Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

The history of the flying spaghetti monster, or the church thereof, is grotesquely incomplete. I have heard the phrase "the church of the flying spaghetti monster," or at least of the "flying spaghetti monster" since the early 70's. So, please do a better job with your research! 2601:8C0:280:8C0:125:E8DC:DB9B:33DE (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and nothing else. Do you have a source stating that the sentence was already used in the 70s? Please also see WP:BURDEN. --McSly (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The phrase, "...that promotes a light-hearted view of religion" has a source of one article, from USA Today, written by one person. As this is a central claim to this entry, it would seem that there should be greater evidence than just the opinion of one person. I recommend removal of the phrase, particularly as other sources within this wiki entry cite that the view of FSM is anything but light-hearted. 75.249.104.48 (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. If there are reliable sources saying that it is not light-hearted, we could revisit this. But this is really a WP:BLUESKY thing: it's obviously light-hearted, even if it addresses serious underlying issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It is not obviously light-hearted. Many believers from citations on this very wikipage are evidence otherwise. The phrase needs to be removed even if it were so, based on the link you provide. If it is so very obvious, there's no need to state it, as there is no need to state the sky is blue.

To keep that phrase in would be offensive to this religion. Wikipedia is not, as I understand it, in the business to offend religious believers. Also, the requirement to find sources saying an item is not something else seems...ridiculous. That's not a thing, otherwise every article on Wikipedia would mention near infinite sources of what the thing is not. 2600:1008:A031:73E0:F9BB:DE9F:C458:2F0E (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

the thing about this is, both can be true. a movement can discuss issues regarding religion and encourage people to be lighthearted about it. and in general, the ability to not take the concept of religion seriously is a handy thing to have, because i wouldn't want to be forbidden from eating something because a tree is old enough to go to preschool consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 21:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

True, but by leaving out the lighthearted phrase, folks are not persuaded that opinion is fact. By keeping it in, the entry is making an unsupported claim. In other words, if someone were to believe it to be lighthearted, so be it. But telling everyone as such and implying it is fact is another issue. An example, I can believe that Christianity is a satirical religion based upon zombie worship. That would be highly offensive and a wiki entry making that claim would be erroneous because it is based on opinion. 2600:1008:A031:73E0:9B2:8CAA:EDC0:A3EE (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

this is what i like to call the "pokémon limbo". something gets so widespread that it becomes obvious to anyone looking at it, to the extent that it gets little to no coverage because it "goes without saying". in this case, saying that a parody of the concept of religion that says that hell has a stale beer volcano is lighthearted is obvious, so saying that would feel redundant, because everyone already knows it

(note: i'm not stating as fact that everyone knows it, but as an example of why someone would feel that saying something would be unnecessary) consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 00:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

...though this is all implying i don't think one guy actually saying it is enough, which i actually do. it's not like anyone looking at any other form of coverage about it would walk away thinking it's the "goddamn batman" of religion, so i would say you can treat it as being cited by pretty much everything consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 01:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Kind of like how america was created as a democracy in opposition to monarchy and thus there are no kings here. Obvious. ProofCreature (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

what consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Lack of qualified evidence and/or news reports provided to WP necessitates the removal of the "light-hearted" portion of the sentence. 97.223.125.207 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

yup, so to do that, you should attempt to argue that that lack exists consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 16:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It's worth seeing the FAQs (especially Q2) at the top of this talk page. Ramen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Steven A. Miller, Ph.D., was ordained a Pastafarian Minister (Registry 209-012) on February 20, 2014. On May 17, 2014, he officiated the wedding of Daniel J. Kruger and Jessica Sloan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dan and Jessica asked Steve to "Marry them in statistical matrimony." Steve asked Jessica her favorite statistical technique, to which she replied "ANOVA." He asked Dan what his favorite statistical technique was, and he said "regression." Steve decided that he would read from Jacob Cohen's 1968 paper on how regression and ANOVA were part of the same statistical technique, the general linear model, and this was the reading at the first known Pastafarian wedding. 2600:1700:C9D0:2DDF:7124:DCA2:97BD:3D3F (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

To include this, we need to be able to cite a reliable sauce, I mean, source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

😀 Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)