This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page (((User WikiProject Atheism)) or ((User WPA2))) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use ((WikiProject Atheism)) or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Creationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance). Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Flying Spaghetti Monster at the Reference desk.

	Flying Spaghetti Monster has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 23, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept October 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 9, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted September 20, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed January 6, 2010 Good article nominee Listed December 10, 2012 Peer review Reviewed May 24, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Move logs: Flying Spaghetti Monster Discussions: RM, Flying Spaghetti Monster → Pastafarianism, not moved, 14 July 2011, Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 9#Requested move RM, Flying Spaghetti Monster → Pastafarianism, not moved, 2 December 2015, Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 17#Requested move 2 December 2015

faq page Frequently asked questions (FAQ) To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Flying Spaghetti Monster FAQ Q1: Why is this described as a parody religion? Who determines whether or not a religion is a parody? A1: Reliable sources. There is unanimity among reliable, third-party sources that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a satire. Moreover, founder Bobby Henderson is implied to have said it was in an interview with USA Today. "I don't know if (the FSM parody) makes a difference," Henderson says. "People who really need to get it aren't probably listening. But if anything, it might bring some awareness to undecided people out there." [1] In any case, Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The bottom line is that we report what reliable sources have said. Q2: This offends me, a true Pastafarian, or could offend others. Should Wikipedia really be deliberately offending others? A2: Putting aside whether a "true Pastafarian" exists, Wikipedia is not censored for one group or another, even if that means offending some people. Q3: Why does such an "insignificant" topic deserve such a long article? A3: Simply put, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is notable. It has been mentioned in detail by news sources throughout the world. In the US, the New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post and many others wrote about it. In the UK, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, BBC and others wrote about it. In Germany, Der Spiegel wrote about it. In Canada, the Toronto Star wrote about it. In Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation wrote about it. Even the Council of Europe mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a report about Creationism in science standards, and this is not to mention its ubiquity among online technology sites and notable blogs. Like it or not, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is famous. A comprehensive presentation requires a certain length.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Daniel Finkelstein (August 27, 2009). "The 10 best wikipedia entries". The Times. Sarah Boxer (August 29, 2005). "But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There?". The New York Times.

Members consider it a Religion, some authorities considered it a social movement. 82.9.10.186 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradVesp (talk • contribs) Reply[reply]

There is an unfair test being made of FSM as compared to other religions. While it is fine that reliable sources must be noted to establish reliability of an issue, it is not appropriate that common, large, religions are not put to that test. For the source pages for those religions, there does not appear to be a requirement, nor evidence, that reliable sources dictate them as religions. It appears that that requirement only applies to FSM.

Further, there is no establishment that a satire or parody prevents a religious designation. That in no way disputes that it is a religion. There is no qualification that a religion cannot be a parody or satire. On the offical website it states "It’s not a joke. Elements of our religion are sometimes described as satire and there are many members who do not literally believe our scripture, but this isn’t unusual in religion. A lot of Christians don’t believe the Bible is literally true – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t True Christians."

Request to edit Social Movement phrase to Religion. 2601:243:1381:A0:6928:C83:C628:B313 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the right take. WP can’t have it both ways. Either all religions are social movements and not religions, or all religions are religions. To place a verification test on some religions but not others is religious discrimination. 2600:1008:A030:498C:A45A:7321:172F:9127 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed RevelAndDance (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/religion

"re‧li‧gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ ●●● S2 W2 noun

1 [uncountable] a belief in one or more gods

The U.S. Constitution promises freedom of religion.

a course on philosophy and religion

2 [countable] a particular system of this belief and all the ceremonies and duties that are related to it

people of different religions

the Islamic religion

The tribe practised a religion that mixed native beliefs and Christianity."

per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

"religion

[ ri-lij-uhn ]

noun

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

the Christian religion;

the Buddhist religion.

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

a world council of religions.

the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:

to enter religion.

the practice of religious beliefs; ritual obs"

also found: "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: "consumerism is the new religion"" ProofCreature (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not MeatballWiki. We need a reliable sauce for any of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "sauce" user spotted, opinion respected cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why keep deleting the various church links? FSMdeaf0ne (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're going to have to amplify and make clear what the issue is. By opening an RFC, you're inviting comments from people who mostly aren't familiar with the edit history of this page. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the RfC tag. This does not rise to the point of a community-wide RfC, it's not really presented as one, and the question has been sufficiently answered below. SkyWarrior 16:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are "unnecessary" RFCs that big a deal? It's not like I minded getting notified for this one. And I always have the option of ignoring Yapperbot, which I often do. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I can help by pointing to this edit, which I think is the reason for the RfC, and which shows the ELs that were deleted: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Per WP:ELPOINTS #3, we generally want to keep links to a minimum. Although this page is, by its nature, lighthearted, it doesn't add much encyclopedic value to link to multiple FSM-related websites that do not have WP:SECONDARY source coverage. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Basically, you're saying Wikipedia is not a link farm. I concur. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article contains many instances of incorrect punctuation, particularly at the end of a sentence; namely a period following a quote sign, rather than a period followed by a quote sign. Example (first paragraph of the article: incorrect (as currently appears) -- "... as any other"; corrected version -- "... as any other." 75.161.225.119 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per mos:logical, that's actually the correct way to do it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 not done per previous comment cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]