Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

Reliable Sources[edit]

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

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

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

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

Looking at the sources.[edit]

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

x = not a reliable, published, third party source.
RS = reliable source
+ = fine once notability is establisehd thru RSs. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-14t21:34z
Since no one has disputed the above analysis of sources, they have been applied to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008 version[edit]

I think this article has moved in the wrong direction. The November 2008 version was a well written editorial and explication on the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If this started as a Usenet meme (and we can find one traditional RS that says this) then those Usenet posts becomes a first party reference which automatically makes it a reliable source. Usenet is not acceptable as RS's about the world it is however a RS about Usenet. The best strategy would be to roll back, get a an RS to confirm the Usenet role, get the key posts over to say wikisources and then quote those as RS for the article. jbolden1517Talk 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an editorial and personal essay WP:OR based on not reliable sources. There is no exception for "internet memes" from our policy of WP:V. If you think community consensus supports an exception, go to the WP:V talk page and suggest such a change. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is: WP:SELFPUB. Anyone is a reliable about themselves. Organizations / communities are reliable sources about themselves. Once a reliable source verifies this was a usenet meme usenet becomes a reliable source for this meme. jbolden1517Talk 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
And so the IPU has a blog that we can cite? I have a feeling that we would have trouble verifying that she was the actual poster of the blog. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No if a reliable source indicates the community that created her was say alt.atheism then those creation posts become RSes on IPU. If my book were to get a wikipedia article anything on my personal blog about the contents (not about the world) becomes a reliable source about that book. So for example is I said, "I wrote this analogy while thinking about ETS" wikipedia could use that. If I said "the book has sold 100,000 copies" they couldn't use that. jbolden1517Talk 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What non-notable people think about a subject is non-encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Call for a consensus[edit]

About a year and a half ago the size and scope of this article was drastically reduced by one lone editor, who justified their massive cuts with vague references to WikiPolicy guidelines. Although it seems many have questioned the wisdom of these edits in the talk page and edit summmaries, at no time was a consensus sought over the future of this article, and the discussion on the talk pages has consisted mostly of rants and counter-rants. This article was a good article once (it's little more than a good stub now), and if we want it to be a good article again there has to be a communal effort towards that goal.

The question, then, is this: should we return to the previous version of this article, which provided thorough coverage of the history and concept of the IPU at the expense of allowing less-than-academic sources, or maintain the current article, which is much briefer (and not terribly cohesive) but is better sourced.

This talk page, and the article itself, appear to be much less travelled now, so I'm not entirely sure if a real consensus can even be reached, but please, if anyone has any input on the current and past state of the article, make it known. EdibleKarma (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that I've started editing here after the change you describe occurred. I looked at the edit history, and it looks to me as though the deleted material was, in large part, sections on "dogma" and "iconography." Is that correct? It seems to me that at least some of that material could be added back, perhaps in something like a compromise version, where the now-deleted material is treated, but treated briefly. Would there be objections from present-day editors to doing something like that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What content is desired to be re-integrated into the article and what sources is the additional content based on? Do you want to create a sandbox page and link to it? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not active on this topic but I think the version from Nov 2008 was far better. The graphic should be readded the notes based on usenet, the discussion of the origins and usage.... 01:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Material based on usenet as a source is clearly not acceptable. WP:RS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is nearly so clear as I indicated above. In an article about a usenet meme usenet becomes a reliable source. Everyone is a reliable source about themselves, and institutions are reliable sources about themselves. Your position is clear you are the one who did the deleting. Now EdibleKarma is asking others for input on whether they agreed with the mass deletion. Let a few other people talk and see what the consensus is. jbolden1517Talk 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When the Invisible Pink Unicorn makes usenet entries about herself, then we can use those under the primary source guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Things don't have to contribute to wikipedia. Special relativity has equations from Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare.... because they invented it. Physics books are reliable sources because the theory emerged out of the physics community, etc... jbolden1517Talk 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Physics books have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Usenet posts do not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
jbolden suggested in the edit summary that this could be an RfC. It looks to me now like the talk here risks repeating talk that came before, without reaching a comfortable consensus, so let me suggest that we formally make this an RfC, in hopes of attracting more "fresh eyes." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The claim that deletions were made "by one lone editor" is not true - see Talk:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn#Looking_at_the_sources. But I am willing to have the wider community review and comment as well. Any standard review will show that the sources remaining tend to stand up to our guidelines and the ones removed were validly removed under WP:RS / WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I was not involved with this page at the time of the deletions in question, and I'm making an attempt to come at this as though I were responding to an RfC and looking at it with fresh eyes. I have just gone back and re-read carefully the talk sections above (although I did not go to the extent of looking up the disputed references myself), and I also looked at an old version of the page from early Nov. 2008, and I re-read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. I don't feel like I'm in a position to write an actual word-for-word draft, but I do think I can draw the following conclusions, in a way that I hope is fair to the views of both sides. In the old version of the page, the sections on "dogma" and "iconography" were longer than they needed to be, and, in parts, poorly sourced. It is a little silly to be writing about "dogma" for a page like this, and the "iconography" section had a lot of unsourced, vague generalities. At the same time, I think some of the now-deleted material could have been retained, in a more succinct form. The arguments in the talk above that this topic can be regarded as an internet meme make good sense to me. The arguments that relatively little in the older version would be in the category of likely to be challenged, at least by a reasonable reader, also seem to me to be correct. Challenge by one editor does not always mean likely to be challenged. Insistence, in this instance, that there be proof that a person (or unicorn!) be the actual primary author, before a source can be accepted here, seems to me to be unreasonable. There is, reasonably, a difference in applying sourcing policy to a page like this, as opposed to, for example, a page about medical science or a BLP page. Of course, that's only my opinion, but I've made a good-faith effort to be objective and neutral about it. I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the material is HIGLY likely to be challenged because it was indeed challenged and removed by me and would be again if it were returned without a valid source. It is the burden of the person wishing to add or return material to provide the source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
To repeat what I said: "Challenge by one editor does not always mean likely to be challenged." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
An RfC sounds like an okay idea to me. I agree that a lot of the "old" version of the article was unencylopedic fluff (to be blunt), but the vast purge of material that occured and the dispute that followed have left this article fragmented and stagnant. Anyway. Ignoring sources for the time being and speaking only from the standpoint of what is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I think most of the old History section could be re-instated, and some of the first two paragraphs of the Dogma section. The Iconography section is better suited to its current form, as a brief caption describing an image. I will consider starting a sandbox page amalgamating the new article and the old article soon. EdibleKarma (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. Perhaps the best time for an RfC, if needed, is after you have a draft version for consideration. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll start work on that. As for sources, citing Usenet or h2g2 when chronicling the creation of a Usenet and h2g2 meme seems acceptable and inevitable (that only applies for some the History section). I'm sure better sources could be found for the parts of what was formerly the Dogma section that I feel should be kept, I'll look into that as well. EdibleKarma (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We need an RFC if we don't have consensus. If the 2 of you agree that the material about usenet from its creators or whatever the specific proposal is that's 3:1. Start including stuff. My first suggestion is the alt.atheism entry be quoted, since that explains the origins and meaning:

jbolden1517Talk 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Before counting me as a vote, I'd like an opportunity to see and react to a draft version, as EdibleKarma already proposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
He gave. I gave others gave it 2 years ago. To quote his latest post: Usenet or h2g2 when chronicling the creation of a Usenet and h2g2 meme seems acceptable You argue for a no, we are locked 2/2 and the content stays out. You vote yes we start making a quality article because we have RSes. jbolden1517Talk 02:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Two people declaring that unreliable sources can be used to support an article does not make them reliable sources suitable to support content for an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What, is Usenet an unreliable source about a Usenet meme? I quote: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Looks to me like you're exalting the letter of a guideline over basic common sense. --Gwern (contribs) 16:24 9 May 2009 (GMT)

Sandbox version[edit]

I see that the old version of the article has been (temporarily) reinstated; regardless, the sandbox draft is here: User:EdibleKarma/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Sandbox. I've left a note on the talk page there as well. EdibleKarma (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for working on that. I've looked carefully at the sandbox version, and also at the restored version that is on the page now. In my opinion, the sandbox version you created is much superior to what is on the page now, and also much superior to the short version of the page that existed recently. I suggest that the sandbox version be the one we work from for now. I would like to suggest the following revisions to the sandbox version:
  • Reference 1 from the long version that is on the page now should be put back into the sandbox version, at the end of the first sentence of the lead.
  • In the "formerly dogma" section, I would delete the first of the two paragraphs. It's redundant, and doesn't add much.
  • I suggest moving the second paragraph of the "formerly dogma" section into the "history" section (thereby removing the "dogma" section), after the paragraph about Camp Quest, and before the paragraph about N. Wallace.
  • In that same paragraph from the old dogma section, I suggest moving the inline citation to the Gould reference from where it is within the paragraph, to the end of the paragraph.
I would enthusiastically support moving the sandbox version, after making the revisions above, to the page, to replace what is there now. We could then work from that for any further needed edits, but I would caution editors whose views may be at either pole of this discussion that they are unlikely to achieve consensus for either the long version on the page now or the short version that it replaced. Thanks again for your work on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking the material on Sagan's dragon and the Camp Quest unicorn should be incorporated into a new section, something along the lines of "Similar Concepts". EdibleKarma (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that would be even better. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Might the sandbox version be ready for here? Just asking. It seems to me that it is better than what is on the page now, although of course it could still (as always) be improved further. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. I've added the Maartens reference back in (I think that's what you were talking about in your first bullet above?) and cleared out some of the hidden sandbox clutter. EdibleKarma (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for your work on this. I think it looks good, and is an improvement. I'm kind of neutral about the "Mock Theology" (below) myself. About the reference in my first bullet point, that was the Angeles one, and I had already added it back myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made some alterations to the sandbox version here. Some of the old iconography and dogma material is back under a new section called "Mock Theology"; the inclusion of any and all of the material in the Mock Theology section is up for debate. EdibleKarma (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with your version and think we should include the mock theology. Ultimately the point of IPU vs. Russel's teapot is how it is applied, i.e. to imitate all aspects of a theistic religion. 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The sandbox version is much better and an inclusion of the original, completely invisible picture of the unicorn would make it perfect. -- Henriok (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky, the Creator?[edit]

We learned at school that famous linguist Noam Chomsky gives an example of a non-stimulated phrase in his book Syntactic_Structures. I can't remember exactly, but it says that there is a unicorn, what is playing hide-and-seek, so it becomes invisible when humans are approaching. And it becomes not only invisible, but clearly unsense-able. So it is a phrase, "the hiding unicorn", which per definitionem cannot be a stimulated phrase, yet we can easily imagine this animal. He used it in a scientific debate as an example for not every linguistic phrase has a stimulated origin.

So it is an unicorn. And it is invisible. Chomsky wrote this example in 1957. So... maybe he is The Father of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

It would be good if somebody could check this example in the original 1957 book... (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (DJS from Hungary)

Well, Chomsky did originate the colorless green ideas sleep furiously meme, which is similar to "invisible pink". I thought that's where you were going with this. I've never heard of his unicorn thing. Kenahoo (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted material re "Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves", etc.[edit]

The article formerly included this paragraph:

Epithets to the name of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in jocular discourse usually follow in brackets: 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. [The reference read: "See for example [1]".] These epithets recall, and are intended to satirize, the religious practice of adjoining epithets to the names of prophets, most famously Muhammad. (See peace be upon him and Islam and veneration for Muhammad.)

Why was it removed? I see some edit summaries (for other edits) arguing that h2g2 is not a reliable source, but I think the Edited Guide qualifies under WP:RS, and these epithets are here. My Yahoo! search for "blessed be her holy hooves" -wikipedia returned more than 2,000 hits. JamesMLane t c 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I recollect, that was part of the process leading to the "sandbox version" discussed under November 2008 version, above in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I see dispute about whether h2g2 is a reliable source (apparently without distinguishing the Edited Guide from the rest of h2g2). I don't see analysis of this specific material. I propose reinstating what I quoted above, adding h2g2 as a source. JamesMLane t c 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an editor who objected to the material to begin with, but here's my 2 cents. I found the whole discussion of which websites are or aren't reliable sources rather tedious, and I have no problem with citing a website as evidence of what is said about this subject on websites. On the other hand, I'm less impressed with hit counts like that, than I would be with something like Google Scholar (emphasis on the second word) hits. Also, I'm not eager to reignite the previous disputes. As for the material itself, I don't think it adds much of value to the page. In particular, I think the abbreviations seem very unnecessary, so if we do restore it, I'd prefer to leave the abbreviations out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Content from not reliable sources to include non-encyclopedic original research about non-encyclopedic trivia has no place in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
To keep things manageable, let's start with RS. The Edited Guide in h2g2 is not self-published. The process involves several people. I'm not sound on the details but I think it goes something like this: A researcher creates an entry in the Guide (i.e., the unedited Guide). It stays there until a Scout selects it as potentially worthy of inclusion in the Edited Guide. It's assigned to a Sub-Editor, who works with the original researcher to get it into shape. It's put up in Peer Review, where anyone can comment, point out errors, suggest improvements, etc. After all that reworking, it still doesn't get into the Edited Guide unless it's approved by one of the Italics. The other people I've mentioned are volunteers but the Italics are BBC staff. The result is arguably more reliable than when a writer submits a story to a magazine or newspaper, and it's published after review by a single editor.
I don't know whether citing to h2g2 has ever been formally considered by Wikipedia. For what it's worth, the list of links to the h2g2 article readily yielded other articles citing it as a source, including Paula Yates, Darjeeling, The Needles, Madonna (entertainer), and All your base are belong to us. (I didn't get past the first page of links, and didn't even look at most of them.) Of course, that's not dispositive, as it might merely be a sign of a common mistake, but it casts some light on the community's attitude. Why do you consider h2g2 to be not a reliable source? JamesMLane t c 02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Does h2g2 have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? No. (see the comment above " h2g2: not a reliable source at all - it's a combination of a blog and a joke encyclopedia (I used to edit there because Adams is my second favorite writer... -- Jeandré, 2008-10-14t21:34z"-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to leave this material deleted. If I thought it added something of real value to the page, I would feel differently, but, really, it's rather trivial information, and just not of that much value. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I disagree, but if it's OK with you I'd rather defer that discussion so we can concentrate on the WP:RS issue raised by TheRedPenOfDoom. RedPen's basis for disparaging h2g2's reliability is... an unedited comment by a pseudonymous contributor to a wiki. That seems a bit inconsistent. The point I made was that the structure of the Edited Guide is similar to, and in some ways superior to, that of an ordinary newspaper, in that material is not self-published. When I find a needed reference in a general-circulation newspaper that I've never heard of before, I don't go out and try to find quotations about the paper's reputation. I just use it unless and until someone shows a reason to doubt its credibility. There's no reason to treat h2g2 as less reliable just because it subsists through the aid of the BBC, as opposed to getting advertising revenue from corporations. JamesMLane t c 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Way faulty logic - we dont assume webpages are reliable until they are proven unreliable. They have to have a proven track record of reliability before we even consider them. And if the content is trivial and non-encyclopedic, being published in the most reliable source in the world still doesnt give it a pass to get into an article. There are sooooo many policy based reasons not to include this content and no policy base reasons to include it.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The implication of your comment is that, if you're researching a point and you find a relevant citation in a general-circulation newspaper that you've never heard of, you don't use that citation. To be consistent, you would have to launch another research project to determine whether the source you just found has "a proven track record of reliability". Absent evidence of that, you would conclude that the source was not reliable.
What I pointed out, in response, was that such a procedure would not be appropriate. We typically rely on the general nature of a source, rather than on specifics about its reputation. If its nature seems to be of the type that gives some assurance of reliability, we use it, unless and until someone comes forward with a reason not to. The nature of the h2g2 Edited Guide, in which multiple people review an entry and in which final veto power is retained by a paid employee of a well-respected journalistic entity (the BBC), is such that it should be considered reliable. JamesMLane t c 02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In answer to your question, No I do not consider content in h2g2 to meet our reliable source guidelines. But, I have begun a formal request for comment to see what the consensus of the community is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: is content in h2g2 a reliable source for information about the Invisible Pink Unicorn[edit]

Does the community consider content hosted on the h2g2 blog site a about epitaphs in user signatures (see discussion in several of the above sections on this talk page) appropriate, encyclopedic, reliably sourced content; suitable for use in the Invisible Pink Unicorn article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • As I've said before, I believe that such sources can be valuable in certain situations, such as "I was there, I did/said/saw this". I think that WP:SELFPUB even backs me up here. I'm reasonably sure that if the early Christians (for example) had blogs which survived to this day, we'd be using those blogs as references in documenting early Christian belief. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:OR says otherwise, and if the blogs of early christians existed, we would not use them as primary sources for our article content, but would use what reliable third party sources had said about them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB are very specific about when self-published sources can be used. Unfortunately, I think if challenged, the current entry cannot be justified by the the h2g2 source. Perhaps a rewording along the lines of: "According Alex Tufty Ashman, an early participant in the discussion, ... " would be acceptable. It would be better if other external sources were provided as well. LK (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The material is appropriate and properly sourced. WP:SELFPUB is inapplicable, for reasons explained in the subthread below. JamesMLane t c 15:22, 7 August

2009 (UTC)

  • According to JamesMLane's information below, it should be considered a reliable source. Auntie E. 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From this long string of links I expected to find several thoughtful discussions of the pros and cons of h2g2 as a source. Instead, I found almost no discussion, with a handful of editors casually making the same false assumptions that RedPen made here, i.e., inaccurately treating the content as "self-published" or a wiki and displaying no knowledge of how the Edited Guide is compiled.
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#H2G2 - One editor refers to "self-contributed articles" and says, "although some of it is peer-reviewed (although we have no guarantees as to the quality of the reviewers), some of it is not." A second editor calls it "[p]ractically a wiki". Neither editor distinguishes between the Edited Guide and the rest of h2g2. Neither of them refers to the role of the BBC staff editors. These two editors are the only ones who comment.
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alien (film)/archive1 is another Featured Article review. One editor comments: "I am concerned over the reliability of h2g2. As far as I can tell, it is a reflection of Wikipedia (but for registered members who can be anyone). Their 'Edited Article' can probably be equated to our 'Featured Articles', but that still makes me wonder just how good their peer review is. We cannot assume that editorial oversight is provided by BBC or of equivalent standard...." As I've demonstrated in this thread, editorial oversight is indeed provided by the BBC. The article nominator replied, "No problem, I removed it. I don't recall how I arrived at it; probably through Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - those were my primary hunting grounds when searching for reviews. I was under the impression that h2g2 was some sort of special subsection of the BBC and had oversight from them, and since it appeared on either RT or MC I felt it was probably reliable. But since it seems questionable at best I just pulled it. I just thought the quote wrapped up that section rather well, but it's not essential." This nominator backed down too easily, because his impression (that h2g2 had BBC oversight) was correct, at least as to the Edited Guide, which was the source of the challenged link. No other editor mentioned h2g2.
The fact is that this thread has much more useful information and analysis than all these others combined.
As for the unspecified AfD mentions, I don't know if they were in the context of WP:RS or WP:N. If the latter, I'd agree with discounting h2g2 references. The Edited Guide should be considered reliable, because the staff editors can keep junk out, but they don't decide what goes in based on importance. Coverage in the Edited Guide means a volunteer wanted to write about it and was willing to put in some work to meet the BBC's standards. It does not that an impartial editor deemed the subject notable. JamesMLane t c 08:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • h2g2 entries in the "Edited Guide" are much more stable than Wikipedia articles, but usually of a much lower quality than Wikipedia's featured articles. So, entries in the "Edited Guide" is not as open as wikis, but is still too close to a wiki to be a reliable source. The h2g2 IPU (bbHhh) article was edited by "SchrEck Inc.", "a fake company that was founded in 1982"[2]. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-08t09:09z
    • More precisely, SchrEck Inc. was the Sub-Editor (see list of subbings, which includes the Invisible Pink Unicorn entry). Sub-Editor is a volunteer position. What several of us regard as crucial for WP:RS purposes is that, once an article has been subbed, it still will not appear in the Edited Guide unless and until it's approved by a BBC staff editor. JamesMLane t c 16:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I've looked very carefully at the links you provided, as well as at the other links discussed here and below. I agree with James that discussions often fail to distinguish between the edited and unedited versions. Although I see what you mean about "SchrEck Inc.," I do not think that they are the same thing as the BBC fact-checkers. Please see what I wrote below about the disclaimers from the BBC. I think the bottom line is that the BBC does vouch for this material, and it is RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite the lack of clarity about how the process works, the BBC does vouch for the accuracy of the material (see my comment below), and the source does satisfy RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC needs rewording[edit]

The wording of this RfC is misleading, as often happens when one side to a dispute prepares the RfC unilaterally. (This practice should be discouraged. RfC's should be drafted collaboratively when possible.)

The major problem is that the RfC refers without distinction to "content hosted on the h2g2 blog site". The Edited Guide on h2g is not a blog. Content is not "hosted" there any more than it is on the website of a major newspaper. WP:SELFPUB is totally inapplicable.

Here's what actually happens: A researcher creates an entry in the Guide (i.e., the unedited Guide). To have it considered for the Edited Guide, the researcher will post it in Peer Review, where anyone can comment, point out errors, suggest improvements, etc. Usually comments in Peer Review are made by people who have been published in the Edited Guide or who have some knowledge of the entry topic. The researcher who wrote the entry edits it in response to Peer Review feedback. It stays in Peer Review until a Scout selects it as potentially worthy of inclusion in the Edited Guide. It's assigned to a Sub-Editor for final polishing (sometimes in conjunction with the author, sometimes not). After all that reworking, it still doesn't get into the Edited Guide unless it's approved by an editor. The other people I've mentioned are volunteers but the editors (called "the Italics") are staff -- selected, hired, and paid by the BBC. If errors are discovered after the entry has been put into the Edited Guide, the Curators (another volunteer post) can make small corrections if the case has been proven, and there is the Update procedure for really big overhauls.

Content in the unedited (completely open) portion of h2g2 would generally not qualify as a reliable source, but the issue here is the Edited Guide. The provenance of material in the Edited Guide is not fundamentally different from the process by which material makes it into a typical newspaper (well, except that the Edited Guide probably offers more opportunities along the way for errors to be caught).

This RfC is meaningless unless limited to the Edited Guide.

As for the specific information in question here, it's been derided as "trivia", but arguably this whole article is trivia. It's about a nonexistent pseudo-religion that was created to criticize and/or mock established religions. In that context, references to the supposed Invisible Pink Unicorn are sometimes followed by "(bbhhh)", for "blessed be her holy hooves", or the like. These epithets recall, and are intended to satirize, the religious practice of adjoining epithets to the names of prophets, most famously Muhammad, whose name is written by some Muslims as "Muhammad (pbuh)". (See peace be upon him and Islam and veneration for Muhammad.) Reporting their use is proper encyclopedic content in an article about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, because these epithets are part of the mockery, which is the raison d'etre for the whole thing in the first place. JamesMLane t c 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I should know better than to get involved in this, but. I think the key issue here is the "editors." Without them, the process you describe would just be another wiki, and consequently not an RS. But if everything posted on the Edited Guide has to have been approved by, in effect, a professional editor, then I agree with you that this is, like the BBC itself, a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
And the key is professional editors who have a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Not just a random group of people who call themselves editors. And do you have any source to back your statements that what you are describing is indeed the process that we should believe your cliam in preference to the claim of earlier editor: "h2g2: not a reliable source at all - it's a combination of a blog and a joke encyclopedia (I used to edit there because Adams is my second favorite writer... -- Jeandré, 2008-10-14t21:34z"
-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand here: Could Jeandre have been referring to the unedited guide, in which case there is no discrepancy? If James is correct that the editors are hired by the BBC, then it seems to me that they are not some random group of people. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
this indicates that the "peer reivew" is simply other editors, which would make the site no more a reliable source than a featured wikipedia article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I looked at that link, and it appears to be about the unedited guide. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
As per my paragraph above on "Here's what actually happens", all articles on the Edited Guide go through Peer Review, along with many that remain in the unedited Guide. Peer Review is indeed review by other volunteers; the involvement of the professional editors comes later in the process. JamesMLane t c 00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
RedPen, your question (request for sources) is a good one -- so good that you might reasonably have posed it before beginning an RfC, especially an RfC that simply assumed the falsity of a point I had made in the pre-RfC discussion, and that assumed that falsity without citing any sources. Still, better late than never, I suppose. You'll find a description of the h2g2 Edited Guide process on this page within the h2g2 Help Page. It mentions the role of "the in-house Editorial Team". If you don't want to read that much detail about the process, you can check out this thread in The Forum at h2g2. After I gave a brief account of the h2g2 editorial process in the previous thread on this page I posted my explanation in the h2g2 Forum, to make sure I had it right. Some of the h2g2 veterans suggested improvements. (It turns out that I had Peer Review out of its proper chronological place.) What I posted in this thread is the improved version resulting from that conversation. You can also look at any h2g2 Guide Entry that's not in the Edited Guide -- such as this one -- and see, in the Disclaimer at the bottom: "The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a BBC editor."
If you want to see the Italics in action safeguarding the reliability of the Edited Guide content, see this thread. A researcher had written an entry that included dramatization of some events. One of the Italics weighed in with, "The problem we continue to have with this kind of entry is that it still has the feel of fiction; even if it does come from original research, we don't feel we can trust the evidence...." (See post #27 on the second page, and also post #30. The post was from Jimster, who at the time was one of the Italics and whose name therefore appeared italicized. He has since left the staff and re-registered as "Smij", which is why all his prior contributions now appear under that non-italicized name, but I assure you that at the time he was an on-staff editor.) Several h2g2 volunteers in the discussion urged that the entry be accepted for the Edited Guide. The author even objected (in post #43), "If this isn’t EG-fit, then you’re backing us into sterile Wikipedia territory." Despite this and other protestations, however, the editors held firm, and again rejected it; see post #82 on this page.
As for Jeandre, I'm inclined to agree wtih Tryptofish's suggestion. Every post I made here distinguished the reliability of the Edited Guide, not the whole of h2g2, but Jeandre may have overlooked that distinction. JamesMLane t c 00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I looked at the link to the IPU article in the Edited Guide provided by Jeandre at the end of the thread above. It says:

Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click here. For any other comments, please start a Conversation above.

On the one hand, the BBC is distancing itself from "views expressed" and from external sites linked to. On the other hand, unlike the disclaimer on unedited pages, there is nothing about "Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a BBC editor." It seems to me to follow, clearly, that the IPU article has been checked by a BBC editor. I think that does make it an RS. This is an awfully complicated process to follow, but I think that's the bottom line answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the entry is in the edited guide, I agree that it is a reliable source, per the observations made by Tryptofish and the links provided by JamesMLane. Also, the description given by JamesMLane about the process by which entries make it into the edited guide are backed up by the FAQ here, the process appears to involve peer review and review by paid BBC staff. As for the entry being triva, I've already expressed my opinion above that it is not so, that it provides important context about the beginings of the IPU religion. This whole conversation should probably be transcluded to WP:RSN, so that if the question comes up in the future, the distinction between the edited and unedited guide is made clear. LK (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything LK said. I want to add that, although I previously expressed the opinion that the material might be too trivial, I have changed my mind (that's what the opponents to including it get for opposing it so strongly!), although I still think we can keep the part about abbreviations brief. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is ridiculous and in this context citing h2g2 seems perfectly reasonable. Obviously if it were an article about a serious subject then h2g2 might not be considered a very reliable source. NBeale (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Invisible Pink External Links"[edit]

After attemping to load the external links on three browser engines, I think it's safe to say that the external links are not present to readers. I can't believe this uncyclopedic edit was allowed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Woops, you're right! That's funny! I guess there used to be some links, and they got deleted during a revision, but the section heading did not. I fixed it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Though a unicorn that is both pink and invisible may seem to be a paradox, it is not necessarily the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you did there. --Gwern (contribs) 22:30 25 October 2009 (GMT)
HA HA! "see." (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
May her holy hooves be blessed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Making the unicorn pink and visible and putting it on a similarly pink background only makes it camouflaged, not invisible. Try setting the alpha channel to 0. (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Additional effort not required to demonstrate the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This one is pink and truly invisible: unicorn.—Emil J. 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions & Inability to Disprove[edit]

In the second paragraph of the intro section it seems that the statement about the inability to disprove its existence should be moved into its own sentence, rather than the one about IPU being self-contradictory. The inability to disprove the existence of IPU really only depends on its invisibility (examples in the similar concepts section). Its pinkness & the contradiction of its pinkness with invisibility is unrelated to that part of the satire (well, actually the contradiction does make it disprovable Proof_by_contradiction).
Secondly, shouldn't the "what IPU proponents claim" be reworded? It's not just IPU proponents who claim that some properties given to some deities may be contradictory. (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

About your first point, I've modified the sentence in a way that I think addresses it. Does that work? About your second point, I cannot find that phrase in the current version of the page. I see another editor already fixed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


The idea that you all proposed was that you were going to create a sandbox version and then add material to get the article to include what had been in the pre sandboxed version with better refs. In other words this was a strip down version of the article. The sandbox version went up (which I objected to at the time) and not much has happened since then. I think the history speaks for itself the material wasn't added. The article has been dead for months. jbolden1517Talk 22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what you meant, here. I think we have a misunderstanding. The page is based on the sandbox version. See: [3]. There have been further edits since that one, but the basic idea of this version has not been controversial during the intervening time. I don't recollect that there was ever any statement that the sandbox version was going to be greatly expanded. In fact, the idea behind the sandbox version was to prune out material that was either unencyclopedic or inadequately sourced. The article is far from "dead". In fact, the quiet edit history over the past few months suggests that there is consensus for something like what we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
...and not dead, really. Just stable. This is a good thing. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor sources[edit]

This articles uses a number of sources that do not seem to meet WP:RS standards. I already removed a particularly blatant example of some nothing personal site saying something of no consequence, but much of the rest is iffy as well. A large number of statements are referenced to a book printed by iUniverse, which is a well known vanity press that will publish anything if you pay them to do so. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some fun goof page that includes anyhthing by anyone off the street. This article needs to be pared down to only information from noteworthy sources. DreamGuy (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You might do well to review the talk page. From my reading, most editors acknowledge that a treatise on IPU is unlikely to be published by Prentice Hall. The article's been trimmed to the bones and there's no more talk of Hawaiian pizza, etc. Why not leave well enough alone? --Belg4mit (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed notinsource tag following cite #3[edit]

I've removed the notinsource tag following cite #3 ("The IPU is used to argue that supernatural beliefs are arbitrary by, for example, replacing the word God in any theistic statement with Invisible Pink Unicorn.[3]") Check pages 5 onwards, 146 onwards, and other various pages in the book to see it is in the source (even if in a lot more wordy fashion). It actually requires reading pages 4 onwards, and pages 145 onwards for about 3 pages each. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Scientific fallacy?[edit]

It should be noted, somewhere, that it is impossible for any creature to be both pink and invisible.

"Unicorns" would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think this is so obvious that it really is already clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It should be called the stuttering, mute, hornless, invisible pink unicorn. --Shabidoo | Talk 06:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is supposed to be taken as seriously as the 'Buttered cat paradox'. (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is actually no "pink" wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, and therefore no such thing as pink light. The color pink is a manifestation of a quirk in human visual processing. The color pink does not exist in objective physical reality, only in the mind's eye, which if anything proves all the more the true metaphysical nature of the Invisible Pink Unicorn 2001:558:6006:28:2077:F8B9:EB08:452C (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Professor Troy's Oxymoron[edit]

I am removing comments under criticism regarding Prof Troy, as it does not agree with source: Source says:"All those shedding these crocodile tears mourning Egypt’s lost “democracy” forget that “totalitarian democracies” are a political variation of what kids today call “invisible pink unicorns” – an oxymoron; the color of the beast is irrelevant because the creature doesn’t exist." ie Not that colour and invisibility are incompatible, but that colour and non-existance are incompatible. All the professor is saying is that he does not believe in the IPU, which, as far as criticism goes, is non-notable.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed Shabidoo | Talk 16:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invisible Pink Unicorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Typo in the date of the reveal?[edit]

The article states the IPU was revealed on July 7, 1990, but looking up the usenet post, it seems to be on July 17, 1990, in US timezones. Can someone confirm this?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invisible Pink Unicorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)