intelligently Designed Currency? We're going to need a source for that. I won't revert yet, as I've seen no source claiming the reward would be in USD either. Still, a source. We need one. -- Ec5618 10:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of FSM's influence and notability

http://www.brainblog.com/cms/scientists_engineer_bacteria_to_create_living_photographs2480 http://www.flickr.com/photos/scienceblog/66259267/ Incorporate as appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

The value of Wikipedia seems to be the "truths" that settle out of debate turmoil. But what happens when the topic is controversial enough that the deliberation doesn't stop? Or, to phrase it differently: Wiki articles generally represent a compromised version of what something "is" - but what the various sides do not and will never agree?

I suggest that the appropriate Wikipedia definition for a controversial topic will include all sides of the argument rather than try to synthesize an artificial definition that becomes the subject of endless tug-o-war (sometimes mischaraterized as vandalism).

Think about it applied to this case. I predict that those who see a “religion” based on a heap of pasta as a possibly funny, but probably not, lampoon of serious religion will be able to quickly settle a common definition. As will those who see FSM’s assertions on the origins of life, absurd as they are, existing with a seriousness in direct correlation with those of Intelligent Design.

Comments before I introduce this new structure? Btrue 21:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What you are describing is so close to the existing policy of NPOV that it makes me wonder whether you're as familiar as you should be with that policy if you didn't recognize it. What's really going on here is a whole lot less interesting: it's those who can appreciate a good joke but also realize that there's situations for being serious instead, in conflict with those who always have to take a joke too far. No one actually believes that a flying spaghetti monster who wants to see lots of pirates created life on Earth. (Those of you about to speak up and insist "Oh, yes! I actually believe such a thing! Really and for true, I do!" -- don't bother. It just isn't funny anymore, no matter how straight you keep your face.) Some people just can't recognize, however, that Wikipedia is for the facts and not for the kayfabe. What we have here is a conflict between those who want the real-world impact of the purported FSM religion fairly and accurately described and those who want to clown around and write tongue-in-cheek stuff that isn't useful because it's not real. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Antaeus. Thank you for joining this sub-discussion. I happy that you agree my proposal is in-line with NPOV. I’d suggest, however, that your subsequent comments aren’t. Now, I know that’s not a good way to start, but please do keep an open mind and hear me out.

It is safe to assume there are multiple views on the topic at hand. You appear to support one that considers this topic a joke (i.e. something intended to amuse) and not a serious matter. Point taken. The definition should include statements that describe your view. However, you next project a presumed intent on those on the opposite side of the debate (e.g. “those who always have to take a joke too far”) and dismiss their views (“It just isn't funny anymore”).

I believe this action trivializes and censors the opposing point of view, adversely affects the quality of the entry, and definitely isn’t NPOV. I’d prefer to see the opposing definition and intent from someone who actually holds the opposing point of view.

To be NPOV we should change: “(FSM) is the subject of a satirical parody religion created in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow alleged problems with evolution to be taught.”

To: “…(FSM) is the subject of what some believe is a satirical parody religion created in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow alleged problems with evolution to be taught.” And add “Others believe FSM is…”

In a nutshell: this entry should denote the subject and its surrounding debate (since this particular entry seems to be, in part, defined by the debate). The entry should not *be* the debate. Btrue

No, I repeat my earlier statements. No one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just as no one actually believes that Arthur Conan Doyle was merely the literary agent for John Watson rather than the person who made up both Watson and Holmes. It is a straight-faced fib. In the case of the Holmesians it is just to have fun; in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster it's because their legal challenge, while clearly based on an absurd premise, is still stronger if it is pressed as if this was a sincerely held religious belief. But it is not. OK?
NPOV means describing all majority and significant minority viewpoints. I assure you, even if there was any rubber-room resident who actually does believe the deliberately satirical tenets Bobby Henderson created for the FSM 'religion', that would still not make it a significant minority viewpoint, any more than it's a "significant minority viewpoint" that Jonathan Swift actually recommended eating babies. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you believe your opposition in this debate is simply claiming they actually believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I suggest you are drastically missing their point.

This topic is different than the definitions given for (other) parody religions in that the intent of FSM is apparently to allege, in a sensationalistic fashion, that the rational for including discussion of Intelligent Design in a science class also supports the inclusion of something as absurd as FSM - not simply to mock religion. The apparent claim is that as much as the religion behind Intelligent Design is “real”, so is FSM.

From a scientific and philosophical argument perspective the topic is, indeed, a serious subject - and the absurdity is a required component.

Since there is a valid alternate view, and it is apparently shared by a significant number of people, it warrants inclusion in the entry.Btrue 03:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I’ll also repeat my earlier statement: this entry should denote the debate. It should not *be* the debate. Just because you don’t feel the opposition point of view is valid doesn’t mean I should be deprived of reading it. Both should be included. Viva NPOV ;) --Btrue 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the situation as I see it. There are essentially three points of view, theoretically:
  1. There are those who believe that Intelligent Design, by virtue of being a hypothesis on the origins of life, should be presented on an equal basis with the theory of evolution.
  2. There are those who believe that Intelligent Design is not a scientific hypothesis as evolution is, one that was formulated to explain the observed data; instead, they say, the hypothesis was formulated to adhere to a religious dogma and then the observed data has been acknowledged only selectively on the basis of whether it supports the ID "hypothesis" and thus the dogma. To illustrate why this is a significant difference, they present Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as a reductio ad absurdum: a hypothesis which draws from the facts just as selectively as Intelligent Design does to reach a conclusion that is intended to be recognized as absurd.
  3. There are (in theory) those who actually believe the tenets of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism; who truly, in the half-year since Bobby Henderson unveiled his religion, have converted to it completely and who have decided that the world really was created by the FSM starting with trees, mountains and a midgit [sic].
Now, if you did not mean to suggest that you believe that third theoretical group actually has members and that they have a sincere belief in the FSM which needs to be noted in this article, then you may wish to go back and look at what you wrote, since it gave the strong impression that this was the belief you felt was missing from the article and that needed to be included to make it NPOV. If you believe that the second group described above should have their beliefs represented in the article to achieve NPOV I can agree in there but I must ask you to clarify: in what way do you feel those beliefs are not already adequately described in the article? Please try to be more clear about the problem you're trying to solve before you start soliciting comments on a "structure" to solve it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, very good! I believe you have, in view 2, quite succinctly defined what FSM “is”. (View 1 doesn’t really have anything to do with the subject at hand, and view 3 is what you have, unfortunately, been chasing with blinders on).

A reader might be able to figure out that view 2 is the intent of FSM from the current definition, but there is certainly no verbiage to that effect. Its label as a “parody religion” is not as accurate as it could be. The recent addition of “satirical” to the label is a step in the right direction, but still not as good as your description. And the list of FSM “rules”, while accurate and necessary, doesn’t get at its intent.

I suggest something like your view 2 be included – either as the primary definition of its purpose, or at the very least as an alternate view to those who believe it is something else.

BTW – regarding your guess as to what “strong impression” I was giving in my initial message, I think you brought baggage that clouded your perception. Re-read it and I believe you will see that the phrase:

“…those who see FSM’s assertions on the origins of life, absurd as they are, existing with a seriousness in direct correlation with those of Intelligent Design”

is quite similar to:

“Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as a reductio ad absurdum: a hypothesis which draws from the facts just as selectively as Intelligent Design does to reach a conclusion that is intended to be recognized as absurd.” --Btrue 16:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Next time you might want to try stating your concerns directly, in simple language, rather than starting out with a couple of paragraphs of abstract musing on general Wikipedian principles and concluding with a third murky paragraph that fails to isolate exactly what you think needs to be addressed. Please try to be more clear about the problem you're trying to solve before you start soliciting comments on a "structure" to solve it.
Here's how you could have expressed it:
"I don't think the article currently spells out clearly enough that FSMism is not just a general lampoon of religion, but a specific lampoon of Intelligent Design."
Doesn't that get the point across faster than "those who see FSM’s assertions on the origins of life, absurd as they are, existing with a seriousness in direct correlation with those of Intelligent Design"? You could even say
"I don't think the article currently spells out clearly enough that FSMism is not just a general lampoon of religion intended to amuse, but a specific lampoon of Intelligent Design intended to highlight ID's flaws."
This gets across the point even faster and more specifically, which is the goal of communication. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Antaeus, the point of my initial statement was to suggest a structure for this entry that would quell the bickering and topic tug-o-war, allowing competing views to be expressed simultaneously. I made a specific effort to not personally assert any view, but rather wanted to see those who held opposing views get a chance to record them as part of the entry without having them reverted. The murkiness, as it related to specific views, was intentional.

However, our little dialogue has been useful. “reductio ad absurdum” seems exactly the term for which I had been searching. Also, your incorrect suggestion that I just meant “…[FSM is] a specific lampoon of Intelligent Design” highlights nicely the problems of leaving the inference of intent up to the reader.

Therefore, I’ll now take your offer and be specific (or at least collect together tidbits we both scattered throughout the discussion):

"I don't think the article currently spells out clearly enough that FSMism is not just a general lampoon of religion nor just a protest against the recent decision of the Kansas State Board of Education, but rather a reductio ad absurdum argument intended to illustrate that the rational for including Intelligent Design in a science class as a theory on the origins of life also allow the inclusion of something as absurd as FSMism.”

P.S. At the risk of sparking more ego-infused diatribe, I'll point out that raw efficiency is not the only potential goal of communication – think: inspire thought (my attempted goal, in this case), provoke emotion, entertain, or sooth (a luxury of which I’m getting the increasing feeling certain people are in desperate need ;) ). --Btrue 20:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)