This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Regarding "Removed picture - it doesn't represent the I.P.U., but something else"... as the creator of the picture, I assure you that it represents the I.P.U. What "something else" do you think it represents? --Rwv37 20:27, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what it represents, just like I said. But it isn't Invisible Pink Unicorn as I believe. --Tyhjiö 09:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, once again, I am the artist who created the picture, and I assure you that it is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is a picture of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in front of a white background, similar to Wikipedia's pictures of:
Athena in front of a white backgroundVictoria in front of a white backgroundAnubis in front of a white backgroundIsis in front of a white backgroundHorus in front of a white backgroundBaldur in front of a white background
And many others, I'm sure. If all of those deities deserve a picture in front of a white background on Wikipedia, why not the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Now, I don't claim to be a great artist, but once again, speaking as the artist, it does represent the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and I have released it to the public domain. If you want to make a better picture of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, perhaps in front of something other than a white background, perhaps even attending a baseball game, please feel free. Until that time, I am putting my picture of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, in front of a white background, back on the page, and I would appreciate it if you took my word (once again, as the artist) that it does represent the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Thank you. --Rwv37 15:04, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
I believe. However, I feel a picture of Her in an otherwise empty field might be good to show Her full glory.
In a similar vein, should the category Humor be added? I've added it in comments to the main page. --EuroTom 02:48, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Image
last week, there was an image that was an all white background. I feel that image was the most effective image to convey this topic. Why was it removed? --Kingturtle 18:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Because due to the transparant nature of the background the viewer can now choose to view her pinkness on any background specified by their style-sheet. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:47, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
In fact, to keep in tune with the style of other deities i think it would be wise to display the image of her pinkness inline as opposed to on a thumbnail, i can crop the picture to fit inline, see pictures of other similar subjects like Baldur, what do you think? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:51, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
Well, I prefer the whit-background image. Why was it removed? --Kingturtle 21:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
To make way for an image that blends into the background, which makes sense as not all users have the same stylesheet preference and having transparent parts of PNG's in such cases is nice. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:34, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
Fine, fine, but "deity on a white background" is the de facto Wikipedia standard, as I believe I demonstrated above. --Rwv37 21:33, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I am of the opinion that the reasoning behind replacing the white background with a transparent background simply doesn't make sense. Taking the argument to its logical extreme, we should replace, say, the image of Baldur on a white background with an image of Baldur on a transparent background. But then what of the people whose stylesheet preferences indicate black backgrounds? They won't be able to tell Baldur from background. An explicitly white background is clearly superior, in addition to being the de facto standard. Therefore, I am changing the image back to the original. Please respond here if you intend to change it back again. Thank you. --Rwv37 21:48, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Get rid of it. Replace with artists' rendering [1] or get someone with artistic skills to draw a similar thing. The photo of a random Mexican plaza is irrelevant. --Dunc Harris | Talk 13:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
But there are several arguments as to its pinkness, blasphemer! --Dunc HarrisTalk 23:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
The discussion above misses the point that after staring at that particular image of the Puerto Rican plaza, the viewer, upon looking at the white image, is likely to briefly see an afterimage that contains a linear feature, presumably pink unicorn's horn. --Shimmin 03:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That particular image? As though the same effect cannot occur if the image were of, say, one's own bedroom? --Peter O. (Talk) 06:19, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
I believe it to be an open question as to whether the Great Unicorn is omnipresent like most deities, or not. In the latter case, the same effect would not occur. --maru 03:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Earliest known mention
I'm pretty sure the invisible pink unicorn has currency separate from and very possibly predating the Usenet discussion cited. I've certainly used the term for years in discussions about religion and other things-in-which-people-believe-in-the-absence-of-clear-evidence, and I've never been anywhere near alt-atheism. I can't remember where I got it from but I think it's been going around as an example of something in which one might profess faith for some time. When can the usenet disussion be traced back to? --Harry R 21:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Could someone with the proprietery illustrator program make a PNG image of the source file provided in the Image: page of the IPU logo, that kind of image should not be GIF, both because of patent and quality issues. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I will make a PNG version of my illustration of the IPU. However, just for your information, the GIF patent is not really an issue - the patent enabled the patent holder to charge software makers for licenses allowing their software (e.g. Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Microsoft Paint) handle the GIF format. It did not give the holder any rights over GIF files produced using such licensed software. --Rwv37 02:20, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
The image would nonetheless be sharper in png, and it's the standard for images of this type. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 22:43, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
I repeat my request for a PNG, can someone fulfill it? --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 05:19, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
I removed the images because it is inherently non-encyclopeadic to have non-images of fictional beings (clever as those pictures might be). Before long we'll have to have non-images of all sorts of non-beings and non-things. How about a non-image of the flabbertasted wizzledgoom? Or maybe a picture of the gizmynocked hamerschock? Surly we need an image of the vistralmoosh hashatooth!!! While the "invisible pink unicorn" is a perfectly good topic for the encyclopedia as a cultural phenomenon and counter-agrument to theisic "proofs" it is just absurd and somewhat offensive to have a "picture" of what is acknowledged by all to not actually exist. --Kevin Rector 15:26, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
The Invisible Pink Unicorn, peace be unto her, does actually exist. The claim that she does not is unfairly POV. People fail to see her more frequently than any other deity. To deny her existence despite this FACT is absurd. Do her followers also not exist? Surely you cannot see any of them yourself, at this moment.
In removing images of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (including one that is clearly an ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH), you are the one who is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. The Invisible Pink Unicorn, bless her holy hooves, her followers, their culture, and their depictions of her are very much in existence. --Eequor 23:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, then if you are are right then I suppose then that calling fiction fiction is POV. It is no more unfairly POV than your assertion that the IPU is "real". Don't let your "fierce antipathy for the three major religions -- Judaism, Islam, and especially Christianity" get in the way of being reasonable. (Quote is from your user page). --Kevin Rector 04:25, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
You have no sense of humor, do you? --Eequor 04:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And also, asserting that the unicorn does exist is clearly taking sides. Isn't it more neutral to say that it is disputed whether the unicorn exists or not? --[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 15:26, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
-rant -
Ok, so everytime I remove a non-image of the Unicorn another one gets put up. Yet there is no discussion about it here at the talk page.
Now, the issue of whether or not the unicorn is in the picture is absurd. Furthermore, this is supposed to be a NPOV encylopedia. But the insistence that a fictional non-exisistant unicorn is in a picture of NOTHING is patently absurd and can only serve the purpose of mocking those who actually believe in a diety or dieties. This mocking attitude is completely contrary to the entire spirit of the wikipedia. However, I'm not going to keep reverting the images because I'm not a child, and quite frankly it's not worth my time. Just remember that those who insist on having these picture make the wikipedia that much more absurd.
I'm neutral on whether the pictures should be there or not. Keep in mind, though, that the picture is no more a mockery of deist beliefs than the whole concept of of the Invisible Pink Unicorn itself. It (the idea, not the article) was created to be so. --Joyous 23:04, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
The concept can mock deists, I'm not concerned about that. I am however concerned that the images provide a sort of advocacy of that mockery. I am concerned that the wikipedia not become a place of advocacy. --Kevin Rector 04:06, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
I've put the images ( 3 ). Back, including the official logo and furthermore I modified the caption for the white background of the unicorn
The reason I did this is not to mock anyone or to be a general bitch at all, but when people read an article on the encyclopeda that article should have the goal of informing them of the subject, and those two pictures, especially the sight in Puerto Rico serve really well of making the point of what the subject is all about. Is it a real picture of the IPU? Of course not. But thats the whole point and the point that the article should make. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 22:34, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I did not remove the logo. Furthermore the article does not exist to make ANY point about the IPU (NPOV). The article exists to describe in encyclopeadic fashion what the IPU is (and is not). See What Wikipedia is not --Kevin Rector 03:01, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
But the Invisible Pink Unicorn, bless her holy hooves, IS in these pictures. Take the picture at right, for example. If you look closely you can clearly see the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may her hooves never be shod. It may be difficult to see her at first, since the entire rest of the picture is also invisible and pink, but she is indeed there. --Eequor 22:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's your point of view. But the Wikipedia is supposed to be from a Neutral Point of View. --Kevin Rector 03:01, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
No, that is a fact. I created the image at right. Don't you think I ought to know what it depicts? --Eequor 04:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Once again, I am the artist, and it is a depiction of the IPU. I agree with you that the debate on this is "absurd", as there simply are no grounds for a debate: I am the artist, and it is a depiction of the IPU. --Rwv37 01:07, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
The fact that you are the "artist" is irrelevant to the fact that the wikipedia does not need to have pictures of invisible fictional beings. --Kevin Rector 03:01, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace be unto her) exists, that image is a representation of her. It is part of the culture that created the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is bizarre to claim that a picture of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (glory to her) is irrelevant to one's understanding of that culture.
It is even more bizarre to claim that Wikipedia does not need pictures of mythological creatures. Take unicorn, for example. Unicorns are often thought to be invisible to most people. Should the image there be removed if nobody has actually seen one? --Eequor 04:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right that the fact that I am the artist is irrelevant to the "fact" that the wikipedia does not need to have pictures of invisible fictional beings. However, it most definitely is relevant to whether or not it is a picture of the IPU in the first place, which is what I was responding to. Specifically, your statement "But the insistence that a fictional non-exisistant unicorn is in a picture of NOTHING is patently absurd". --Rwv37 12:32, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
You might as well see God, or the devil, or your worst enemy, or better yet, nothing at all, in a blank image. It's really an oxymoron for a thing to be both invisible and pink. Might as well have invisible red/green/black/[color] dragons/abominable snowmen/Bigfoots/[fictional animal here] --Peter O. (Talk) 06:09, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
But it isn't a blank image! It shows the Invisible Pink Unicorn, peace be unto her, against an invisible pink background. Being invisible and pink is not an oxymoron. I assure you the above image is both. --Eequor 06:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To you, perhaps. Unfortunately, neutrality can never be possible for such a paradoxical article as this. --Peter O. (Talk) 06:29, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Personally, speaking as one who doesn't believe he has any particular personal feeling on the IPU one way or the other, I think that a seemingly blank image that is claimed to portray the IPU is a perfect representation of the entire point of the IPU. Believers (both hypothetical and real, assuming there really are "really real" believers) in the IPU say she's there, disbelievers say she isn't, and many of the arguments that are normally evoked regarding other deities come into play as a result. I support the inclusion of the images precicely because they're causing these arguments here on talk:. Rather than remove them, why don't we include a summary of these issues out in the article itself? --Bryan 06:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Finally we can get a solution going. Maybe the article should involve the user, and find out for himself/herself as he/she finds the unicorn in the blank image. --Peter O. (Talk) 06:35, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so I laid in bed for a few minutes last night trying to think of a good way to resolve this whole thing without it getting anymore out of control and I have refined my position. My position is this: I don't care about the reality or non-reality of the IPU. I simply don't think that the Wikipedia should have any picutures of anything that is invisible. The wikipedia should be a serious encyclopedia and this whole issue of images of invisible things diminishes the seriousness of the encyclopedia. This will probably be my last post on the topic. --Kevin Rector 13:38, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Do people agree that it is more neutral to say that the first image is merely blank, and that the second picture is merely an area in Puerto Rico? I also noted that the latter was a largely arbitrary choice. --Peter O. (Talk) 20:58, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV
As an aside, I put the NPOV message on the page because the article is clearly written from a particular point of view, not because of the pictures. I've been thinking of a good way to NPOV this article without ticking everyone off, and when I figure it out, I might give it a go. Sorry for not noting this when I added the message. --Kevin Rector 04:02, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think it's POV? please copy the article as a whole below here, and comment on each paragraph, saying what is okey, what isnt and why you think it is. Remembering of course to indent your comments to keep them from being confused with the original. Thanks, --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 05:55, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
I agree. I just reread the article, and I don't see anything in it that is POV, except for one brief section that is clearly labelled as a quote from the holy scriptures of this particular religion, and the word "are" in "many people point to sections of the Bible or the Koran and point out sections that are contradictory." I am about to change that "are" to "are, similarly, seemingly", which I believe is NPOV. So, please, tell us exactly what it is about the article that you think is POV. Thanks. --Rwv37 12:45, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Well, also that someone categorized this page under "fictional goddesses", which is clearly POV. So, if you would like to remove that categorization and replace it with something like "goddesses", in the name of NPOVification, please feel free.
I just don't care anymore. I'll remove the NPOV notice. --Kevin Rector 13:41, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
But I do care. If something is POV, we should fix it. So exactly what about the article do you think is POV? --68.196.5.19 02:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Exactly, I repeat my request to copy the whole thing down htere, and comment on each paragraph, saying what is okey, what isn't and why you think it is. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 23:23, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
Well, for one, I'm bothered by the fact that it goes back-and-forth between saying it's a parody and then calling people "believers". What does it mean to call somebody a "believer" in a parody, an illustrative concept? --DanKeshet 08:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Caption of my artwork
Please, stop changing the caption of my artwork to "a blank image", or "The Invisible Pink Unicorn (or so it seems by proponents)", or whatever. Once again, speaking as the artist who created it, I assure you that it is "an artist's depiction of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in front of a white background", just like the article says. That is clearly factual and NPOV, so please stop changing it. Thank you. --Rwv37 23:42, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid not everyone will agree that it is. Some people will take the pictures as they literally appear to be. It is not obvious to many that they are so-called "renditions". --Peter O. (Talk) 02:29, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Granted, pictures are just representations, they aren't actually the things that they represent, but nevertheless we don't go around captioning images as "a collection of arcs and lines representing a schematic of the Eiffel Tower" or such. I can't see how this would not be obvious. --Bryan 03:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Surely readers of Wikipedia are bright enough that they don't need to be told an image contains only white pixels, nor that there is not a pink unicorn visible in the pictures. If this excruciatingly literal interprepation was applied to every image in Wikipedia, we would find examples like this:
A diagram composed of linear and curved grey lines inside a white rectangle
But such is not the case. --Eequor 03:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You say, "I'm afraid not everyone will agree that it is." How could someone possibly disagree that something is "an artist's rendition of X" when the artist who created it has explicitly said "this is a rendition of X"? And, like Eequor suggests, please go change the label of any other drawing on Wikipedia from "X" to "X, but in reality various colors arranged in certain ways", or "X, or so it seems from the proponents", or "A drawing", and see how far you get with your "NPOV" argument. Thank you. --Rwv37 15:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
BTW, not sure if it's useful to the debate or not but I've seen at least one piece of artwork similar to this one before; in the Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition Monsterous Compendium there's an entry on the "Invisible Stalker", and as with all monster descriptions there's a drawing of the monster - in this case a plain white square. This book was not a parody and did not contain any overt comedy, so I suspect it was intended as a straight depiction of an invisible creature. --Bryan 03:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Protected"
Rwv37 here had written that Poccil had unduly protected this article's page. Poccil is not an admin, so can not protect the page. He just added the {{protected}} message. --Angela. 17:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So sorry for having done that, but I now have an idea to restore neutrality to the page. Peter O. (Talk) 18:37, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
Discussion on new edit
Okay, is everyone in agreement that I modified the paragraph as follows?
As an example, look at the two pictures to the right. Mind you, proponents of the Invisible Pink Unicorn argue that these images capture the IPU quite well. To describe them more literally, one of them is of a white background (described as a rendition of the unicorn by the artist), and the other is a photograph of a town square in Puerto Rico. (Whether the location chosen for the latter picture is arbitrary is of debate, but this is unimportant here.)
I am awaiting response on whether the paragraph above is neutral, as well as the fact that the images are left intentionally without captions. Please respond to both issues. --[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:53, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
This has not moved significantly towards the satisfactory, if at all. The above stated argument still stands: if this is NPOV, then all pictures of beings of less-than-photographic intent need to be changed accordingly, from "Egyptian god Thoth" to "a depiction claimed by the artist to be that of Egyptian god Thoth".
Besides, you have two "describe"'s in one sentence. --Architeuthis 20:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that would be a reasonable compromise for the text - it at least manages to stay within the humorous spirit more than what was there before - as long as the pictures have their original captions. Note that right now, nothing even says that the photo is supposed to be a photo of the IPU - restoring its caption would fix that. --Rob Speer 20:42, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
The problem isn't so much POV (although I wouldn't quite call it neutral) as tone and style. It reads like a very informal essay, not like an encyclopedia article. The pictures are kinda funny, and I support keeping them, but I don't think referencing them in the article text is necessary. --Isomorphic 04:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I dislike how those two paragraphs "chat" directly with the reader, directing him to do stuff and asking him questions about it. Perhaps they can be rewritten so that they still say the same things about the images, but without the chattiness? I'm not up to any controversial work right now, considering how many attempts it took me to get the spelling of "camouflage" right a few hours back, but I'll take a crack at it in a day or two when I've got more time and rest. :) --Bryan 04:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, that's also exactly what i disliked about them. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 05:13, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
Agreed. Completely unencyclopedic. Not just this revision of these paragraphs, but these paragraphs from the start, more or less. --Rwv37 15:25, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the Invisible Pink Unicorn (holy shall she forever be!) 's purpose is partly to show us what we project into her. If you think she's a demon, she appears so; if you think she's not there, she appears so. Perhaps she appears relative to how ready you are to receive her teaching. --DanielCD 20:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Removing of {{TotallyDisputed}}
An anonymous user (65.114.174.98) has removed the {{TotallyDisputed}} message, while i agree with the action itself i belive it should be announced here to make sure that all previous disputes regarding the page have been solved. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 04:34, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
Invented vs. concocted
The problem with concocted is that it shows bias. By its dictionary definition, to concoct is something done to create concoctions. As the Invisible Pink Unicorn is presumed to be solid rather than liquid, to say she was concocted adds a different, unclear meaning to the word, and leads people to question why a different word than invented was used. Invented may seem boring, but it's NPOV.
A similar problem occurs in other types of writing. The proper way to indicate speech by a person is with they said, rather than something colorful such as they objected. The former is neutral; the latter is affected by the POV of the writer. --Eequor 01:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the whole "invented/concocted" thing, as both of these are inherently POV (they implicitly state that people who are true believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh) are incorrect). I have replaced it with a statement that the earliest known references to this deity were on alt.atheism. I believe this to be factual, I believe that it gets the point across, and I believe it to be NPOV. For those unconvinced, please consider it vis-a-vis the statement that the earliest known references to Zeus are from the works of Homer (or whoever); a factual statement that neither confirms nor denies the beliefs of followers of Zeus. After all, for all we know, perhaps alt.atheism was merely the conduit through which the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh) revealed Herself to the world. As for the common conception that She is merely a fabrication designed by atheists to make a point about theism, that is already amply clear from the remainder of the article. --Rwv37 01:55, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
Ya, was just trying to spruce up the language a bit. No biggie. --DanielCD 02:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My compliments on the new sentence wording. I'm sure the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh) would agree it's quite NPOV. --DanielCD 13:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Character of this article
The tone in which the information in this article is presented is absurd. The IPU, as much as I find it funny and well-conceived, is in nature a satirical construct. I'm an atheist and I appreciate the humor, but Wikipedia is a serious project, and as funny as the article is, I really don't think it's appropriate. The article should communicate to someone unversed in Usenet legends that this is a creation of alt.atheism, put this information at the forefront, and not dance and dodge around it like the current article does. And as for the pictures, as funny as they are, only the logo is really appropriate. The white image and the Puerto Rican plaza are not helpful for the informational content of the article. Basically what I'm trying to say is that this article is written with humor in mind, where it should be written with information in mind. Wikipedia isn't the right place for satirical articles. --Andre 07:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just read that over and I have one further point to make - it seems like the article is trying to communicate the rationale of the IPU, i.e. the silliness of theistic arguments. Wikipedia is not the place to communicate rationales - NPOV also means as little point of view, be it neutral or not, as possible. The article should be strictly factual. The IPU was created on alt.atheism, it gained followers, the followers of it think this, etc etc. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Not even a subtle one. --Andre 07:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean "as little point of view ... as possible", what it means is that all points of view that are described in the article should be clearly labelled as such (along with mentioning who exactly holds such POVs), and that any significant opposing points of view should be described too. This article seems to do that pretty well, as far as I can see; it says explicitly that the IPU originated as a parody deity on alt.atheism, and when it points out specific arguments being parodied it couches them in terms like "many people argue that" rather than stating dogmatically that such arguments are indeed contradictory. Of course the article needs more editing and additions, every article needs those, but I see nothing fundamentally unsound about the current version. Perhaps it could use links to the "arguments for the existence of God" and "arguments against the existence of God" articles somewhere, to direct people to more in-depth discussion of the issues the IPU is frequently used to illustrate. --Bryan 17:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
An enyclopedia article should aim to make the reader get all aspects of the issue at hand as much as possible, and i think the current one with the pictures and quotes it has makes an excellent job of just that, nobody who reads this article does so without getting a really good idea of what the whole thing is about and because of that i think it's one of the finest articles on wikipedia. It would be very sad if some extreme-NPOV (which really isnt) view were to destroy the fine work achived here. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 21:01, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
Regarding your statement that "The article should be strictly factual": Specifically what about it is not? Thanks. --Rwv37 21:34, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Well, for one, I think that the "earliest known references" statement is ambiguous - if it's a fact that the IPU was created on alt.atheism, this should be stated up front. Far from being stated explicitly, nowhere does it actually say that the IPU is a parody, it merely compares it with parodies like Eris, etc - it's implicitly stated that it is a parody. I tried to add in the word satirical before goddess, but it was quickly edited out. And as for non-factual segments, this is referring specifically to the pictures, which add nothing factual or informational whatsoever. Also, there are references to believers, which I can't say I understand. Aren't all the believers just atheists being funny? The major problem with this article is that it addresses the IPU as something serious when it's really something humorous. --Andre 21:43, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just because something is a parody doesn't mean it doesn't make a serious point. And as for belief: I think you are missing a key point the article is making. Why do you think the believers are only atheists? To cut it up would ruin a tacit point that's being made about belief, and would lose the real meaning of the IPU. I think the article is pretty clear on all the essential info. I agree with User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's comments. Respectably, --DanielCD 23:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You make my point for me, DanielCD. When a Wikipedia article makes a point, it's not a good article. Articles are there to present information and allow readers to make their own conclusions. --Andre 18:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So add an explicit statement of this point, explaining the difficulties that arise when one tries to dismiss everyone who says they believe in a particular deity as "not really believing in that deity, just pretending to." --Bryan 18:58, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I dunno. When I say "make a point", I mean it's relaying the info, not arguing. I don't have a strong opinion here; I just love the article, and I guess that's an admission that I've not hereto been totally impartial. In the end, as much as I like it, it's what's most encyclopedic that should prevail. I think it's clear that it's a parody; no need to make that more explicit. But stick the word 'invented' back in there if you think it needs that to make it more plain. Perhaps qualify the pics some more: "These are pics "believers" usually show in their claims...etc." IPU is a satire as much as a parody; what the problem is is making the article about the satire, and not the satire itself. Perhaps this line is not being drawn well enough.
As for the satire, it's there, just like IPU, to help people examine what they are unconscious about in what they believe. I don't think it's saying people "pretend" to believe what they believe. Only someone who was actually "pretending to believe" would feel like that's what is being said. Respectfully. --DanielCD 20:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was referring only to Andre's comment above, "Aren't all the believers just atheists being funny?" The article itself seems pretty good about how it handles the subject of whether people "really believe" in the IPU, in that it currently doesn't bring the issue up much at all. --Bryan 21:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The latest edits fix the text up quite well, my compliments to DanielCD, though the pictures still bother me. --Andre 07:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and just to make sure this is entirely clear: I'm an atheist and I agree with the rationale behind the IPU. However, I am strongly against cheapening Wikipedia by making it humorous or by including subtle points of view in articles. --Andre 07:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, for one, I think that the "earliest known references" statement is ambiguous - if it's a fact that the IPU was created on alt.atheism, this should be stated up front.: There's nothing ambiguous about it. It is factual and NPOV. The opinion that it was "created" on alt.atheism is POV. Consider the similar statement that the god of the Mormons was created by Joseph Smith.Far from being stated explicitly, nowhere does it actually say that the IPU is a parody: It now explicitly says that those earliest references to it were parody, and mentions several times that it is often viewed as parody. These are factual, NPOV statements. To go further and to say that it is parody and nothing more is judgemental POV.the pictures (...) add nothing factual or informational whatsoever: As discussed above, the articles of many deities have line drawings of them on a white background. The IPU (bbhhh) deserves no less than Baldur with respect to this.Also, there are references to believers, which I can't say I understand.Well, I personally can't say I understand believing in Zeus. Or Krishna. Or Jesus. But that's my POV. And your similar difficulty about the IPU (pbuh) is your POV. --Rwv37 23:41, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
I thought this edit was fine but now we have problems. The IPU isn't a serious deity, nor was it ever. It's satire, and deserves to be treated as such. It isn't my point of view, it's accepted as fact and the IPU shouldn't be treated the same way as deities that have real followings.
Anyway, you say a lot of stuff that doesn't make much sense. Ambiguity has nothing to do with whether or not something is factual and NPOV. The statement was ambiguous because it did not explain the whole story: that the IPU was conceived of first on alt.atheism. And as I understand it, it was.
I thought the pictures were decent in that edit I linked above, where they had well-written captions. Although I don't really think they should be there at all, they were at least addressing the concepts in a sensible fashion.
As for not understanding references to believers, it isn't that I don't understand the belief in a deity. I don't understand the professed belief in a PARODY. The IPU isn't a serious religious figure and it shouldn't be treated as one. This isn't an issue of my POV, it's an issue of telling the whole story on Wikipedia. Are there really people out there who seriously believe that the IPU exists? Not as far as I know, and there shouldn't be, because the IPU is a concept made to poke fun at conventional religions. Yes, by treating the IPU as a serious deity, it causes many to consider their beliefs and so on. However, Wikipedia isn't the place to belief consideration, it's for encyclopedic and factual articles that give the right sense of a concept. --Andre 00:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The IPU isn't a serious deity, nor was it ever.: That is your POV, and the rest of your argument depends upon it.This isn't an issue of my POV, it's an issue of telling the whole story on Wikipedia.: First, yes it is an issue of POV. Second, the whole story is told: the article makes it abundantly clear that the deity is often considered to be nothing but a parody. --Rwv37 12:04, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
The IPU isn't a serious deity, nor was it ever. This is not POV, this is a fact. There's really no question that this is a parody or a satire, whichever. That's just a fact. But there are two views here. Rwv, if it is going to be treated as a serious deity, all references to the idea of invention and parody need to be removed. But then you need to establish how this is an orthodox religion, remove it from the parody religion list, and be responsible for its defense as such. If it is a parody, it needs to be plainly stated as such. I love the article the way you have it, but my love doesn't constitute a proof here. I see no problem with my opening sentence, and unless you can come up with an acceptable reason to remove it, I am going to replace it. As for the pictures, I don't really care. If this is a parody, the quotes around "believers" is in no way POV, because it's a...parody! Quotes like that are acceptable in an objective description of a parody. My first sentence is what I'm defending and it stands. --DanielCD 13:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, there's a third option you're overlooking. A religion can be started as a parody, considered a parody by most people, and still have some "real" followers who don't themselves consider it to be a parody. I don't know of any "real" IPU believers myself, but I haven't exactly searched hard and don't think we should categorically state that they don't exist. It's a little like how there are some people out there who believe that Lovecraft's Necronomicon is a real book. --Bryan 15:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know anyone who treats Bill Clinton's biography as their holy book, either. I don't know anyone who believe that the existence of France is a myth. I don't know anyone who believes that cars are a foodstuff. That's why I'm not about to start editing those articles with comments like "Believers in the existence of France claim that it is a country located in Western Europe..." and then defend them on the basis of NPOV. When a 'real' church of the IPU develops, Wikipedia should certainly cover it; but the NPOV rules are quite awkward enough without the need to make allowances for beliefs that no-one holds. --Harry R 16:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If Rwv or someone else can prove that the IPU is a serious deity, so be it. For now, I think that the best course of action would be to revert to this. --Andre 02:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, that version has a lot of POV features in it that IMO were rightly removed - "scare quotes" around the word believer, categorical statements that the IPU is a satire rather than pointing out specific instances of its usage as such, and the controversial image captions that have been worked over many times already. The current version already describes the origin and usage of the IPU as a parody or rhetorical device, I don't see what problem this change is supposed to fix. --Bryan 02:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you don't like the quotes, we at least need to add some sort of parenthetical to explain what exactly the term believers means in this case. As you said earlier, 'I don't know of any "real" IPU believers myself.' I don't think anyone else does either, and as such how can the article make a statement about believers' favorite sayings? It isn't POV to treat the "believers" that we know of as what they are: atheists, agnostics, religious folks with senses of humor, and so on, that are using the IPU as what it is, satire. As for "categorical statements," I fail to see how this is a POV feature. One of Wikipedia's features is a category system, and the IPU is in the Humor category. Making this clear in the article wouldn't detract from its NPOV, but I think it would make the whole concept less confusing and vague. As for the image captions, I'm not attached to them, but the current ones are absurd. I don't particularly like the images at all, but I'm willing to compromise about it and make the captions something that sheds light on them. --Andre 07:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Across the board I agree with Andre. He's an athiest and I'm a Christian. Interesting that tidbit. --Kevin Rector 19:48, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
In accordance with what I've said above, I've reverted the page and added some minor fixes. Bryan's contrib page shows that he's been editing after I posted my response to him, so I figure he has nothing more to say right now. --Andre 20:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, no, I merely have a personal policy of taking arguments on Wikipedia slowly - especially ones on potentially contentious subjects such as religion. I deliberately let the talk page sit so I could play with other things and ruminate. I still have a fundamental objection to those scare quotes so I'm taking them back out, along with the word "believer" to hopefully satisfy the dispute that caused them to be added in the first place. The rest is near enough NPOV in my opinion that I'll let it slide. :) --Bryan 00:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, the article as it stands now is fine by me. Good thinking. Everyone else? --Andre 02:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that the current picture captions are a bit clumsy. Given that the rest of the article is now upfront about the parody-nature of the IPU, I think that the pictures could stand with just plain captions. My absolute preference would be to just have the one of the pictures, because having two pictures always seemed a bit heavy-handed. But either way, since the pictures are really a joke, you might as well make the joke as effective as possible - and that means presenting them as though they were serious. --Harry R 07:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the captions work better as they currently stand (making clear it is a parody); IMO, an encyclopedia is no place to have inside jokes. --Samboy 18:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Samboy. The captions as they stand seem alright, I think changing them to just straight captions would make them confusing. However, I'm not opposed to changing them to something else. --Andre 22:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IPU Atheist?
I am more of an agnostic just for the record; I don't like being labelled theist or atheist. But still, I don't think a reference specifically stating IPU is "used by atheists". Seems to me that that is POV; it's making it look like IPU is a dogmatic insult with rude intentions instead of the gentle constructive criticism it is. I think it's just as likely to be used by theists who are secure enough in their belief to be able to laugh at themselves. I removed a part of the first sentence that I think is redundant because it's already made clear elsewhere. Respectfully --DanielCD 13:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not very bothered one way or the other, but for the record - I changed it because saying 'the IPU is a satirical goddess' reads like a statement about her character as a deity. Jahweh is a jealous God, the IPU is a satirical Goddess. And also I thought the first sentence of the article would be a good place to say outright what the IPU is, rather than gradually establishing it over the article, which is why I put The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a goddess in the form of a unicorn who is both invisible and pink, used by atheists to satirise religious beliefs. Definition first, and then explanation afterwards through the rest of the article. I take your point about the term 'atheists' but I still think something more like what I put would be better - ... used by sceptics to satirise religious beliefs or just ... used to satirise religious beliefs perhaps. --Harry R 17:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Made a change to first sentence I think is pretty good; seems plain and neutral. Any comments/suggestions? Waddaya think? --DanielCD 17:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yup, that looks good. --Harry R 18:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Discussion of parody
user:24.218.179.253 appears to have reverted this article to a much earlier version... I think the above talk page shows how the consensus has developed with respect to this article: if you have problems with anything particular in the article it would be polite to disscuss it here before deleteing/reverting huge sections of it! --Iain 14:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The editing process for this article has gone seriously off-track. I happen to be an atheist, but I don't believe that lengthy discussion of IPU can possibly be neutral. In an encyclopedia, it is arguable that a definition of IPU should exist and various basic facts about her origins, etc. People may encounter references to IPU, mostly on-line, and it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to refer to the Wikipedia to learn what this is.
However, a lengthy exposition of the parody, complete with very biased "pictures", makes Wikipedia complicit in the parody. Neutrality demands that if more than a simple definition is presented, there should also be a presentation of the reasons why religions adherents would distinguish their beliefs from belief in IPU. It is not neutral to simply present the claim that faith in IPU and actual religions are equivalent. I am going to try again to reduce the article to neutrality, which will also have the effect of making it more succinct, and I hope my efforts are not cancelled by some reversion-vandal. --user:24.218.179.253 18 Sep 2004
If a statement is POV, dont remove the statement, remove the POV. See WP:NPOV. If you feel that critisims of the alleged parody should be included, please add them (as long as they are from a NPOV). However, you should note that the bald claim that belief in the IPU and belief in other religions arnt equivalent is, itself, a POV statement. --Iain 15:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the pictures either, but the captions make them alright. I'm newly an administrator now... if we need to protect the page, someone tell me. –Andre (talk) 17:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator but here's my opinion: This isn't a case of protecting a page that's the case of wide dispute and widespread revert wars. In this case *everyone*'s in agreement except one single anonymous user who has knowingly violated policy by reverting multiple times to his version that's massively deleted of information, even though at least four people work against his opinion and prefer the more detailed version. He has also tried to speedy-delete GAMPAC, reverting back to his addition of the speedy-delete tag atleast five times, again in violation of the three-reverts per day rule. It's time to start thinking about banning his IP. I am not well acquainted with the banning procedure however. --Aris Katsaris 17:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how many users it was. There appears to be a discussion on his talk page, but you're right, he's being troublesome. –Andre (talk) 17:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I haven't actually reverted multiple times. Check the history. What I have done is tried SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS to shorten the article so that the important information is retained but so that Wikipedia is not made a party to a (sophomoric) satire on conventional religious belief. As an atheist, I am not against satirizing conventional religious belief. It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and certainly not in one that emphasizes NPOV. It is a discredit to the Wikipedia. Read the preceding discussion and you will see that I am not the only person who thinks so, so it is simply not the case that *everyone* agrees with the state of the article as it is. What possible encyclopedic purpose is served, for example, by the images? There is no text describing the provenance of the images; they are simply there. Who made the logo? Is it an "official" logo in any way. Or is it just some logo that someone made up and thinks is cute? What is it doing in the Wikipedia? What about the photos? How is a "tongue-in-cheek sighting of IPU" either NPOV or serious? How is a blank image illustrating IPU's invisibility serious, or something that belongs in an encyclopedia? How is the quote from alt.atheism FAQ neutral? If that is neutral, then anybody can slip any POV into the Wikipedia just by quoting it? It's POV because its a fact that somebody said this. The Wikipedia needs a definition of IPU because it is a notable enough feature of contemporary culture that people should be informed about what it is. But the Wikipedia shouldn't be letting expressions of atheist POV be slipped in in the guise of "explanations" of the parody.
Dude. The preceding discussion, the person who was criticizing the article, that was me. And we came to a consensus, everyone is fine now. The logo is the de facto official IPU logo. I don't really like the images on the side, but the captions are enough to show what they mean. The article is no longer POV, it merely explains what the IPU satire stands for. Quotes are always NPOV because they are QUOTES! –Andre (talk) 19:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, you shouldn't have agreed to a consensus. You caved, probably from exhaustion, as with so many other Wikipedia articles. The article is a travesty and a disgrace -- an embarassment to everyone associated with it. If the logo is the de facto official IPU logo, then that should be explained. There is no mention in the article that there is any official IPU organization, or any description of a mechanism by which something would become an official logo. Here we have an enycyclopedia article about a joke. Probably some of the same people who perpetuate the joke on the Usenet formed the consensus that it would be hilarious to have an article about their little joke religion in the Wikipedia. Now anybody who comes along and says it doesn't belong here gets shouted down as a vandal. I was going to start a campaign to rationalize the 100+ articles (I'm not kidding) on aspects of Mormonism in the Wikipedia, with critiques ghettoized in a few "Controversies" articles. I can't even get the atheists to give up a couple of paragraphs in their joke article on IPU !
I agreed to a consensus because that's productive behavior on Wikipedia. I felt that the image captions made them NPOV. I've added a caption to the logo, because that was a fair criticism. However, your other criticisms are not fair. This is a legitimate aspect of internet culture and it shouldn't be shortened just because you don't think it belongs here. If you have problems with POV, you can justify them with "According to" and so on, but I think that there are no POV problems. The quote actually serves to explain that it's a parody - previously it only had the first part, which was one problem of mine as well. –Andre (talk) 19:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
People that work on Wikipedia tend to love information, so *no* you won't see us freely giving up meaningful information without a fight, or anything else that enriches an article. Your hatred of details and expansion won't catch on us. If you simply condensed redundant or duplicate information for clarity and organization that would be one thing, but you are a destroyer of information. Yes, this is an encyclopedia article about a parody. Deal with it. We also have articles about other jokes, like Lightbulb jokes, knock-knock jokes, grape jokes and so forth. --Aris Katsaris 20:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PLEASE stop changing this without discussing it. –Andre (talk) 20:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PLEASE cut it out. Read my version, and give me one piece of useful information that I have removed. It is more succinct. It is better. It just cannot possibly be true that Wikipedia etiquette demands that an article can never be made shorter. That is nuts.
Ugen64 kindly protected the article so we can resolve this. The images and the quote are both useful and there is no reason to remove them. –Andre (talk) 20:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(to anon): I suggest you be more specific here on the talk page, saying for example: "This text (text) needs to be removed because reason. In your reasoning, don't ignore the most common solution to POV problems, which is: add the balancing POV. For example, when you felt the logo was poorly attributed, you should have researched it. Then, you could have come to a conclusion, such as: the logo is not really involved and needs to be removed, OR, the logo is a de facto symbol of the IPU and a note needs to be added to the page. The current article content has been fairly well hashed over, and its removal needs to be justified. Your statement, "Read my version, and give me one piece of useful information that I have removed" -- places the burden of proof on the people who have already put sufficient effort into the current content, which is incorrect. It is your actions that need to be justified. --Yath 20:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Concerning the text. I assert that my version contains all the information that is useful in the current version and that since it is also much shorter, it is therefore better. People keep reverting my improvements to the status quo, and yet I am the one who is accused of vandalism. The two sentences I removed from the quote are redundant with material that is elsewhere in the article. I retained the sentence describing the point of the IPU parody. As for the rest, my changes are simply tightening of the sentences, such as any editor would do. One of the sentences I removed was ungrammatical. Shorter is better, everything else being equal. As for the images, I assert that the images add precisely nothing to the article, that their NPOV is extremely dubious, and that therefore it is completely reasonable to remove them. Andre is smoking dope if he thinks the captions change them in the least. Without the captions, the images are meaningless, and if these captions are more NPOV than what they were before, the previous captions should have been the tipoff that the images needed to go.
It seems you are saying that the current text is frozen, and text can only be added to the article now; since when has that been Wikipedia etiquette?
Be more specific. Saying "The two sentences I removed..." is not good enough. Quote them. --Yath 21:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You say "my changes are simply tightening of the sentences, such as any editor would do." Wrong. Just to discuss only your last version, your removed images and captions deleted one of the ways that IPU humour expresses itself (through purported "sightings"). That's valuable informations that indicate how the IPU is used. You also removed the reference to the analogy between the phrases concerning Muhammad (Peace be upon him), and the phrases following references to the IPU . This was again notable information that you removed without a reason -- it indicate *where* this piece of the parody came from and what it refers to. --Aris Katsaris 21:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're drawing awfully close to a personal attack, dude. I assert that the images give examples of images used by proponents of the IPU on usenet, but detract nothing from the article. I'm an inclusionist, meaning that longer is better as long as additions aren't redundant or negative. And as for the captions, previously they were matter of fact "The Invisible Pink Unicorn"-type captions, you can find them in the page history. Please tell us which sentences are ungrammatical. The quote is not redundant because it lends authenticity - quotes and citations are always useful, even if their infomation is found elsewhere in the article already. –Andre (talk) 21:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First, I said it was tightening, with respect to the text. Obviously, I removed images. But yes, I did remove the reference to Muhammed. This was primarily tightening, but as long as you mention it, that phrase also calls attention to a feature of the IPU materials which is demeaning to Muslims. If that bit of IPU lore is targetted only at Islamic practice, is it so important that Wikipedia wishes to propagate this sneer? If the IPU joke included various little anti-Semitic jibes would you include those too, in the interest of complete coverage? And if it isn't merely a reference to Islamic practice, but simply a sneer at religious practice in general, then isn't it enough simply to mention the jibe (if we must, I tried to delete it before entirely), without mentioning Muhammed?
As for drawing close to personal attack: I'm sure you'll let me know if I actually cross the line. Glad I didn't. Anyway, the images are not harmless images. The empty image is just silly and detracts from the seriousness of the Wikipedia. It tends to drag the Wikipedia down to the level of this sophormoric alt.atheism joke. The "sighting" image is actually more than silly and lacking in seriousness, it is sneering and offensive to Christians. As an atheist, I don't think photos should be suppressed just because someone might be offended, if they serve some purpose, but it seems surly to include offensive images gratuitously. At best, what this image illustrates is that IPU is devised to be offensive to adherents of religions, and that Wikipedia has no objection to illustrating this offensiveness. Is Wikipedia going to open to having articles about any sneering and objectionable jokes that might be found on USENET about religion, and repeating these sneers under the rubric of NPOV reporting of what people are writing?
The two sentences in the quote that repeat ideas in the rest of the text are the first, "The IPU is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves)", which simply repeats the definition in the first sentence of the article. And the second: "Like most Goddesses, she's invisible and highly unlikely to exist. However, there is much argument as to her exact colour, her shape and size, and other properties of her nonexistence. She burns with anger against theists and allegedly grinds them beneath her holy hooves." This is redundant with the contradiction theme discussed later. This quote from the FAQ, by the way, isn't even a quote, but three separate quotes, drawn from widely separated parts of the FAQ, strung together with ellipses, which is not a very respectable technique.
The sentences that are ungrammatical are: "Sayings about faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn include that, like other religions, it is founded in logic and faith. Logic, that is, "she must be invisible, since we cannot see her". Faith, that is, "we know in our hearts that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists". This is a parody of the theological reasoning of other religions."
If we have articles that mention (not encourage) genocide, then we certainly aren't going to shirk away from articles that mention (not encourage) offensiveness. If the "sightings" bit is offensive to Christians, then the proper way to correct the article is mention that indeed some Christians find it offensive. If the Islamic-like reference of "peace be upon her" is offensive to Muslims then the proper way to correct the article is mention that Muslims have been offended by it (with references if possible) -- not be a little revisionist and try to make your reader think that the IPU is meant to be *inoffensive*. Yes, it's usage is often offensive. *That* can be added in, the offense that believers of many faith feel about the usage of the IPU. But you chose to revise reality instead and delete valuable information. --Aris Katsaris 22:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree that the solution when an image is offensive is to leave it, hoping to neutralize it by "mentioning" that it is offensive. That might be the solution when an image is necessary for the exposition, and including it is unavoidable if one expects to give a subject its due. If it isn't necessary, including it and "mentioning" that it is offensive, doesn't make it inoffensive, nor does it make the image necessary, nor does it make including it neutral. Images that are offensive and GRATUITOUS should simply be deleted. I'm just not buying it. These images have been added by some sophomoric individual who thinks they are funny and wants to have the joke on Wikipedia, and others here would rather offend the many people who will encounter this article than tell the image poster that the images are unnecesary and inappropriate. In this case, IPU is a very minor feature of Usenet/Internet culture, almost not deserving of mention at all. It is most certainly not a significant enough topic that one must include offensive images and captions in order to cover it. At most, the subject would be given its entire due by a few short sentences, such as I tried to write. Letting the whole thing be dragged into the Wikipedia, offensiveness, sneers, silliness, and all, is completely lacking in any sense of proportion. If "wiki" culture doesn't have the ability, or the good sense, to delete such stuff, then there is something seriously wrong with wiki culture.
If you don't agree with the concept of consensus, and hate the inherent inclusiveness of "wiki culture" that says that in order to turn an article NPOV your first instinct should be to *add* information, not to remove it, then the appropriate option for you to take is to stop interfering with the rest of us and stop being part of "wiki culture" when you hate all and every element of it. Your argument has a nice doublethink quality where you use two different arguments, sometimes contradictory, to justify doing the same thing and you move from one argument to another with hardly a breath. Were the images removed because they were inherently "offensive" (nobody else seemed to think it) or because they were unimportant (but if they're important enough to be offensive, shouldn't we refer to that fact?), or because the subject itself is wholly unimportant, in which case you should frigging put it at Vfd, and not try to remove information from it. --Aris Katsaris 23:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The images aren't offensive to me, although I'm an atheist... they're funny and not really that appropriate for an encyclopedia by themselves, but the captions neutralize them. I don't think you understand Wikipedia's logic: we really don't shorten articles. You can think this is dumb if you like, but that's how things typically work. –Andre (talk) 23:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is nuts; the requirement for consensus means that a few people have shanghaied the Wikipedia to impose this travesty. There were many protests. The images should be removed because they are unserious and offensive. If they were important to an exposition of the subject, then the fact that they are offensive to many would have to be solved. But they aren't important. If you read the history, it was clear that they were added as a joke. There was no consensus that they should stay, only eventual exhaustion of the sensible by the idiots. You can't have consensus between people who are trying to make Wikipedia a joke and people who want it to be serious.
Look man, if you don't like it, don't edit here. That's the way consensus works. –Andre (talk) 00:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was the captions, not the images that was problematic -- because there were some people that wanted to have the images say that these were depictions/sightings, rather tongue-to-cheek claims of such. When the captions changed to clearly indicate that this was was just an element of the parody, that Wikipedia wasn't claiming they were *actual* sightings, then a consensus was formed in favour of retaining the images+new captions.
No, we can't have consensus between *you* who wants to delete information for a swiftly changing range of reasons (first they are unimportant, next you claim they are offensive, next you claim that they are non-serious) and people that want to retain information in as much an impartial manner as possible. This consensus was achieved and again you are the only person that disagrees with it. If you see other articles about humourous subject, you'll see a lighthearted element in all of them, from knock-knock jokes to everything else. But in these cases where we can't have consensus, we're striving for "vast and clear majority" instead, in which case you are outnumbered about 10 to 1 or so. Deal with it. --Aris Katsaris 00:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there were people arguing that the captions should state that these were actual sightings of IPU and that it was POV to object to this. This was just trying to carry the IPU joke over from alt.atheism. Affecting a serious belief in IPU is part of the joke on alt.atheism, but the joke doesn't belong on Wikipedia, where respect for the truth and balance are the mainstays of NPOV and the only thing that permits consensus. That people would not abandon this posture when editing this article here, shows that those people were fundamentally unserious, and consensus reached through exhaustion with people operating in bad faith should not carry any weight at all now. I agree that the current captions are better than the ones in the past, which were simply false. But they are still unserious and offensive, and it doesn't surprise me that the images and their captions are the result of a compromise with unserious people operating in bad faith. That is no reason to keep them any longer, and it surprises me Andre that you feel compelled to continue to pander to anyone who would argue that these images are important to keep. This article was first written in 2003, and it was fine for several months. It was also short. This page is now listed on the "Lamest Edit Wars Ever" page, and the resolution of that edit war was that those insisting on it being a reasonable article gave up.
Aris, you seem to be laboring under the notion that I am compelled to have only ONE reason to object to these images. Where did you get that idea? Yes, I am claiming that they are unserious and offensive. I have conceded that if the images were important, that might trump unseriousness and offensiveness. But the images also aren't important in giving this topic its due, it being a very minor topic. They need to go, along with some features of the text. So, Andre when are you planning on unprotecting the page again, and how is this going to be resolved?
"How is this going to be resolved". You can either accept that the majority (practically consensus) wants the images included, or we can have a poll about the issue, giving people a week or so in order to vote whether they want the images to stay or go (in which case btw you'll have to register, since anon people can't vote in polls). --Aris Katsaris 01:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Anonymous Shortener, you seem to think that because this topic doesn't have importance in the daily life of most, it should have a proportionally shorter article. Well, not so here. All pertinent information should be listed. As it happens, the images are important to the particular mythos of the IPU, and should not be removed. If you're an atheist, why do they offend you?
I will glady unprotect the page once we come to a consensus. –Andre (talk) 01:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is the big deal about being anonymous? Is that the problem here? The Wikipedia permits people to be anonymous. If it didn't I wouldn't be able to engage in this conversation. The images offend me because it offends me when people make fun of others' religion. Religion is a serious thing and should be taken seriously. People deserve respect, even when they are wrong. I think theists and adherents of religions are incorrect; I seek to persuade them to my point of view. I don't think they should be sneered at because they believe in a religion. Most of the people in the world are adherents of religions, and atheists and agnostics might bring more people to their point of view if they were not so frequently arrogant and scornful of religious people. I think IPU and the mentality that finds IPU funny is unhelpful in the extreme. Furthermore, I think many features of this article are probably offensive to many other people besides me. They are sneering and insensitive and, as such, don't belong here.
Read the policy on protection. It states that protection is for a few days. Looks like on your first day of being a sysop, you are already throwing your weight around, guy. I propose a consensus: How about we delete the images?
By the way, I am not saying necessarily that it should be short because it is unimportant. That is a distortion of my position. Your a subtle guy. You can see almost infintesimal distinctions, like between weak atheism and agnosticism. So, you should be able to understand my position just fine: (1) Everything else being equal, short is better than long. (2) Articles shouldn't contain offensive material unless there is some good reason for it, and exploring all the offensive corners of a minor phenomenon like IPU isn't a good enough reason.
I didn't protect the page, Ugen64 did. But, I will unprotect the page when a consensus is met, like I said. –Andre (talk) 03:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By needing to register, I certainly don't mean you need to offer us your real-life name, just choose a specific nickname to have. We can't have non-registered people vote in polls because then we'd have people with fluid IPs post a dozen times on the side they prefer. Better to have users with specific histories on them even though deception is still possible ofcourse -- atleast it'll be harder to keep up said deception. Moreover registering makes a conversation easier, as IPs not only often change, but are also harder to remember.
You didn't clearly indicate if you agree about having a poll on the images, and whether you'll abide by its results. As for "many features of this article", name them here *specifically* and we'll treat them case by case. In some details you may even find occasional agreement - more bizarre things than that have happened. You should however understand that most Wikipedia policy is governed by the exactly opposite principles (1) Everything else being eequal, info is better than lack of info. (2) Articles should explore as many corners as possible, and potential offensiveness isn't enough of an excuse to remove said corners. --Aris Katsaris 01:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If I may interpret your words, "Wikipedia has crossed the line between reporting and participation." I do not agree, though your argument has potential for improvement. As for chopping out bits, I don't see a good reason for it. If anyone feels offended while reading the article now, it is only because we've communicated the IPU's purpose (that belief in deities is absurd) all too well. --Yath 01:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yath, I'm not troubled by anyone being offended by IPU's purpose. Those people are going to be offended by atheism, and I am one. But what information content about IPU is enhanced by the photos -- that IPU is supposed to be invisible? that alt.atheists includes lots of photos of IPU that show nothing, and this is considered hilarious? As you say, this crosses the line between reporting and participation. As for the other offensive stuff, the main one was the Mohammed jibe, which I already mentioned. My other edits of the text, as I said above, were mainly in the interest of just succinctness and not removing information in the article. Concerning Aris point (2), I suppose that means that if there were an article in Wikipedia about ethnic jokes, you would consider it as "exploring as many corners as possible", to just let people start listing every ethnic joke they knew -- in the interest of completeness and no matter how offensive these might be. Of if there were an article about ethnic slurs and racial epithets, you would want all of them listed, in the interest of full coverage, starting with the N-word? Do I have that right?
Have a heart attack at the horror of reporting the existence of offensive words: Nigger_(word)Faggot_(slang) Wikipedia already does it. --Aris Katsaris 02:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And as a sidenote, no, I wouldn't like the inclusion of *every* ethnic joke, just a representative sample of them (and indeed the page about jokes already has five jokes in the "ethnic jokes" section). The same way that I'm satisfied with the inclusion of only one representative pic displaying a tongue-in-cheek "sighting" and more of them would be redundant. --Aris Katsaris 02:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Have I killed him? I hope that he's only been offended into departure, not shocked into oblivion. :-) --Aris Katsaris 03:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. One doesn't use odd and rarely used skins, and I think changing articles to avoid bugs in the software/skin is somewhat of the wrong way to go about it. --James F.(talk) 10:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree that fixing the bug is better than using the workaround, but I can't fix the bug, and the workaround is better than sometimes having empty screens between the end of the article and the page footer when using the Nostalgia.
I use Nostalgia because the other skins have worse bugs than Nostalgia, e.g. MonoBook's paragraph and line breaks are very hard to distinguish — this causes some information to be incorrectly interpreted. -- Jeandré, 2004-09-19t12:43z
No, no, no, do not do that - it is against all style conventions and will make life a general PITA for everyone. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 12:45, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
I should also note that the div tag that had put those two images in a column along the right side has gone missing. I'll be restoring it once the protection's off. --Bryan 15:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. Unnecessary under Monobook, but much less intrusive a kludge than stripping whitespace... --James F.(talk) 16:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I use the Classic skin, and without the div tag the images wind up side-by-side. It squeezes the text unecessarily, and since the images' heights don't match up like their widths do it looks ugly. --Bryan 16:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In general refrain from putting hacks in the wikitext to get around whatever short time technical problems you are currently having. It makes things a lot harder for people writing parsers and therefore counter productive against yourselves in the long run, if images are aligned in an undesired way please submit the error at http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org and make the developers aware of it so they can fix it ( and it is a trivial fix probably ). --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 08:02, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
Proposed New Version
This is the wording which I propose for this article when it is unlocked.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is a mock goddess in the form of a unicorn which is both invisible and pink. There is no evidence that there were ever any actual believers in this goddess, but it has become popular, especially on certain web sites and on-line discussion forums, for atheists to feign belief in her for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief.
The following, which appears as the header on the Invisible Pink Unicorn web site, seems to distill the essence of the parody/critique:
"The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her." It is also common, when feigning belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist.
Her two defining attributes, "invisibility" and "pinkness", are of course inconsistent, and this is part of the satire. It is common to engage in mock "debate" about her other attributes, such as whether she is completely invisible or visible only to those who have faith in her. Some of these debates are quite elaborate and tortured, satirizing the disputatiousness of many actual religions. Despite this, over time some agreement has developed regarding her attributes, with the most humourous and incongruous ones generally gaining the greatest agreement. For example, it seems to be agreed that she is partial to ham and pineapple pizza, and that the explanation for the inexplicable frequency of sock disappearance (compared to the disappearance of other articles of clothing) is that IPU "raptures" un-mated socks.
Depictions of Invisible Pink Unicorn either show a fading pink unicorn, or simply nothing, such as the upper image at right. Images representing "sightings" of IPU, showing nothing, are also commonly presented as part of the joke. There is an Invisible Pink Unicorn logo, of unknown provenance, and it is possible to purchase T-shirts, coffee cups, and other paraphenalia featuring the logo. This logo is shown at upper left. One website selling these items, [cafepress.com CafePress], describes them as a subtle means for atheists to recognize one another without giving offense to believers, suggesting that IPU has become a kind of emblem or mascot for atheists, especially those who frequent online venues.
The name of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in jocular discourse is usually followed in brackets by a sentence such as Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves, Peace Be Unto Her, or May Her Hooves Never Be Shod, which in turn are often shortened to bbhhh, pbuh, or mhhnbs respectively. These mock phrases usually adjoined by Muslims to Muhammed's name.
Oooh, nice. NOW you are contributing additional info, instead of deleting such. I approve and applaud of this version (in general at least). Only a single nitpick: the last sentence about Mohammed needs to be changed because only one of the three phrases mentioned is actually adjoined by Muslims to Mohammed's name. There are a couple more aesthetic choice nitpicks (e.g. I generally prefer groups of external links in a section below the text, and another link looks like an ad to a commerical site), but those are details we can easily fix.
But on the whole, very *very* nice job! Your additional sentences even remove the need for the presence of pics you objected to, IMO atleast. (I still don't object to the existence of the pics, but as you described their function within the text, I don't find any need for the continued existence either). Well done again! *g* We'll make a Wikipedian out of you yet. --Aris Katsaris 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. The reason I included the website references in the text was to emphasize the point that IPU is basically an phenomenon of on-line atheist culture. Its true that of the epithets attached to her, only "Peace Be Unto Her" is a straight copy of a Muhammed epithet; but they all satirize the Islamic practice.
Yeah... this could certainly be the basis of a reasonable version of the article, however there are a few issues you might want to consider before you put it up... The last paragraph could definately do with rewording: what is wrong with the current version? It mentions that the postnomials are similar to the muslim practice without putting to much empahsis on it. Also you are now probabaly going to far POV the other way... while the unsuported declaration that the IPU is a "mock" goddess in the opening is possibly OK as it acts as a summary explanation to the subject (though I'm not entirely happy with it), the two mentions of people "feigning belief" are unreasonable: it is Wikipedias job to report what people actually say, not what you think they mean (both of the links you mention on the second paragraph say that they beleive in the IPU... they dont say they are "feigning to belive" in her). If you can find a source (and for this I suspect a usenet source would do) for someone claiming that everybody who says they belive is "just feigning", then we can put that in the article (as long as it is properly atributed). cheers, --Iain 19:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A couple of further thoughts upon your proposed version: we can put in captions for the pictures (such as "IPU logo"), so you don't need to keep refering to "the picture on the upper right" and similar; and I strongly object to the use, in the fourth paragraph, of the word "mock" and the scare quotes around debate ... I think it is self evident that there are real debates over her attributes, even if the subject isnt terribly serious. --Iain 19:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We can say that they "claim to believe" (instead of "feign"), but then we must also add that they are generally not believed in their claims of belief -- in short that everyone else believes they are feigning in order to perpetuate the joke. And I for one, definitely do believe that everyone who says they believe is "just feigning", therefore Anonymous can cite *me* as a source. If you want me, I can even make a Usenet Post to that effect: I don't believe there's *anyone* believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn for real. --Aris Katsaris 19:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That would, of course, be fine (as long as we atribute it "Aris Katsaris said on this articles talk page..." (or where ever you do say it...)) my point, I think, is that the assertion "gernerally not belived" is unsurported by the sources quoted in either version of the article... --Iain 20:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it is really POV to say the belief is feigned; if it clearly is. If you look at the web sites dedicated to IPU, it is completely clear that it is a satire, and that the people who write things avowing belief in IPU are in other places quite clear that they are atheists. Atheists don't believe in deities, you know. One of those IPU web sites even says that IPU is satiric. Is it really necessary to find somewhere where someone says in big red letters "I'M FEIGNING BELIEF" in order to draw the obvious and correct conclusion that everyone avowing belief in IPU is doing it for humourous/satirical purposes? One of the reasons that this article is on the "Lame Edit Wars of All Time" list in the Wikipedia is that writing the truth about IPU, which is that it is a parody deity in which atheists feign belief for rhetorical/satirical purposes, is going to be attacked as POV by somebody who seeks to continue the joke by asserting that it is a real religion. Is there anyone who would claim, in good faith (that is, not having fun at Wikipedia's expense), that IPU is a goddess in whom someone actually believes?
It, indeed, is POV to say the beleif is feigned, as that is your assertion of your veiw. I also think that the websites are intended to be satire, and I think that anyone looking at them will see they are intended to be satire, and I dont think Wikipedia has to nursemaid our readers by telling them that they are intended to be satire (or at least, not quite so often). Even finding some such big red letters would not be sufficient to draw the conclusion that everybody was feigning the belief, as it would only be evidence that one person was feigning beleif (though, of course, we should add that source to the article and let the reader draw whatever conclusion they consider to be obvious and correct from it). The claim that the IPU is not a real religion (however a "real religion" would be defined) is, in itself, a point of view. And im afraid I dont know if anyone would make a good faith claim as I havent been able to judge the good faith of everybody claiming to belive in the IPU (though, in actual fact, I cant see why someone shouldnt... belief in an IPU seems to me significantly less silly than beleif in some major religions I can think of... which is the point of the satire, I suppose!) --Iain 20:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By your argument we can't use logic at all, at no case whatsoever. This isn't the case of competing POVs -- it's the case that there doesn't exist any opposing POV at all, other than your agnostic of "we can't know anything for certain" variety. If it's *our* belief that these people feign their belief in this deity and it's *your* belief that these people feign their belief, have you ever found anyone thinking that they *aren't* feigning their belief? Are we now gonna be accomodating POVs that aren't actually shared by anyone whatsoever? Are we gonna be adding to Clinton's article "Some people possibly think that Clinton is an alien from Mars" if you find a single satirical page claiming it?
Sorry, I'm only willing to accomodate existing POVs, not non-existing ones. Find me someone who *doesn't* think that the pages are satire, and then you'd have a case. So far everyone here who's seen them does indeed think them satire. Until we know of the existence of someone who thinks the opposite, we can present that as a fact. --Aris Katsaris 20:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. My point of view is irrelevant. This is wikipedia. We should only be presenting a neutral point of view. (with appologies to the poster further up this talk page) To say "the IPU was invented as a parody on alt.athiesm" is NPOV. To say "several of the IPU websites claim [or even admit] to be satire" is NPOV. To say "such-and-such poster on alt.atheism says 'everyone claiming to belive in the IPU is an athiest faker (and eats babaies)'" is NPOV. To baldly, unilateraly, and without a source say in the article "everybody is only feigning beleif in the IPU" is POV and, should, in my opinion, be avoided. --Iain 21:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Iain, I think it might be helpful if you stated, having looked at the IPU materials, whether YOU believe that my characterization of IPU as a mock deity in which people feign belief for the sake of humor and satire is TRUE. If it isn't TRUE, then the statement shouldn't be in the Wikipedia. If you concede that it is TRUE, then we can discuss whether there are Wikipedian conventions that prevent true statements from being put in the Wikipedia. If your answer is "I don't know", having looked at the materials, then I'd be surprised, but that would at least clear the air.
I don't think your (well, your characterisation in your proposed version of the article) characterisation is true in all respects, no. Thats the problem. I do agree that many people do appear to claim belief in the IPU for satire, and I personally beleive most, if not all, of them are fakeing. But my beliefs shouldn't go in the article, at least not without a "notable" (and I dont think it has to be very noatable) source. And even in that case, we should be reporting what that source says, not what I believe. I agree we don't need protection on this page anymore (if ever!). --Iain 20:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not bad. I agree with the objections already raised though, except I do not mind feign or the quotes around debate. It's obviously satire, so they're fine, in my humble opinion. –Andre (talk) 20:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andre, if you'd like to unprotect the article, I will put up my version, taking into consideration the objections that I think are reasonable, and we can start word-smithing it. By the way, I don't think the four of us in the current discussion are very far apart, and a few edits are probably all that will be required for the four of us to be in agreement. Then, in true Wikipedia style, we can accuse anyone else who comes along and tries to edit it, of not respecting "the consensus". :-)
C'est fini. May I suggest creating an account so you can have a watchlist with this page on it? –Andre (talk) 20:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and it's generally bad form to link to external links in the fashion you did. May I also request re-adding the quotes? They don't harm the article, but they add authenticity. –Andre (talk) 20:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually the article he proposed did contain one quote. That's enough perhaps. But let's see how it will look. -Aris Katsaris 20:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Super! I'll leave it to the anon to put their version up... though I should remind them: only contribute if you are prepared to have your contributions edited mercilessly! (oh, and please could the anon create an account... it would be so much easier to remember who you are if you had a nickname to sign your comments with rather than just a string of IP numbers in the page history!) --Iain 21:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed a few words here and there....I hope nothing too contentious. Im not happy describeing her as "satirical", but I think its slightly better than "mock". Also moved most of the external links to See also. I think we should try and avoid mentioning comercial sites like cafepress in the article... if people want to buy such goods they can google. --Iain 22:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was just about to edit that anyway because it was attributing a statement to cafepress that was actually made by one of their members. --Harry R 22:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh... and I actually quite liked the pictures, as long as we put in proper captions and now we've explained them properly in the text. I think they illustrate the discusion about how the parody is used. --Iain 22:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Logo
How has the logo been modified? The caption states that it's slightly modified. --Yath 22:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Click on the image itself, the modifications are listed at the image page, anyway saying it has been modified is not really important, but i thought i'd add it to see if people felt like having that description there. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 23:45, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
Can we bring back the pictures of the IPU?
I revisited the article just now and found out that the beautiful pictures of the IPU had been removed. I thought they added much more depth to the article than all the text and whitespace. Can we poll on if we should bring the pictures back? --metta, The Sunborn☸ 03:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
After all the work we went through finding acceptable consensus captions for them, I think bringing them back is quite warranted. I liked them too. --Bryan 03:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
They weren't removed via consensus, so just put them back on if it suits you. --Yath 03:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it's better right now without them, but I wouldn't mind a poll. –Andre (talk) 04:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm copying here the point I made in the summary description about the pic of San Juan:
"Removed San Juan pic -- has the *specific* pic been used as a purported "sighting" before it was introduced here? If not, then we'd be creating an instance of the joke, not reporting it." --Aris Katsaris 22:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Poll on presence of San Juan pic (4/8)
Keep
A) It is not primary research B) We are already reporting on it in the article, not specifically the San Juan photo but other photos like it. --metta, The Sunborn☸ 00:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If it's other photos *like* it, then the caption should have said "Photos like this are used as purported sightings of the IPU" instead of "This purported sighting". But in that case the connection would be very weak. It'd be almost like putting the photo of a random actor in the article of George Washington and saying "This actor looks like other actors who have played George Washington". It'd not be justified. --Aris Katsaris 00:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Or perhaps like having a artists rendering of jesus on that article, sometimes photos need not be real to get the point across, in any case if you have a ( justified ) problem with the caption that *can* be solved without deleting the photo from the article, or by changing it.
ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 00:38, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC). It doesnt really matter if we use this photo or a hundred others, you could even use some from the icelandic article, the important thing is getting the point that such pictures are used rather than getting a specific picture.
Looks like that Icelandic article is suffering from POV problems just like the IPU article used to. Too bad I can't write in Icelandic. –Andre (talk) 01:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One of those pictures shows snow on the ground. If the IPU is present, why are there no hoofprints? Aha! :) --Bryan 01:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are, they are just invisible and pink as well. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 03:44, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
One would presume that although the IPU is invisible and pink, she doesn't float above the ground (or does she?), and as such her weight would make indentations of some kind in the snow. :) –Andre (talk) 19:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You misunderstand, the IPU does indeed make dents in the snow however they are like herself not visable to nonebelivers. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 20:48, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
Bryan 01:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) - tentatively agreeing that Aris' idea for a caption modification resolves the "original research" problem satisfactorily.
Iain 08:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) - it illustrates a point made in the text
This image is a perfectly legit photo of the invisible pink unicorn. if you can't see it, then you don't have faith. --Kingturtle 16:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Kingturtle, if you have a real reason to keep the picture, please tell us. We've already heard quite enough jokes about the IPU. –Andre (talk) 17:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete
Aris Katsaris 23:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC). As I said, I can't find anywhere where this specific pic has been used as a "tongue-in-cheek" sighting. Wikipedias purpose is to report facts, not create them. We should find a pic which has been used for that purpose, *outside* Wikipedia. The pic of San Juan doesn't seem to be it.
Samboy 23:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) Agreed. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research; see item 10 of what Wikipedia is not
Agreed as well. –Andre (talk) 00:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Original research; plus, the style guide says (somewhere) "don't write articles trying to be funny" - regardless of how amusing the image is, it's not appropriate. --Sean Curtin 06:58, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's debatable whether including that image is telling a joke or describing a joke. Considering the current caption I consider this a description of the common "sighting joke", which is IMO quite relevant to an article describing the IPU. --Bryan 07:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:BM Delete it. What is the origin of this photograph? Where has it been put forward as a "sighting" (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise) of IPU? My opinion is that both of the images should go. By presenting them, the article crosses the line from description to participation, and makes the article non-serious and un-encyclopedic. If they are funny, they don't belong, anyway. But they aren't even funny.
I find your commments funny does that mean we should delete them too? --The Sunborn
His comments are not present in the article. They are on a talk page. –Andre (talk) 23:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic, facetious and trying to make a point. Just because you or I find something funny doesn't mean it should be removed. I find people beliving that Jesus is god is funny however, it still should be listed. --The Sunborn
However, I do think that the San juan picture should go with its current tag (which is prolly the correct one). However, if we do find a genuine picture that is claimed to be a sighting, then it should be added as such. --metta, The Sunborn☸ 22:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. When you say "the San Juan picture should go with its current tag", are you saying it shouldn't be deleted? Or just that if it doesn't get deleted, that it should keep the caption it has now? --Bryan 00:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, no, I support deletion if the current tagline sticks. It doesn't work. However, that is probably the proper tagline and a better one could not be found. So we shall dispense with the image. Ta da! --metta, The Sunborn☸ 05:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:58, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Delete it as original research unless it is actually a pic that has been purported off wikipedia as being a pic of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I'm not at all opposed to the article or to including a pic of 'Her Blessed Horniness' if it is one that was actually claimed elsewhere than wikipedia to be a pic of the IPU. I am not opposed to including 'funny' material on wikipedia, see Clown, in the right context 'funny' is -- or so I adamantly claim -- appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. In this context (which is considered by some to be a description of a common joke ) (but considered by others, arguably, as an exposition of religious doctrine), funny is not appropriate. Humor would not belong in An encyclopedic article on a major religious figure, neither would it belong in an exposition of the humor on a popular television show. I applaud all the editors who are able to stay sane while editing articles like this one. --Pedant 18:59, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Consensus vs. majority
And here we run into a major problem that crops up every once in a while on Wikipedia. Six votes out of ten in favor of removing the image is a majority, yes, but is it a consensus? IMO, no. And if a consensus is not achieved, does that mean the status quo reigns? Obviously I'm in favour of the status quo, since that's the way I voted, but rather than get into an editing match let's hunt around for precedent in cases where this has happened before and discuss it here. --Bryan 23:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Consensus is a good thing to strive for, but it's not required except in very specific cases like deletion of whole pages. Other than those few exception, when we can't have consensus the sane thing is to go with the majority, not with some "status quo". It has NEVER been wikipedia policy that consensus MUST exist before a simple edit. --Aris Katsaris 03:19, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad, sorry I forgot to check the dictionary before making the edit. After all, That is why you people are here right? To check the mistakes of everyone else. --The Sunborn
User:BM Also, Sunborn, YOU were the one who brought back the picture after there had been a momentary consensus to remove it. You called for a poll. Having lost, to now claim that a "consensus" (that is, more than a majority in the poll) should be required to change the status quo is a little disingenuous. Also, didn't I notice you saying that with the current caption, which you admit is the most accurate one, the picture ought to be removed?
I think it was Kingturtle who brought back the picture, after Sunborn *removed* it. --Aris Katsaris 01:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Satire...
Yeah... I thought we might have a problem with that edit. The (current) version of the first paragraph is:
"The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is a satirical goddess in the form of a unicorn that is both invisible and pink. There is no evidence that there are any actual believers in this goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, for skeptics to feign belief in her for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief."
Now, my problem with the word "satirical" in the first sentance is a) that (as has been mentioned further up this talk page) it makes it look as if the IPU is satirical in the same way as (for example) Thor is a god of thuder or Jesus peace-loveing, and b) that the use of the IPU in satire is mentioned in the next sentance.... saying it twice seems redundent to me. Ill leave it for now untill I can think of a better alternative. --Iain 11:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. The IPU is completely and entirely satirical. It's a true and non-negotiable statement, and it's needed to characterize the goddess. –Andre (talk) 20:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think he meant it in the sense someone else explained somewhere above -- that "satirical goddess" may be believed by some to mean a reference to the IPU's personality. "He's a satirical person, he uses satire all the time on others". I think this is very far-fetched, though. I don't think there'll be any such misunderstanding. --Aris Katsaris 22:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Satirical just does not mean that. That would be a false use of the word. –Andre (talk) 23:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:BM As the person who wrote the current first sentence of the article, I can say that the original wording was "mock" goddess, which is a little less redundant, and also true. Someone changed it to "satirical", which does indeed rather create a potential ambiguity that IPU, along with being pink, invisible, and a unicorn, is also apt to indulge in satire, as well as having been invented for satirical purposes. But I can live with it.
I will admit it was I who changed the word from mock (which IMO was overly negative) to satirical... I suppose that if we can all live with it we can leave it as it is. --Iain 09:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the IPU started as something to mock faith, but it has evolved into a bond between like minded individuals. It's more than a tool used to poke fun at christians and others, but now She has touched the lives of many. I think that you must remove the "satrical" statement, as it does cause harm to those True Believers in the IPU (Blessed be Her Hooves) but you must also note that the origional intention for this was to show how ridiculous the invisible sky-daddy idea is. May Her Hooves guide you. --Paulr 15:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Give me a break. Andre (talk) 15:50, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't stop laughing after I read that. I love how all Andre says is: Give me a break, nothing more. I love it. --metta, The Sunborn☸ 16:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For the reasons Iain mentioned, and for the sacred cause of good prose, I'm going to edit out the word 'satirical'. --Harry R 21:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For the reasons I and others mentioned, it (or a synonym) is needed, so I'm putting it back. Andre (talk) 22:17, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I really, really don't see why the word "satirical" is necessary in the first sentence. What is the problem with saying "The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is a goddess in the form of a unicorn..."? It mentioned in the same paragraph that it is a satire: "...for skeptics to feign belief in her for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief." --BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Describing the IPU as a goddess without some kind of qualifier implies strongly that she has real believers. Andre (talk) 22:49, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I AM a real believer, and I DO exist. --Paulr 00:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We don't believe you when you say are a real believer. For example just above you stated: "It is my opinion that the IPU started as something to mock faith, but it has evolved into a bond between like minded individuals." which is contradictory to you being a believer in the IPU's actual existence (i.e. as more than a human construction, abstraction, fiction, bond, metaphor, allegory, or whatever). Sorry. --Aris Katsaris 01:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My opinions and beliefs are quite different. How dare you question my lack of logic. --Paulr 01:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This continuing game is tiresome for those of us who want to see Wikipedia be a serious encyclopedia. I'm an agnostic-leaning-to-atheist myself who finds theism annoying and irrational, and as such I appreciate the satire of the IPU *in its proper place*. Namely, in religious debates between theists and atheists or in mutual fun between irreligious folk. But now the IPU folk just come to annoy those of us who are more devoted to the Wikipedian project than to their private game of mocking the theists. Be considerate visitors: don't try to harm what Wikipedia represents for the benefit of your game. --Aris Katsaris 01:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Calm down there lil fella, it's just a joke. I think you need to step back from your computer, and get some french fries or something. --Paulr 01:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I completely support Aris' position. Even before he was contributing on this talk page I had to fight off faux IPU belief (see "Character of this article" above). Paulr and others' insistence that the IPU is actually a legitimate deity is getting in the way of building consensus for this article, and while you may find it amusing, we certainly don't. Andre (talk) 01:55, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
The reason I joke about this subject is because this subject IS A JOKE. I find it "fucking retarded" that there's even a debate on whether or not the IPU should be labled satrical. This is stupid. --Paulr 14:28, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We know that the IPU is a joke, but the article isn't! Just a moment ago you were insisting that the IPU wasn't satirical! If you think it's stupid, go somewhere else... we're trying to make a good article here, and you aren't helping. Andre (talk) 16:49, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
... Are you actually reading what I'm saying, or is this a case of who gets the last word? --Paulr 18:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I thought I was sufficiently clear, but perhaps not. You said that you were joking about the subject because it is, in fact, a joke. I replied that while the IPU may be a joke, the article on it is not. You said you find the debate retarded. I replied that you had just been jokingly insisting that the IPU was not, in fact, satirical, and as such fueling the debate. You said this was stupid. I replied that if you think it is stupid, you are not obligated to continue posting on this talk page, as your responses are not helpful. Andre (talk) 18:40, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Paulr, the whole Wikipedia project is dependent on good faith contributions in mutual efforts to improve the articles. But on the IPU article we have had several ASSES who instead of making honest contributions, they instead liked to have their little oh-so-amusing "jokes" on our expense about a matter that they consider their duty to humorously lie about. You think the debate is retarded? You and your like-minded IPU "believers" *created* said retarded debate, something which *wouldn't* have happened if you'd approached Wikipedia with even a tiny amount of consideration for fellow contributors. The only reason the debate lasted so long is because the rest of us tried to treat you people with courtesy and factuality and trying to use the Wikipedia method of reaching a consensus until the obnoxiousness got too repeated and too tiresome, at which point my own attitude turned instead to "You are juvenile asses that piss on other people and don't know when to stop having a joke and when to start being serious. And if you say you truly believe in the IPU, then I say you are liars." There you go. --Aris Katsaris 19:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It appears we may be in danger of getting in to a distracting argument about what a "real goddess" is, as opposed to a "satirical" one. While this is an interesting philosophical point, and possibly worth going in to over at deity or god, it isn't of all that much relevance here. I contened that it is true that some people say they belive in her and say that she is real. It is true that many other people dont believe those claims. In my opinion, both sides of that argument should be presented in the article, in as NPOV way as possible. This is esspecially important in the first paragraph, and even more so in the first sentance, as these set the initial impresion readers get from the article.
I think the points we are trying to convey are: a) an entity called the IPU exists in at least a "noteable enough to include in this encycopedia" sense, b) the IPU is refered to as a goddess, c) the IPU (or at least the concept) is often used satiricaly, d) people who profess beleif are often not belived by (what may well be a majority of) others. Unfortunately, I can't work out an NPOV way of saying all that in a paragraph... --Iain 12:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is no evidence that anyone actually believes in the IPU or thinks that she is real. The few examples on this talk page are obviously jokes and if they go much further they will be trolls. We can't treat the IPU as a goddess in the classical sense, i.e. a construct that spawns cities with her name, rabid cults, and ordinary groups of people that engage in worship. It will dilute the neutrality of this article to the point where readers will actually think that the IPU is worshipped by hoards of rabid followers. The IPU is satire, has always been satire, and suggesting otherwise is is wrong. Andre (talk) 16:49, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Returning to my original point - not only is the satire point made in the second sentence of the article, it's made better and more clearly than it is by describing the IPU as a 'satirical goddess' which is at best ambiguous and at worst inaccurate. I'm not trying to edit it for the sake of the ludicrous argument that IPU-worship is a real religion; I'm just interested in trying to produce a clear, well-written article. --Harry R 16:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I know you aren't one of those, but I feel that some kind of modifier is needed before goddess. Satirical isn't necessarily the right one, but something is needed there, otherwise the IPU is being described as a straight-ahead goddess. I don't mind "mock" or "parodic" or any other word that essentially means "spoof," but I feel that "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a goddess in the form of a unicorn that is both invisible and pink" as a lone sentence is insufficient - something must be added to make it clear. Andre (talk) 17:22, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
There is no evidence that anyone actually believes in [Xenu] or thinks that [he] is real — that is one of the points that the IPU concept is highlighting. I agree that this point should be described, and that the first sentence can only omit "satirical" once we have evidence (what kind?) of someone/people (how many?) saying they actually beilieve in IPU, that there are rabid IPU cults, and/or that ordinary groups of people engage in worship of her. --— Jeandré, 2004-10-22t18:19z
Satire revisited: new version
To better coincide with the opinions expressed above I have edited the first paragraph to:
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is a satire aimed at theistic beliefs. This satire mainly consists of a "goddess" in the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.
It is believed almost universally that there are not any actual believers in this satirical mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief.
I believe this covers the requirements of the majority of editors weighing in on this.
includes that it is satire
doesn't imply that She is satirical, ie that she uses satire
allows room for the possibility that there are in fact True Believers, as I don't think we could ever prove the nonexistence of such Believers, they may all be hermits, who have taken a Vow of Silence...
includes the idea that not very many, perhaps no people, wha actually are True Believers.
I think it's a good edit, that genuinely coincides with consensus.
Perhaps someone who feels that She is More Than Satire, could gently add what would be necessary to suit their sensibilities, without upsetting the delicate balance. comments please --Pedant 19:23, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
I'm fine with it. I made a general copyedit, but it's otherwise fine. Andre (talk) 19:53, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
My two cents:
"The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is a Goddess in the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink. The IPU is a satrical ploy used to show the absurdity of some beliefs."
Oh yes, forget about people who claim to be true believers for a second and realize that this is a NPOV article. The IPU is what it is, a tool used in debates against theists, --Paulr 19:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I still find it amazing that NPOV demands that we cannot simply say what is manifestly the case; namely that there are no actual believers. That the best we can do is say that it is "accepted" that there are no actual believers. --BM 02:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's pretty damn close, though. Saying outright that there are no believers can't be proven - how do we know for sure there aren't really believers? It's accepted, and that should be enough. Andre (talk) 02:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I run the wildly popular and constantly updated Invisible Pink Unicorn Ministries website and find your comments to be insulting... neigh, blasphemous! [[User:Brian0918|brian0918talk]] 02:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, please. Also, that would be "nay." Andre (talk) 02:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
"Also, that would be 'nay.'", to which I reply: ............................ [[User:Brian0918|brian0918talk]] 02:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Brian0918, give it a rest, won't you? That isn't cutting any mustard here, old chap. And Andre, I'm afraid that epistemologically your argued is flawed. Nothing can be proven. The earth COULD be flat, hundreds of astronauts, navigators, round-the-world flyers, etc, all being deluded, or evil aliens bent on deceiving the rest of us. It's possible. That doesn't mean we're obliged to say "It is accepted that the world is round" rather than simply "The world is round". --BM 02:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do we say anywhere in wikipedia that "the world is round"? Because if we do it's probably against NPOV... In any case, that "the world is round" can be verified independently by many people (which is as close to proven as anything outside mathematics ever gets), while a statement about ones own belief can not. There are many people on the net (and, indeed, this talk page) saying "I believe in the IPU" and NPOV requires that we report what they say, even if we don't accept what they say to be true. --Iain 09:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We do report the existence of people feigning belief in IPU. We do not hesitate to use the word "feigning". "Feigning" means they claim belief. By calling it feigning, the article says essentially that these people are all joking. That is NPOV, because it is true. But we can't bring ourselves to say "There are no believers," because there is the possibility that there is a real one somewhere -- a former Wikipedia editor, perhaps, lying pathetically in a mental hospital, unhinged by NPOV disputes. I don't know if the Wikipedia says "the world is round". I hope it does. But if anybody from the Flat Earth Society has involved himself in editing it, most likely it says something like "the world is believed by the majority of people to be round; however, there is a minority of people who argue that it is flat." Fortunately, on the subject of the earth's shape, nobody is relying on the Wikipedia to find out the truth. Wikipedia seems to be a great place to sample the range of nutty opinion on any given subject, but you need to go somewhere else to learn the truth, because Wikipedians think it is bad manners to mention it. --BM 12:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for being satirical in the satire section. I'll go somewhere else. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918talk]] 03:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This isnt the satire section. It is the talk page about a serious article about a satire. --Iain 10:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the article is serious. The talk page need not be, though. [[User:Brian0918|brian0918talk]] 14:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, we are trying to have a serious discussion here. Anyway, in regard to BM, I agree with you. However, NPOV dictates that we not claim outright that there are no believers - claiming that something does not exist merely because there is no evidence of it can't be NPOV. Nowhere do we say that there are believers in the IPU - we just say that it's accepted that there are none. That's almost saying there are none - the difference is semantic. Andre (talk) 16:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Confused
This professed belief by some atheists indicates that it cannot be confuted that someone really believes in something ridiculous.
I am afraid I have no idea what this sentance from the article means. I would attempt to refactor, but I cant work out what its is intended to mean either. --Iain 21:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Likewise, however, BM appears to have clarified it. Andre (talk) 21:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Logo
Andre, I removed the logo because the previous editor had replaced it with a template identifying the image as not having the required copyright information. I figured nobody was going to hunt down the copyright info, and that the image is not that important. I'm not sure you should have reinstated the original image. --BM 22:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A moment's search on WP:PUI and the image's info page would have told you that the copyright info was already present and allowed free use, provided that the image represented atheism. Since it does here, there's no problem, and I put in an image copyright tag. Andre (talk) 22:21, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
I don't get how the image is supposed to represent atheism. It represents a fake religion. Just because the creator of the image (who is making money off of the image) wants it to represent atheism doesn't mean that we should accept it as such. I say get rid of it. It's just the creator's attempt at free advertising. Are you the creator who also runs ipu.com ? --brian0918 22:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, but to spend a moment searching WP:PUI you have to know about it, which I didn't. It would have helped me learn about it to have mentioned it in the edit summary, by the way. --BM 22:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not the creator or anyone affiliated with ipu.com, but I think there's nothing wrong with the way we have the image in the article, and I don't see why we should remove it. BM, you should have seen WP:PUI in the original edit summary by Poccil, which stated (Nonfree image replacement: Replacing all instances of image Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png with notice; see WP:PUI for discussion.)Andre (talk) 23:09, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
.png)
![[1]](http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/herholy.gif){kind=link}
