Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 13

Greek case
Today, a lengthy new section has been added to this page, about an incident in Greece. Although I can see some similarity to FSM in the image that accompanies the text, the text itself really does not make it clear that there is a connection, and certainly not one that merits taking up this much space on this page. On quick read, I think that there may be enough notability to justify a separate, standalone page about the Greek incident, in which case a see also link here may be enough. Does that sound reasonable? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A bit of background: prior to the September 21, 2012 arrest, I deleted a much shorter section on this topic from this page. I also brought it up at the BLP noticeboard (I missed the fact that Paisios was dead). Meanwhile, someone created a page on the topic, which was nominated for deletion and deleted. During the AfD discussion, I made this comment:


 * "If we are going to go around giving Wikipedia pages to every person who gets into a Facebook flame war, I want my garage band re-evaluated. The band has a Facebook and a Twitter account with literally tens of followers!"


 * Clearly the topic has become notable since I wrote that. A Facebook flame war is one thing, but a a Facebook flame war that results in Facebook giving out personal information to the e-crimes bureau of the Greek police and one of the participants in the Facebook flame war being arrested for malicious blasphemy and offense of religion is quite another thing altogether. When it was just a Facebook flame war it wasn't notable enough for a mention in the FSM article. Now it is, in my opinion, too notable to be a mere section in the FSM article. It really should have an article of its own, with a short mention and a Wikilink here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background information, which is very informative. The first thing that stands out to me, regardless of the notability of the events, is that we really do not have sourcing to support a direct linkage to this page. I'm not actually seeing a sourced statement that any of the parody was based upon or inspired by the FSM. The image looks like images of the FSM, but if all we go on is that resemblance as we see it, that's WP:SYNTH. I'm unsure what to do about spinning it off as its own page, given a past AfD. I'm inclined to agree with you that, now, there's enough notability to keep such a page, but I'd like to hear more opinions before taking any action. Another option would be to make it a section at the end of the biography page of the monk, and I think that might be a safer approach, maybe (?). But I'm pretty sure that it doesn't belong here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also see what looks like a dinosaur in that image, but we don't have a section about it in Dinosaur or Jurassic Park. How about this; what say we remove the section from this page because of a lack of a reliable source linking it to the FSM, and we drop a note on the talk page of the person who added it (and who, alas, is not participating in this discussion) with an explanation as to why it was removed and a link to the old revision so he doesn't have to redo all the work if he puts it elsewhere. Then let him decide whether to create a standalone article, add it to the biography page of the monk, etc. Best to leave that to someone familiar with the details of the case and who can presumably read Greek.


 * Hard to believe that in the 21st century someone in the EU can be arrested for malicious blasphemy, isn't it? Perhaps the Pastafarians have a point about the separation of Church and State... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey every one! As the section creator I would like to share a couple of thoughts.
 * 1) I thought it was obvious that Elder Pastitsios was Pastafarian. Maybe I should have written it more directly. First of all, the name is a direct link: Pastitsio = pasta. His face is made of pasta. FSM can be seen on the page cover. Moreover, Pastafarianism is mentioned in sources. Here some more: 'Gerontas Pastitsios' Pastafarian Facebook Page Leads To Blasphemy Arrest In Greece --- Greece Arrests Pastafarian for Blasphemy after he Mocked a Monk on Facebook --- Pastafarian arrested for blasphemy --- A 27 yr. old man was arrested in Greece for Blasphemy. His crime was creating a Pastafarian group on Facebook. Please sign and spread the petition to abolish this ridiculously backwards law forever. --- The Flying Spaghetti Monster features a section on Pastitsios case --- Greek Pastafarian arrested for "Cyber Crimes" featurs a photo from the litany-protest with FSM banner!
 * 2) The Facebook flame was so huge that the matter was discussed to the Greek Parliament, twice! The matter resulted in a political war! The word "παστίτσιος" (Pastitsios) gives 1,650,000 google results.
 * 3) I totally agree on the creation of a standalone page on the matter but with a small reference in the FSM page. --Protnet (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! I think that we are all in agreement here. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a law somewhere against agreeing and cooperating on the Internet? Perhaps someone should call me a Nazi Pedophile Bedwetter just to be on the safe side... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision

 * It flows a little better, but IMO is still far from optimal. How about something like this:

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

Notes -
 * Is that acceptable? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine with me. (I'd suggest waiting to hear from a few more editors before implementing it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it. It is better than the last version, which was pretty good. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My inclination would be to write something like "real religion" rather than "serious religion". Devout Pastafarians may worship sincerely without necessarily taking their religion too seriously. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. Seriousness is too easily confused with solemnity. How about "authentic religion" instead? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe "actual religion"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen "authentic" often used in the context of contemplative traditional practices tracing their lineage back for a couple of millennia or so. I am no lexicographer, but the connotations of "actual" seem a bit more vague, kind of like the ads in the back of certain magazines for "actual spurious placebo remedies." __Just plain Bill (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "bona fide religion". Definition from Dictionary.com: "adjective 1. made, done, presented, etc., in good faith; without deception or fraud: a bona fide statement of intent to sell. 2. authentic; true: a bona fide sample of Lincoln's handwriting." Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 22:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bona fide" seems like a good fit to me. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer real, actual or authentic, bona fide is usually only used as a a joke (except in legal documents). Also, sticking with sources, Booby says "Pastafarianism is a real religion." LK (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Usually only used as a joke" ?? In what contexts? Got some examples to show for that? __Just plain Bill (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I can't help but to suggest that "Booby" might just be a Freudian slip. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Henderson's blog does display a surfeit of boobies in bikinis. Howerver, in this case, it's just my attrocius typing. LK (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think nobody has objected to "real". Would that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It works, but could be subject to nitpicking criticisms along the lines of "it's as real as the mouse on my desk, so what's the problem?" While I don't mind living with that exposure, I'd favor something like "...some adherents state that Pastafarianism is a long-established authentic [or bona fide] religion..." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate"? "Genuine"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Genuine" works for me. "Legitimate" is too close to the UK meaning of "established." I'll go quiet here for a number of hours (one or two dozen?) awaiting other input. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Legitimate usually connotes something that is recognised under the law. Genuine or authentic could work though. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am good with any of those choices, but if I had to pick one I would pick "Genuine." --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The criticisms of "legitimate" are reasonable. I'm increasingly warming to "genuine". If no one objects in the next little while, we may perhaps have a "genuine" consensus! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Genuine sounds good to me. LK (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Parody Religion
Do we say -- in Wikipedia's voice -- that "Scientology is a cult"? No. Instead we say "It has often been described as a cult". That's because Scientologists deny being a cult. Do we say "Discordianism is a parody religion"? No. we say "Discordianism is a religion and parody religion" and later that "There is some division as to whether it should be regarded as a parody religion, and if so to what degree." Does Jedi census phenomenon say -- in Wikipedia's voice -- that "Jediism is not a religion?" No. We say "No country has adopted or legally decreed 'Jedi' or 'Jediism' as an official religion".

The only things that Wikipedia's voice should state as being established truths are uncontroversial facts that pretty much everyone agrees are true. It goes against Wikipedia's basic principles to report in Wikipedia's voice that "Scientology is a cult" or "Pastafarianism is a parody religion" when there exist official statements from Scientology denying being a cult and from Pastafarianism denying being a parody religion. We don't get to decide that the Scientologists or Pastafarian are wrong.

If a million reliable sources say that Pastafarianism is a parody religion and Pastafarians say that they are not, we should report that instead of saying that they are a parody religion. We don't say even say in Wikipedia's voice that Holocaust denial or Phrenology are wrong!

Also, to say in Wikipedia's voice that Pastafarianism is a parody religion is to pass judgement on one of Pastafarianism's main tenets and to declare it to be invalid. This would be like declaring in Wikipedia's voice that Mary wasn't a virgin. The tenet that we are passing judgement on is the core belief that if Pastafarianism isn't a real religion, then neither is Catholicism or Islam. The Pastafarians argue that there is no objective evidence that Pastafarianism, Catholicism or Islam are real and that they should be treated exactly like the other religions. It is not Wikipedia's place to declare that tenet to be false.

See [ http://www.venganza.org/about/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But veganza.org is joking! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't get to decide that and state it in Wikipedia's voice. If you have a reliable source that establishes that they are joking we can report that. If you have a reported opinion that says they must be joking we can report that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you also want an inline citation that Paris is the capital of France? Guy, I've worked with you lots of times before, and I certainly know that you are a good-faith editor, but really, this discussion is hard for me to take seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the first things seen on that venganza page is: "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, ..."
 * If that isn't prima facie a joke, I don't want to live on this planet any more. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again I agree that it is a joke, just as I would agree of you wrote that holocaust denial is not an honest scientific or historical opinion but rather something cooked up to support neo-nazi racism. Try to say that in Wikipedia's voice, however, and I will tell you that doing that violates Wikipedia's policies. Several editors here appear to be reading a comment where I clearly say X and responding with "Y is wrong!" I don't know how I can possibly make it more clear that I am not disagreeing with what you think I am disagreeing with. The issue is not whether it is a joke. The issue is whether this is a proper use of Wikipedia's voice or whether we should instead report what is in the sources. I have been around a while, and those who know me know that I am not some idiot who goes around pushing things against policy. It is my good-faith opinion that a policy is being misunderstood here. I really think that this important point is being totally missed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that you are sincere, and I apologize if it sounds like I and others are being unresponsive. Is there a non-kludgy way to revise the page? I'm not going to agree with removing the word "parody" except for one place where it's cited with a source, nor am I going to agree with putting an inline citation after every place the word occurs. There comes a point where saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that an obvious joke is a joke, is simply not on the same plane as a discussion of Holocaust denial. Even the denial by Scientologists that they are a cult is not the same thing as "Pastafarians" denying that they are joking. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the best way to handle this, but saying -- once -- that many sources claim they are a parody religion and saying -- once -- that they deny it would seem to be more than sufficient. I see no need to avoid or footnote the word parody after that. I don't think it has to be in the lead (it seems a bit ungainly for that) but fairly high in the article would be nice. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One of my guiding principles is "eschew obfuscation." I include "extirpate circumlocution" as a corollary. Is there a way to revise the page without tedious circumlocution? Fine-grained parsing of Wikipedia policy notwithstanding, I believe "it is a joke" is such a patently evident uncontroversial statement that it may be safely said in Wikipedia's voice in this context.

I believe we agree it is disingenuous to claim of that there is any glimmer of controversy about the parodic nature of FSM. That said, I believe we have better things to do with our time than pursue this line of argument. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to retract that disingenuous comment. I may be wrong, but my opinions are sincere and are a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia.


 * I don't think they are joking at all about wanting to be treated the same as other religions by the state. I think they are completely serious about that. The jokes are clearly a way of making the point that "the state treating all religions the same" should consist of the state ignoring them all. Sometimes jokes are used to make a serious point. That doesn't mean that the serious point is a joke. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very receptive to what Guy has now proposed, and I don't see it as a waste of my time. (Aside: whether the jokes are serious or not involves speculation on our part, and would be WP:OR if we say it that way on the page.) Anyway, a single sentence in the lead, along the lines of Pastafarianism is a parody (citation), although many Pastafarians themselves state that it is a serious religion. (citation) would be fine with me, and actually strikes me as a good idea, now that I can see it as a specific editing proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I like that wording. Makes the point that this isn't exactly The Great Pumpkin without giving undue weight to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. OK? (But nobody better blaspheme against The Great Pumpkin!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, and without needing extraordinary proof.


 * If the Great Pumpkin had more than a snowball's chance of getting charitable non-profit organizations exempted from taxation based on fair scrutiny of accurately presented financial records, without consideration for any belief system they might espouse, I would subscribe to His Annual Bulky Appearance for as long as it took and not a moment longer. Some religious organizations might pass that test, some not, but this is not a forum for that discussion. ciao, Just plain Bill (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * { --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead a bit, and changed "many Pastafarians themselves state that it is a serious religion." to "Some Pastafarians claim it is a serious religion."

I believe the word "claim" is justified, since the self-published source carries the marks of parody, including patent falsehoods such as "having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years" and "pirates, the original Pastafarians, were peaceful explorers..." That source has the aroma of Poe's law about it, and can only be trusted so far.

I maintain that any claim that there is serious controversy about Pastafarianism being a parody implies a degree of disingenouousness, sophistry, or gullibility. Parody in the service of a serious point remains parody. Claiming that there is a "doctrine of the transmutation of parody" in such cases would be extraordinary, requiring extraordinary proof. Down that rabbit-hole I do not wish to go. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted you for two reasons:
 * WP:CLAIM: Although I agree with you on the substance, we are going to have never-ending edit wars from IPs who will whine that it's more than a "claim". I realize that you have made a case that this is an instance in which it's such a no-brainer that using the word is justified, but the other side of the coin is that it will be obvious to all clueful readers even without us pointing it out.
 * Trimming: Again, I agree with you on the substance, but I think that we need to pay the price of some repetition in order to put the statement about the claims of "true religion" in context.
 * So I'm not so much saying that your thinking is wrong – it isn't – but I think that the wording we discussed yesterday does a better job of anticipating readers' reactions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with "state" for the reason you gave, but the repetition seems heavy-handed in a three-sentence lead. I am vehemently unwilling to settle for clumsy writing style to avoid stirring up a few vociferous wingnuts.
 * As Guy so aptly put it earlier, "saying -- once -- that many sources claim they are a parody religion ... would seem to be more than sufficient."
 * __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the time since you and I discussed it, other editors have changed it. I'm content with those changes, but of course I don't know whether or not you are satisfied. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit point: October 2012
If we can say that Pastafarianism is a parody religion, can't we also safely say Scientology is a scam religion. Hobbard's quotes about getting rich by starting religions come to mind. Alans1977 (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Further where it is written in this article "Although some adherents state that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion, it is generally recognized by the media as a parody religion.", couldn't it be said in the same tone "Although adherents state that Scientology is a genuine religion, it is generally recognized by the broader population as a scam religion." Alans1977 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I hardly believe those two links back up the claim that "Pastafarianism ... is generally recognized by the media as a parody religion." Alans1977 (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "I believe we agree it is disingenuous to claim of that there is any glimmer of controversy about the parodic nature of FSM. That said, I believe we have better things to do with our time than pursue this line of argument. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)". I believe it is disingenuous to claim there is any glimmer of controversy about the scam nature of Scientology. I believe this is an extremely broadly held view. Does that mean it would be ok to state exactly that in the wikipedia entry on Scientology? Alans1977 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that we have good reasons for how we write this page, and this talk page isn't the place to discuss how another page (Scientology) should be written. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While there is a place for "that other page did it differently!" arguments (for example, if the pages on the Chinese language, German language, Greek language, etc. format something a particular way, it is worthwhile making the page on the French language match), the basic concept has a fatal flaw; it is using Wikipedia as a pattern for making decisions on Wikipedia. That's OK on a non-controversial formatting issue, but not on a highly contentious issue like whether Scientology is a scam religion. Whether Pastafarianism is a parody religion is far less contentious issue, but still, we want to get it right, and by working together several editors have come to a consensus that the current version is about right. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The ascertation, that Pastafarianism is a parody religion is a far less contentious issue, I believe to be irrelevant. Several hundred years ago it was an extremely un-contentious issue that slavery was an acceptable practice. That doesn't make that any less a point of view, then or now. The status of Scientology as a scam religion (or not), might be a far more contentious issue, but that again is not the point. The point is that portraying Pastafarianism as a parody relition, or Scientology as a scam religion or slavery as an acceptable practice is putting forward a particular point of view (regardless of how wide spread that view is held or how contentious it is). Alans1977 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Slavery has never been an "extremely un-contentious issue." Casting it in such a frame is only possible if one ignores the slaves' point of view, along with the views of those who held the slave trade to be despicable. There were also matters of international law to consider. Let's leave slavery out of this, as an irrelevant and unnecessarily dramatic distraction.


 * If you would like to change the scientology article, this is not the place to discuss that. What particular changes to this article do you suggest? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing in Wikipedia's voice in the lead that I think is objectionable is the word 'irreligion', which I introduced a few months ago. Since it's unsourced, I'm going to revert myself on this. As Just Plain Bill said, if you have a suggestion about what the lead should say, propose it. Vague complaints aren't really useful. LK (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Flying spaghetti monster in unpopular culture
Responding to the request for peer review, I plugged in "Flying Spaghetti Monster" into google scholar and came up with these results. Here are a few high points. Perhaps summarize these into a sentence along the lines of "The meme has been used as an illustrative examples in academic literature in computer science and computer security, as a case study in comparative religion, and as a comparative example in a law review article on freedom of religion. " This is a suggestion only:  I leave it to be better-informed opinion of the editors who are working on this article whether to include any or all of this.


 * The popularity of the meme may be inferred from the fact that the FSM is used without introductory comment in a peer-reviewed paper on logic.
 * The meme has also made its way into a law review article (albeit with introductory material and far too many references to USA Today.
 * Name-dropped in Eos, Vol. 87, No. 1, 3 January 2006. Partial pdf here.  Not sure this is substantial enough to warrant tracking down, as it appears to be an editorial (albeit in a scientific journal).
 * More usefully, Douglas Cowan uses FSM as a case study in a chapter on how internet affects religion and perception of religion.
 * The meme was used to illustrate a fictional scenario involving e-voting fraud in a peer-reviewed article.

Garamond Lethe 03:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)