Jump to content

Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.194.198.122 (talk) at 23:23, 15 January 2009 (→‎Image:Ipu.png). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 16/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Note: Please place new sections at the bottom of the page.

the references

While traslating this lovely article to hebrew, I've noticed there seems to be some sort of mixed up in the references, by using both cite templates and text, while the cite are actually ignored. (The links were added manually, according to the cites)

  • Angeles, Peter A. (1992), Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Harper Perennial, New York, NY. ISBN 0064610268.
  • Jason Scott Yeldell (2004-11-03). "A Call to Sanity". Trafford Publishing. ISBN 141203096X, 263 pgs.
  • Jason Scott Yeldell (2005), A Call to Sanity Web Forum, Victoria Canada, ISBN 1-4120-3096-x. (www.acalltosanity.com/phpbb2)
  • Maartens, Willie (2006-06-01). "Mapping Reality" A Critical Perspective on Science and Religion. iUniverse. ISBN 0595400442.
  • Narciso, Dianna (2004-03-01). "Like Rolling Uphill" Realizing the Honesty of Atheism. Media Creations. ISBN 1932560742.
  • Malkin, Michelle (September 30, 2000). alt.atheism FAQ. Internet Archive. Retrieved on 2005-02-11.
  • Prowell, Stacy (1999-02-17). Red Iguana Dawn. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.
  • Natalie Overstreet (1994-07-19). "Veracity of Christianity". talk.origins. (Google Groups).
  • Clark, Michael D., "Camp: "It's Beyond Belief"", The Enquirer, 2006-07-21. Retrieved on 2006-08-16.
  • Sagan, Carl. The Dragon In My Garage. ISBN 0345409469.
  • Catherine Leah Palmer. Fall & Redemption Of The Purple Oyster. Satire & Humour: The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
  • The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded (Partial).
  1. ^ Maartens, Willie (June 1, 2006). Mapping Reality: A Critical Perspective on Science and Religion. iUniverse. ISBN 0595400442.
  2. ^ Narciso, Dianna (March 1, 2004). Like Rolling Uphill: Realizing the Honesty of Atheism. Media Creations. ISBN 1932560742.
  3. ^ Malkin, Michelle (September 30, 2000). alt.atheism FAQ. Internet Archive. Retrieved on February 11, 2005.
  4. ^ Jason Scott Yeldell (November 3, 2004). A Call to Sanity. Trafford Publishing. ISBN 141203096X, 263.
  5. ^ Prowell, Stacy (February 17, 1999). Red Iguana Dawn. Retrieved on May 19, 2006.
  6. ^ Natalie Overstreet (July 19, 1994). "Veracity of Christianity". talk.origins. (Google Groups).
  7. ^ Clark, Michael D., "Camp: "It's Beyond Belief"", The Enquirer, July 21, 2006. Retrieved on August 16, 2006.
  8. ^ Sagan, Carl. The Dragon In My Garage. ISBN 0345409469.
  9. ^ Catherine Leah Palmer. Fall & Redemption Of The Purple Oyster. Satire & Humour: The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
  10. ^ The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded (Partial).

Can you explain?
Best regards,Yuval Y (10:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, a new and doubtless well meaning user didn't understand the intricacies of WP:Cite. I've left a link and a welcome note on his talk page. Addhoc 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Yuval Y 08:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further references

"The best part of the religion feature is the ability to simply add your own religion. It's the spiritual version of a write-in vote. A random sampling of religions on my friends list produced an interesting result. The write-in religions ranged from the skeptical ("the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant to humanity's ability to improve this world") to the earnest ("Trusting the LORD Jesus Christ, my Rock and Redeemer"), from the whimsical ("fundamentalist invisible pink unicorn") to the cheeky ("Balla' -- orthodox")."
""Ergo, doubting the existence of god is far more logical, as believing in god/s/esses is the equivalent of believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn," he wrote. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is an imaginary deity, created by atheists, who burns with anger at theists."
"These organisations are just two of a whole raft of mock religions that include the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Church of the MOO and The First Church of Jesus Christ, Elvis ("For unto you is born this day in the city of Memphis, a Presley ... )."
  • "Wizards of ID cook up divine pile of spag bol", Michele Phillips, 14 September 2005, The West Australian
"In one video, for example, a teenage girl says, I know that the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, God, the flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorns, all of these made-up entities do not exist."
  • "Taking the Debate About God to an Online Battle", by Rachel Mosteller. Section B; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk; RELIGION JOURNAL; Pg. 6; 17 February 2007, The New York Times.

--Gwern (contribs) 18:52 17 March 2007 (GMT)

False Analogy

The whole Invisible Pink Unicorn thing is a false analogy. It is thus as reprehensible as other false analogies, including Russell's Teapot. Russell was fairly logical unless he was discussing Christianity. When he discussed Christianity, his own bitterness and emotions got the better of him and lead him to fallacious conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sounds like a fairly useless attempt at apologetics. I do not want or need to get into a discussion with you about Russell's criticism of Christianity, or for that matter about any criticism of religion, but simply stating that the analogy is wrong won't do. You provide no arguments. And for that matter, I've been a student of philosophy, logic and philosophy of science for a long time now (on my own and at university) - and I can tell you that Russell's analogy fits several religious viewpoints. For a more detailed discussion of why Religion is rationally untenable, see John Leslie Mackie The Miracle of Theism (it is a bit outdated concerning cosmology. I also suggest "Atheism - The Case against God" "The Blind Watchmaker", several books by Daniel Dennett etc etc.)Logically, the vast majority of the arguments presented in these books are perfectly sound. You would have to refute several books full of arguments (of which many are simply rationally irrefutable because they are correct) to prove that the analogy/analogies are false. Please, - don't bother.

84.56.127.123 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB[reply]

Look up false analogy on wikipedia. It is an informal fallacy that is well-defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the definition of a false analogy is well-defined, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not a false analogy; neither is the Celestial Teapot. Go to the article about false analogies on wikipedia, and see the section titled "Incorrectly classifying an analogy false"; it says about those who try to claim an argument is a false analogy, "For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not." What difference can you find (that is relevant to the analogy) between faith in a particular religion, and faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? I've never seen a valid one offered before. If you believe you have one, I suggest you write a "Criticism" section (or at least start one on the talk page that we can discuss); however, honestly, I'm extremely skeptical that you have a logical argument to back it your "false analogy" claim.Corfe83 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet at the same time you bother with providing these links to books with arguements, and obivously the authors "bothered" to write those books with their views, so why not "bother" to argue against them? You are using what you have learned and are convinced of being true as a hard fact. When you say that something in one of those books is correct, I'd like to hear how you can prove that with absolute concrete evidence, or it is simply your own opinion on whether or not the books are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.199.218 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogma...

I'm a bit sceptical that there should be a section on dogma, the whole point being that IPU doesn't have dogma because it is a satire. Especially if some of the dogma is reference to a random Geocities webpage. I'm particularly concerned about the whol oyster thing ...

I mean, is the IPU like the FSM? No, it is a more sophisticated attack on religion, not a money making exercise. Or at least it shouldn't be a money making exercise ... ~AFA ʢűčķ¿Ю 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dogma section is needed. The whole point of the IPU-concept is that it draws obviously asinine conclusions which will infuriate a pro-religious discussion partner, but turn out to use the same rationale as the established religions do. The dogma section simply provides examples for this. Without dogma it would only be an insider-joke, with a seemingly elaborate dogma (more exactly, a really elaborate dogma based on self-evidently illogical assumptions) it becomes a valuable argumentation. Malc82 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing attribution

From the article:

[...] trying to find god is like using a metal detector to search for unicorns in one's sock drawer (The skeptic checks all the drawers.)

This is a direct quote from a Dilbert strip. Unfortunately, dilbert.com does not allow you to search all old strips, and I don't feel like browsing through my books just now so I can't add the exact reference at the moment. Maybe I'll find some time to look it up later, but just thought this should be mentioned here. Maybe a temporary reference should be added or something? I'm not up to speed on WP policy... 213.211.189.4 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the strip from the 20th of January 1998. It was actually talking about psychic powers though. BlackMageJ (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Iguana reference

I'm putting a more stable link to the Red Iguana saga in the references; however, I am puzzled by its inclusion, as well as the sentence that references it. Why is it being linked when speaking about the manifesto? Magidin 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green dreams

This seemingly irrelevant (self-conflicting phrasing is unrelated to ambiguous syntax or meaninglessness) xref was added long ago, and has caused at least some confusion, so I'm going to remove it. --Belg4mit 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bias and dubious claims

Claims that the IPU actually addresses claims of theological depth put this article in POV territory. More precise wording and less grandstanding is necessary for NPOV. The IPU only handles a narrow defense of materialist philosopby against a strawman theistic superstition. The IPU is only a satire of the immesurable nature of God and has no bearing on the validity of historical accounts, religous experience, or the human desire to know our origins and purpose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.199.62.254 (talk • contribs).

The IPU is a satire of man's religious belief of the immeasurable nature of God. It is well-known and widespread enough to qualify as "notable" for a Wikipedia article. Your NPOV edits claiming it to be a strawman argument, and your marking its foundations as "dubious" only obscure the fact that it's a satire of organized religion. Whether or not it is ultimately true is irrelevant to the article; this applies to all other articles about religious and anti-religious beliefs in Wikipedia as well. — Loadmaster 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not whether or not it is true, or what it is meant to do, but the POV phrasings like "serve to" where "attempt to" or "intends to" are NPOV. The strawman contention does apply, and should be discussed, possibly in a criticisms section. The introduction needs work too, as the IPU is most objectively an atheist/materialist illustration of theistic belief. The reader should be quickly introduced to this being a rhetorical tool atheists use in debate with theists. Talking about it as something real in the introduction confuses the reader. Also, the theistic argument in the dogma section "because God is omnipresent, inability to detect Him does not reduce His believability" is POV in favor of a materialist. The more NPOV phrasing may be something like "since God exists separately from the universe, not materially detecting Him tells us nothing about His existence or lack thereof". (I included these changes in the most recent edit)

So are we saying it only "intends to" satirize religion, and doesn't necessarily, actually satirize it? What else would it do if it didn't satirize it? I think those edits are trivial and unnecessary. It would be absolutely true and neutral just to say it satirizes religion, because that's exactly what it does.VatoFirme (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research is anything but NPOV. Encyclopedia should describe a phenomenon, not address it's implication or any peripheral data (unless they notable and well-sourced). --Draco 2k (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ipu.png

Does anybody know how to restore/undelete images? Heretic Brian0918 was arguably overzealous in his expunging of the file and it's reference in the article. --Belg4mit 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked in another invisible image, but it turns out it's just an alpha cookie cutter. I've used it to create what seems to be a replica of the original pink with alpha, but would prefer that Ipu.png be restored rather than clobbering it with this (questionable) image. --Belg4mit 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the need for this image, and its place in the article. Why is it in the Dogma section? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-17 13:00Z
Explain why we don't. It was an accurate depiction of the IPU, and quite clever/pertinent. Why was it in dogma? I don't know, perhaps to avoid a clump of images all in one place. If that was your reasoning you could have moved the box to another section. Regardless, obliterating the image at the same time as removing the reference to it was rather ill-conceived since it did not allow for "rebuttal" or clean recovery. --Belg4mit 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is readily available online, although it's quite useless for an encyclopedia. It's more appropriate for Uncyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-17 18:44Z
This specific image does not appear to be readily available, other than through slowly refreshing wikipedia mirrors(the original, clobbered, citation links to an instance of it w/ & w/o α). Regardless, recovering a copy of the image is not the same thing as reconstituting the original node with accompanying metadata. As for "appropriateness," you've yet to demonstrate any specific raitonale for that. Indeed, it seems more as though you'd've opted to wipe the whole entry could you have. There is nothing "uncylopedic" about the image. --Belg4mit 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the encyclopedic value of this image? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-18 13:34Z
I'm jumping in a little late here, but I'd argue that it's an image of the IPU which also serves to explain several of her contradictory features, that she is both invisible and pink at the same time. An image like this is just as encyclopedic (and appropriate for the article) as the expressionistic self-portrait in the article on Vincent van Gogh or a self portrait which includes paint dripping at Jackson Pollock. I guess what I'm saying is that you can definitely find a nice image of a unicorn and color it pink, but the fact that this had an invisible alpha channel as noted in the description says more about the IPU than an image alone. But that's just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot 13:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does the image serve to explain the invisible/pink contradiction? All it does is show off the alpha channel feature available in some image formats. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-18 14:40Z
Which most people are sufficiently open-minded enough to realize is an incredibly apt proxy/analogy for invisible. Indeed, one could argue it requires incredible obstinance to view them as separate, unrelated things within such a clearly defined context. --Belg4mit 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your repeated attempts to make this personal. I'm simply asking what's encyclopedic about the image. It seems more humorous or quaint than interesting or useful for understanding the nature of contradictions. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-18 15:40Z
It's an image of the IPU which is both pink and invisible. Since this article is on the IPU, it seems relevant. I really don't know how else to put it, or what definition of "encyclopedic" you're using. This article is on the IPU, and it's a picture of her. (Sorry, not trying to be a jerk or anything, it just seems self evident to me. I'm not sure what more you're looking for.) I do agree that it is humorous or quaint, but it also serves to illustrate a point: that the IPU is both pink and invisible. Look, standard paper encyclopedies have pictures in them, and often color pictures where the color itself is important in understanding the subject. Since it's logically not possible to be pink and invisible, adding an invisible alpha channel is the next best way to convey this point. Wyatt Riot 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated? There is but one "attack:" "obstinate." And this is a description of your not listening to the varied wordings (as means of clarification) and explanations offered, only repeating the same question and not engaging in discourse. "Heretic" was a joke. "Overzealous expunging" an "ill-conceived" are honest assessments. As I said before, a more deliberate and measured approach would have been to begin a discussion on the talk page, optionally removing the box beforehand, but certainly not removing the image. To do so is not bold, but reckless. IMHO Regardless, there doesn't seem to be too much left to discuss, you seem to be unwilling to accept that (at least to many) the image helps convey a key aspect of IPU quite well; although having the second image with alpha removed would help. Finally, as for you complaint about placement (previously addressed) I'd like to point out that original author probably included it here due to the dogmatic belief in the paradox that the IPU is I & P. --Belg4mit 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't worth my time. As far as I know, 2 people isn't "many". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-23 14:41Z
As opposed to one who deleted things unnnecessarily? No, many referred to the two have piped up, the person whom originally uploaded the image for insertion, the person who created the image (possibly the same as the former, cannot check because the image has been clobbered), and those whom commented on the referenced page. --Belg4mit 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, you should know the Deletion policy and in my opinion this image did not meet the Criteria for speedy deletion. I think the sensible thing to do at this point is to restore the image and let Consensus decide through Articles for deletion process. If consensus decides that this image does not belong here, so be it. Wyatt Riot 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to have been deleted under any valid criteria for speedy deletion and is under a free licence so I've restored it. If anyone still wants it deleted I'd suggest using Wikipedia:Images for Deletion since there appears to be significant dispute. Bryan Derksen 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I loved the picture. Because it can't be seen, it show exactly the atheists' point (the meaning of Pink Unicorn) :D SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 08:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
Seems to me that I could draw a pic of a unicorn in RGBA(255,192,203,0%), and you wouldn't be able to see the unicorn, but it would indeed be pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.68.39 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see the picture go. It's a clever graphic joke but nothing else. Similar to completely black images that are labelled "North Pole by night". I don't need a blank pic to explain what 'invisible' means. Besides, the unicorn in the graphic is not invisible, it's hidden. Not quite the same thing.  Channel ®   23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would benefit from the image's removal. It's somewhat funny, but it seems very unprofessional. It seems like something some 15 - 20 year old kids would put up and laugh about. I can't see how this would ever find its way into any professional encyclopedia. I'm actually shocked at how ardently everyone is holding to keeping the image up as it hurts the non-theist position by reducing the perceived level of discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what happened to the invisible pink image? Did someone just not 'get it'? I can see lots of chatter above but nobody has reverted the deletion yet. 87.194.198.122 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case

Why in Hawaiian-pizza-lover's name is "god" capitalized in this article? --Belg4mit 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a personal name, like Dave or Laetitia. Skomorokh 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God is not a personal name, it's a title or label. The name of the Abrahamic god is Jehovah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.11.68 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely a manual of style issue. See WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents where specifically this issue is addressed. The recommendation of our manual of style is to capitalize the G, since "God" is either an honorific title or a proper name (there seems to be no general agreement about this). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science or Faith

Is this a quote by Yeldell? It seems to miss the point that believers trust their "human perception" of god rather than any rational scientific process of knowing. Hence, shouldn't it read .. "refuting avowals of belief in phenomena not subject to scientific inquiry" or something similar? Michaelecyr 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is accepted that there are no actual believers in this mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her both for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief. These professions of faith intend to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception"

Criticism and doubts

I actually doubt that IPU or any other strange creation can be a good argument against believing in God for any believer out there. The point is: it's all about the design!! IPU, flying spaghetti or Russel's teapot is childish, too fancy, absurd-based humor. Just take a look at a concept of Devil - it's not plain funny or fancy, it's is a very strong concept, something that is deeply hidden in our nature. In fact we are able to be evil, everyone can kill other people - it's not that funny. Also we are all going to die - it's not that funny as well. Try to invent a better concept. I don't claim it's impossible, but surely a bit harder than silly things like IPU. Do you admire art ? I suppose the seriousness of some artistic creations is also related to some truth about us, like some basic instincts and feelings (emotions, desires, our goals), our consciousness and perception of the world. Similar truths can be found using scientific methods, but for many people it's not enough. They want to go into some direction, they need a clue. Conclusion: evil gods, mistic forces, all this stuff is much better designed and gives much more real-life reflections (even to non-believer) that some silly concepts like IPU. At one point IPU-like jokes are good - some religious concepts are as silly as IPU (i.e. some christian symbols, but not all!). I guess religious concepts will evolve (as well as they did in the past) to something even more powerful, sophisticated, scary and serious, something with a good design (in an artistic sense). I simply doubt IPU-like arguments can do something against that (unless you fix the design maybe, but than you will be probably getting closer to traditional concepts, but it doesn't make much sense: i.e. claiming that believing in God is analogous to... believing in God, of course, still you may invent something alternative and powerful - it's really hard to predict, just IPU doesn't cut it). In fact by pointing out that some religious concepts are silly, you are even doing a good job for religions! You are pointing out the weakness of religions in a constructive way (that can be fixed in a very long run, but still).

by Tomkh 213.192.67.6 (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia talk pages are intended for discussions related to improving the associated article, not for discussions about the subject of the article. (Although I'm guilty of this sin myself sometimes.)
2) Regarding "something that is deeply hidden in our nature", I recommend that you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He has a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.
--RenniePet (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if I told you this same silly Pink Unicorn can bite you to death and kill you in a gruesome way? It is not silly to die, isn't it? Besides, I am sure most atheists think it is equally silly to spend your life worshipping a imaginary invisible superfriend (yes, God). Even you acknowledge many religious simbols are as silly as IPU, so the IPU have a point ;) . SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC).
"Is childish, too fancy, absurd-based humor." Yes, you get the idea.
Otherwise, WP:FORUM. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins quotation

I removed the following:

Richard Dawkins alluded to the Invisible Pink Unicorn in his 2006 book The God Delusion, saying that "Russell's teapot, of course, stands for an infinite number of things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved. [...] A philosophical favorite is the invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn."

and its citation of "The God Delusion" because there is no evidence that Dawkins is talking about IPUs here. It's too tenuous a link to be considered relevant. Rhebus (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter whether the unicorn was invisible and pink, but rather that Dawkins mentions a unicorn with incongruous properties as an illustration of precisely the same idea. I will adjust the sentence to indicate that he was not necessarily referring to a unicorn which is "invisible and pink". However, to say that this quote is irrelevant seems to miss the point entirely. Carrying on the same way, one could equally well say that Russell's teapot should also not be mentioned, since it isn't even a unicorn. silly rabbit (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably correct. He didn't allude to the literal IPU, but he did allude to the concept. However it's much less interesting to say "Richard Dawkins talked vaguely about something which was kinda sorta like IPUs" than it is to say "Russell invented a concept, 'Russell's Teapot', which was a similar idea to the IPU, and which is now commonly used as an example by others (including Dawkins)". Russell's teapot is a commonly used rhetorical device, and it is an interesting comparison. The fact that Richard Dawkins talks about these concepts is less interesting - many people have discussed IPU-like ideas, should we quote all of them? Rhebus (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move this page to Atheism

This may have enough Usenet references to convince people it should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but it is certainly not notable enough to merit its own entire page. Atheists may argue that it is "no more ridiculous than Jesus," but there is evidence of Jesus' existence (though perhaps not divinity), and he started a 2,000 year old movement to which millions subscribe even today, so he gets his own page. Likewise, Mohammed, Emperor Selassie, etc. get their pages because they are famous historical figures.

This is something that not only started from an inside joke on Usenet among a closely-knit USENET Atheist community, but also is a placeholder that could easily be substituted by anything, e.g., "My Holey Left Shoe," "The Flying Bowl of Cheerios," and other not-so-clever imaginary beings.

The reason this IS notable enough for the ATHEISM section is that (1) it has been used enough by enough people as to be somewhat recognizable over other, more freshly made-up imaginary beings, and (2) it would give the reader information about the fact that Atheists invent imaginary beings for satirical use.

As is in this very article, according to the very Usenet newsgroup out of which this sprung: "The point of this silliness is to prod the theist into remembering that their preaching is likely to be viewed by atheists as having all the credibility and seriousness of [the atheists'] preaching about the IPU," meaning that this is seen as both "silly" and as a means to "prod the theist." It is not a real entity, and doesn't have enough historical significance to merit its own page.

Summarily, not notable enough to have its own section but notable enough to be part of the Atheism section. I propose to do this.

Shiggity (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the AfD result demonstrates its notability as a standalone article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - oppose merge - notable and verifiable as a separate topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep in that Afd, but looking at the sources now, Maartens' book only mentions it in passing, and Narciso's book is self published. This article fails wp:v/wp:rs and should redirect to Atheism where the the local newspapers and the iffy websites can serve as sources for a sentence or two on the IPU (bbhhh). -- Jeandré, 2008-07-13t05:22z
I agree with Jack-A-Roe. Unless there are some really brilliant new contra arguments, just keep it the way it is. --mafu (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it here. It's a parody religion, like Flying_Spaghetti_Monster and Church of the SubGenius, and merging it into Atheism would be a sign of completely missing the point.  Channel ®   10:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the objections above. It is likely that there are people out there who will want to know what the IPU is. Also, I add the observation that Atheism is already quite long enough. --Heron (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was determined to be notable with 682 unique non-WP Google hits. It now has 320,000. It seems to me like it should stay. - Revolving Bugbear 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this article is very much different from that on atheism. I strongly disagree with the proposed merge. — Stimpy talk 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke notable enough to be included in any public encyclopedia. Besides, there are far more parody religions than Atheism article could present. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I disagree with my own proposal. Similarly, it isn't enough to have an article for Family Guy, we need articles for all the characters, too. That's because unlike a printed and bound encyclopedia, Wikipedia can have all the articles it wants without cutting down trees. Even crap like this. Hell, we can afford hundreds of digital articles about Usenet Atheist in-jokes. I just wish a Google search on 'IPU' yielded what I had been originally looking for instead of this waste of two minutes of my life. Jeandré, I appreciate the support, and even though I agree with you, I realize now that opposing Wikipedians' trend of diluting the encyclopedic canon -- pushing the standard of notability ever downward -- is a thankless and pointless endeavor. Shiggity (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Please read Reliable sources and our policy of verifiability. The personal web pages and the blog/forum at h2g2 are not sources that have a reputation for reliability and fact checking. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept evolved from blogs and personal web pages, so to use them as source is inevitable. Besides, you deleted facts referring to BBC, Carl Sagan, www.pinkunicorn.net, etc. Please edit something else instead.
/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (mostly) with Raven here. Even WP:RS admits that "[h]ow reliable a source is depends on context". Usenet and blog posts can provide evidence of "worshipper" activities even when they may not be appropriate sources in other areas. And it also looks like you removed some citations to published (i.e., not personal websites or blog/forum) sources. I'm assuming good faith here, but I think you're going overboard by requiring that every statement be backed up by a peer-reviewed journal. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no exception for WP:V for any article. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (emph added). Note that the h2g2 is vaguely affiliated with the BBC, but there is no evidence that the forum/blog is subject to the factchecking of the BBC and is a reliable source. Much of what I have removed is the analysis.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, some of the material needed to be removed. But you also removed material cited in printed books, not just "personal web pages and the blog/forum at h2g2". You are also correct about WP:V, but the bulk of what you deleted had citations. Some of the citations weren't peer-reviewed caliber, true, but that's why WP:RS clearly states that less-than-stellar sources can be appropriate for some claims. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Returned the material cited to printed books. And the full context of your quote: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. " is clearly talking about a source that may generally be considered a reliable for some things is not a guarantee that it should always be considered a reliable source for all matters. It is NOT talking about ever using non-fact checked material to pass as a reliable source.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do at this point is the list all of the sources that you find questionable and we can decide what stays and what goes. I do think that a lot of it should go, but I feel that some of the claims that you've removed fall squarely into the "unlikely to be challenged" category. (Of course, that's obviously not true since you removed them, but whatever.) Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"some of the claims that you've removed fall squarely into the "unlikely to be challenged" category." That is an assumption that is quite untrue, because the likelyhood of them being challenged is 100% - I have challenged their reliability and removed them until there is a clear consensus that they do in fact meet our guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, RedPen, your claims have been challenged here by two independent contributors, don't just revert others edits while this discussion is taking place.
You still fail to understand this concept is a product of the internet and as such evolved from "unreliable" sources, like blogs, forums, etc. Therefore, documenting how the concept once was created need to be dependent on those sources. Blogs and forums are acceptable references if they are directly related to the article subject. For example, if a politician has a blog, posts on that blog are are useful references to state what that politician have stated. In the case of the IPU, the concept evolved out of the internet and therefore sources related to it are reliable.
/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me anywhere in our policies or guidelines where it states that articles about internet memes are exempt from our WP:V and WP:RS guidelines, and then I will believe that I "fail to understand". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the excising here was really overzealous, but I'm not here to debate principles. I'm the original author of the quotation you removed and a key subject of the surrounding history section, and I can verify the authenticity and accuracy of what was stated in the article. I can prove my own identity if it comes to that. Is a primary source confirmation 'verifiable' enough for you? --SFEley (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we had proof that you are indeed who you say you are - the author of the quote- the quote would still be a primary source and without a reliable secondary source that gives context meaning analysis specifically to that quote, the quote itself is essentially worthless to the article. However, if you are still interested in verifying your identity, I can go looking for how we would do that here (I think there is some way using the OTRS{?) some 4 letters} system). -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis? How much analysis does a quotation call for? In any case, apart from being all over the Web according to Google, the quote does appear and is contextualized and interpreted in two published books. One's intended as a guide for discussion in Methodist Sunday school classes. The other's a sourcebook for atheists with author commentary. I've cited them. If that doesn't make you happy, it would be very helpful if you could ask for elaboration and give suggestions before deleting stuff. --SFEley (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"all over the web" is not a reliable source: WP:RS. Here are two places that you can start if you do wish to verify your identity: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:OTRS. Or if either of the published books meet our Reliable Source guidelines, and contain the quote; there is no need to verify the identity of your Wikipedia account. (The Sunday School guide sounds pretty iffy about being a reliable source, the atheists sourcebook might easily be a valid source or it may be in the category of WP:SELFPUB and not a reliable source.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the Sunday School guide is from Zondervan, notable enough to have a wiki entry. No, it doesn't imply notability of the book, but the publishing house is notable. tedder (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing links, the books appear reliable enough for me for the material that they are sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You are right though, the selfpub and newsgroup sources aren't sources. tedder (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable enough for me..." You're no longer even pretending to consider this a community effort or to take other people's opinions into account? Come on, man. A lot of the history you've been deleting is anecdotal by the nature of this article's topic. That doesn't make the history irrelevant or unimportant. This is meant to be a lighthearted subject. Lighten up a little. --SFEley (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things that are "anecdotal by ... nature" and Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not make exception for them: if we do not have reliable sources that report on them, we do not have articles on them. And Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for you to come for a lighthearted joke. There are other sites whose mission is to entertain you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Regarding my statement, I cannot speak for whether other editors will consider the sources reliable and so I can only state that they are reliable enough for me for the material they are sourcing. Consensus means getting to a point where editors can agree that an article meets our policies - I believe we have reached a point of consensus now. If not, then please bring specific points about the article which you would like to improve. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're reading WP:V differently, but I believe that policy allows for sources of this nature in certain circumstances. As WP:SOURCES says, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources" (emphasis mine). Later, under WP:SELFPUB and WP:QS, there is a whole section on using self-published and questionable sources where appropriate. I feel that some of the sections removed were simply uncontroversial examples of "believer" activity and were appropriately sourced for their claims. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources.

I think the best thing to do at this point is the list all of the sources that you find questionable and we can decide what stays and what goes. I do think that a lot of it should go, but I feel that some of the claims that you've removed fall squarely into the "unlikely to be challenged" category. (Of course, that's obviously not true since you removed them, but whatever.) Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] x Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy: what is this referencing? There's no page number or entry description.
[2] ? Mapping Reality: the books.goog page is not loading for me
[3] ? Like Rolling Uphill: if the publisher is trusted, these 2 mentions would be good.
[4] x alt.atheism FAQ: Usenet group FAQ - like a personal page, blog, or wiki.
[5] ? A Call to Sanity: no quote, the publisher looks dicey.
[6] x A Call to Sanity Web Forum: web forum, now defunct.
[7] + how about refuting [...]: first known Usenet mention.
[8] x h2g2: not a reliable source at all - it's a combination of a blog and a joke encyclopedia (I used to edit there because Adams is my second favorite writer).
[9] + Veracity of Christianity: Usenet post sig.
[10] x Camp: "It's Beyond Belief": not pink, article link 404
[11] + The God Delusion: good source, not pink tho
[12] RS Female Bonding: this isn't a bad source, a fluffy ad written as an article, but okay.
[13] x Portrait of [...]: blog
[14] + The Dragon In My Garage: one of the finest easy to understand pieces written about the illogical beliefs helds by religious people, but doesn't mention the IPU. Fine for an "other versions" section once notability for the IPS thru RS is established tho.
[15] x Fall & Redemption [...]: personal website, not RS.
[16] x The Revelation of St. Bryce [...]: personal website, not RS.
[17] x Re: PROVE THAT [...]: this seems dicey to what it's supposed to be referencing.


x = not a reliable, published, third party source.
RS = reliable source
+ = fine once notability is establisehd thru RSs. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-14t21:34z
Since no one has disputed the above analysis of sources, they have been applied to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn&oldid=264353121"