Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parody religion

This page claims that pastafarianism is a light hearted religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design. This is false. The church of FSM is a legitimate religion, and we simply believe all theories should be taught in public schools. I recognize your good intentions, but this article is hurtful for people like me. Can this be changed? Cheers!

Never before have I come across such bigotry and discrimination on Wikipedia! Where can I file a complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.160.116.229 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No. We go with what reliable sources say.Charles (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who claims that Pastafarianism is more than a parody of Intelligent Design advocates either doesn't get the joke or is trolling. Further silly responses from the IP should just be blanked since they have nothing to do with article improvement and everything to do with WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I hereby claim that Pastafarianism is more than a parody of Intelligent Design advocates. It clearly started that way, but it is quite clear that it has grown and is currently asserted to be a valid religion used to make a point by challenging various institutions to give Pastafarianism the same rights and privileges as other religions. Thus you cannot find a reliable source that says that Pastafarianism is currently anything other than a valid religion -- only sources that talk about how it started. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Claims by people with a vested interest do not make it so.Charles (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the opposite is true. If you want a Wikipedia page to say that any organization or movement is other than what the members/leadership says it is in first party primary sources, then you are making an extraordinary claim and must back your claim up with citations to reliable secondary sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)
1) We don't treat Intelligent Design, Alien abductions, Crystal Healing, Indigo Children, or anything else along those lines as in any way scientific despite that being how all the primary sources view such matters. (Not complaining about that at all, btw).
2) Reliance on primary sources opens the door to WP:OR
3) Here are just a few of the secondary and tertiary sources I found in the first few pages of a Google Books search:
Either the IP doesn't get the joke, doesn't know what he's talking about at all, mistakenly thinks we're a venue to continue pushing for the separation of church and state, or is just a plain ol' troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that what you call the IP editor you are also calling me. Need I remind you of Wikipedia's behavioral standards in this area?
I stopped reading when I saw the title ""Parody as Protest - The Birth of Pastafarianism (2005)". What part of "You cannot find a reliable source that says that Pastafarianism is currently anything other than a valid religion -- only sources that talk about how it started." are you having trouble understanding? If you put together a list of sources for Pastafarianism not currently being a legitimate religion, I will be glad to look at them.
Re: "We don't treat Intelligent Design, Alien abductions, Crystal Healing, Indigo Children, or anything else along those lines as in any way scientific despite that being how all the primary sources view such matters", the only reason that we don't treat them as being scientific is because we have reliable secondary sources that challenge that claim. Try it in a field where no such sources exist -- Oenology, for example -- and you will get instantly shot down.
Unlike the sciences, where we can easily find a cite concerning whether something is science or pseudoscience, there are no reliable secondary sources for anything that claims to be a legitimate religion not being a legitimate religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you claiming that you are the IP 114.160.116.229? Not the OP, but the second IP to respond.
You "stopped reading". Then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Do you have any secondary or tertiary sources that support the claim that Pastafarianism is not a parody? Otherwise, sticking to primary sources is WP:OR that falls victim to Poe's law. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
114.160.116.229 is in Yokohama, Japan. I am in Los Angeles, California. What I am saying is that when you say that 114.160.116.229 is [insult X] because he holds [position Y]] after I have told you that and I also hold position Y, you are insulting me as well. Not that it should matter; I don't subscribe to the theory that established logged-in editors should be treated better than new IP editors.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You say that Pastafarianism is currently a parody, but your sources show that it started out. as a parody (by citing primary sources). Not the same thing at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It goes beyond simply holding the position, the IP has called multiple editors bigoted and acted as though this article was as much persecution as the Jim Crow laws.
I presented a number of secondary and tertiary sources. You are pointing out that one of the secondary sources cited a primary source to refuse to pay attention to any of them, and are not presenting any WP:RSs for your claim that their status as a a parody religion has changed (primary sources do not count because of course a parody religion is not going to claim to be a parody). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I'm having trouble keeping from laughing. Please provide some reliable secondary sources, ones that are independent of the Pastafarians themselves, that report that the phenomenon has changed from a parody religion to a genuine one. Otherwise, we have the entertaining situation of reliable sources that tell us that the phenomenon began as a parody, followed by the parody-makers telling us that it has changed. Are they telling us that as reliable information, or as a continuation of the parody? If they are skillful in continuing the parody, they will always deny that it's a parody. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I am actually laughing too, at the silliness of my own position (oddly enough I can think it is silly without thinking it is wrong}. There never was a reliable secondary source that said that they started as a parody religion. Multiple reliable secondary sources took their word for it when they said they were a parody religion. It's an important distinction: whether a religion is legitimate is unknowable by any objective test other than "I know one when I see one" -- or taking their word for it. So should we arbitrarily decide that they were telling the truth then but feeding us a line now? My own personal "I know one when I see one" meter says yes, but do I have any actual evidence? No. Wikipedia policy is clear. We should report that they claimed to be a parody, report that they now claim to be legitimate, and if possible find a notable source that claims that they are still not legitimate and report that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
And here, we get into WP:CLAIM. I'm fine with saying that they originally said that they were a parody religion, and I'm fine with saying that they now say that they are a genuine religion. No problem there. The problem comes if we say in Wikipedia's voice that they are a genuine religion. There are genuine religions that claim to be "the one true religion". We can report that they say that about themselves. But we don't, and must not, say in Wikipedia's voice that they actually are the one true religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Besides being a Wikipedia policy, it is just plain common sense: how would we possibly know such a thing for sure? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Conversely, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that they are not a genuine religion. Every religion WP:CLAIMs that all of the others are bunk (or worse, usually damning their followers to eternal perdition). They can't all be right. K7L (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Please actually present sources for your claims that the secondary sources are only taking the Pastafarians initial word for it, and please present secondary or tertiary sources that indicate that their status as a parody religion has changed. Unlike you, I'll actually look through them if you present them, even if you pretend that the sources I presented aren't good enough because some of them point to the fact that Pastafarianism started as a parody religion, have failed to provide any evidence that things have changed, and have ignored requests so far for any secondary or tertiary sources that describe it as a non-parody.
@K7L: If all secondary and tertiary sources describe them as a parody religion, that's how we describe them. It isn't the same as most religions claiming that others are wrong, if a religion says something (earnestly or not) that is contradicted by the majority of secondary and tertiary sources, we stick with the outside sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You are completely missing the basic point: It is not possible for any source to provide any evidence whatsoever that a religion is or is not a parody religion. It is not possible for any source to provide any evidence whatsoever that a religion is or is not a legitimate religion. All any source can possibly do is report that the members and/or leadership of the religion claim to be a parody or claim to be legitimate.
It isn't possible for the same reason that is isn't possible to prove or disprove the existence of an invisible flying spaghetti monster. So please stop asking for the impossible and assuming bad faith based upon my inability to do the impossible. The burden of proof is on you, because you are the one who claims that what is clearly impossible is not only possible, but that someone has done it. Again i ask, how could anyone possibly know such a thing? What possible evidence could they point to? It's a simple question. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey folks, please let me suggest that this isn't an argument worth fighting over. Instead, Guy Macon, could you please tell us what, specifically, you want the page to say, that it doesn't say already. After that, we can look at what the sourcing for it would be. And if we aren't going to change what the page says, then there is nothing further to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
From the lead right now: "Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion, it is generally seen by the media as a parody religion." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The person asking for the change was the original IP editor who claimed "The church of FSM is a legitimate religion". We of course will not say that in Wikipedia's voice, nor will we do so for Roman Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, or any other religion. Reporting what adherents, the media, etc. describe Pastafarianism as is of course fine, and that's what the page does now.
However, I could not stay silent when I read a response that said that "anyone who claims that Pastafarianism is more than a parody of Intelligent Design advocates either doesn't get the joke or is trolling" -- implying that it is OK to say in Wikipedia's voice that the church of FSM is a parody religion, as if that was something that could be established as a fact.
As long as everyone is on board with the basic truth that it is not possible for any source to provide any evidence whatsoever that any religion is or is not a parody religion, and that it is not possible for any source to provide any evidence whatsoever that any religion is or is not a legitimate religion, then the discussion is over. If anyone still thinks that the impossible is possible, we need to continue the discussion and resolve that dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Or, we can all drop the breadstick, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Several unverified claims that Pastafarianism is a parody

The Polish Pastafarian society kindly asks the editors to remove several insulting expressions from the article. This includes: the word 'parody' from 'Touched by His Noodly Appendage' description. I would recommend to use the word 'reference', as it was obviously influenced by 'The creation of Adam'. Would you say that several Christian holidays are 'parodies' of pagan rituals? No, they're just influenced by the former traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.101.1 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests" -- Aronzak (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
In such case I would like to point out (not as an organization, or anyone making demands), that the statement "parody" lacks a legitimate proof or source. All content on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and I do not see any reasoning behind stating that certain elements of Pastafarianism are parodies, or that Pastafarianism is not a legitimate religion. As a reference, please have a look at articles about other religions, such as Christianity or Islam, where the article maintains a neutral attitude towards the religion, and there is a section 'Criticism' where the major concerns are discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.101.1 (talk • contribs)
If you do not see sources, then you are not looking. The article cites sources for the statement that "Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion, it is generally seen by the media as a parody religion." You also clearly did not bother reading the FAQ, which addresses your concerns already. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the quote "it is generally seen by the media as a parody religion", and it proves that the media see it this way - nothing more than that. Just like the statement "Islam is seen by Nigel Farage as a bad thing" cannot be used to prove that Islam itself is wrong. Besides, the sources in the article do not justify the following: a) using the quotes in the statement ' According to Pastafarian "beliefs" ', as if those beliefs were not real. What makes our beliefs different from other beliefs, that they're written in quotes?; b) Touched by His Noodly Appendage, a parody of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam - the sources link to the author's website, where they describe the process of how they made the image, but they do not use the word parody whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.101.1 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 Not done. It is not clear what you are asking to be changed. PlantRunner (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 Not done. WP:FRINGE sources that are self published are not used to overrule consensus of reputable, secondary sources. Don't feed the trolls. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
For those new to this page, there is an important basic principle we are working under. No possible source can ever determine what a religion "really is". For example, we can say (if we have sources) that most people view Roman Catholicism as a legitimate religion. We can say that most Catholics agree with that. We can say that religious group X disputes this and says it isn't a legitimate religion. but we can never say that Roman Catholicism is or is not a legitimate religion. We can't even say blindingly obvious things like "Hitler was evil". That's because no possible source can confirm those assertions, which in turn is because no source has any way of knowing whether those assertions are true.
Our article on Parody religion makes this clear: "Several religions that are classified as parody religions have a number of relatively serious followers who embrace the perceived absurdity of these religions as spiritually significant" so of course to those followers, it isn't a parody religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The real issue with calling it a parody religion (and the reason why so many people have come to this talk page upset about it being called a parody), is because calling FSM a parody is exactly what would cause it to lose it's powerful and real social statement that religions should not be openly criticized. If it's always referred to as nothing more than a parody, then people will dismiss it and try to take away religious freedoms granted to other "non-parody" religions. People should be critical of this and all religions, enough of the taboo that we can't question anything religion does. Giving legal impunity for Christian churches to discriminate against homosexuals is unacceptable, and if they are allowed, then I should be able to start a religion that says it's okay to discriminate based on gender, hair color, race, tongue length, geographical location, etc. This is exactly why it's not a parody religion and should be treated as any other religious institution. If you are annoyed by the fact that the FSM church is allowed to display a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster alongside statues of other religions, then maybe you need to look in the mirror. If FSM doesnt have rights no other religion should either. Wake up and smell the coffee people. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ordination mill" sentence

Right now, the article reads: "Separation of church and state precludes the government from arbitrarily labelling one denomination religiously valid but another an ordination mill." This is a widely held opinion, but it's not so widely held that we can say it in the encyclopedia's voice. Per the NPOV tutorial, if a sizable minority holds a different view then we need to attribute things and, if appropriate, add dissenting opinions. By stating the Pastafarian point of view in the encyclopedia's voice, we're introducing bias. Ping Charlesdrakew. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that is should not be in Wikipedia's voice,[1] but I would much prefer it if we could find some other source that says that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2015

add link to the "italian page" https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarianesimo --Bonny2 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Bonny2 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems Pastafarianism already has it's own category of translations: [2]. Stickee (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


NY Court

I posted a update to the page where a New York Trial Court (Called Supreme Courts) gave a reference to the FSM Church. I thought and still do think this is something that should be noted. When any court is giving support or saying that it is protected it is ripe for this page. Dmol "Brief mention by court, but edit contains original research and comment that the rest is dependent on. Suggest discuss on talk page.)"Jsgoodrich (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

FSM in Nature

http://tv.aftonbladet.se/abtv/articles/86961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.148.9 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Source

The Noodly One certainly gets around. Possibly related to IPs post above \:

‘Flying spaghetti monster’ caught on video off the Angolan coast newscientist.com 7 August 2015.
- 220 of Borg 05:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
FSM In Nature #1
FSM In Nature #2
FSM In Nature #3
FSM In Nature #4
--Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Why is the Church and Pastafarianism defined only as a "social movement"? As per the definition and contents of the religion article, it is one. It is an acceptable possibility to define it as multiple things, such as "a religion or social movement", like Buddhism is defined as "a nontheistic religion or philosophy". If for some reason it is unacceptable to call it what it is, at least it adhering to the definition should be mentioned.
This is in stark contrast to other religions' articles, which flat out self-define themselves as religions in the first sentence or sentences. This should be uniform and non-skewed. Conspicuously, there doesn't even seem to be a single link to the religion article within this whole article's source. Hopefully that doesn't suggest that there's someone actively working to avoid associating these two terms or articles together.
The possibility of it being a parody religion would not be relevant to this subject, as in such a case, it would still be a religion, just as a parody film is still a film. --77.125.117.196 (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Pastafarian gets to wear strainer on head in license photo in MA

http://wgntv.com/2015/11/14/pastafarian-gets-to-wear-strainer-on-head-in-license-photo/

98.193.37.192 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Yes but - what we don't need in an encylopedia is a list of a random selection of people who have made this particular point. The section needs to be entirely rewritten and individual entries deleted, otherwise this will go on and on and get less and less encyclopedic. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster/Archive_16&oldid=699569506"