Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn

message: 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...
::81.183.125.23 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky, the Creator? 

message: 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 86.177.213.169 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The "Invisible Pink External Links" 

message: 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.173.26.228.48 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradictions & Inability to Disprove 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining what you meant, here. I think we have a misunderstanding. The page is based on the sandbox version. See: . 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)
replies: text: ...and not dead, really. Just stable. This is a good thing. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sandbox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Poor sources

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks good to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed notinsource tag following cite #3 

message: 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 140.254.60.38 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think this is so obvious that it really is already clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be called the stuttering, mute, hornless, invisible pink unicorn. --Shabidoo | Talk 06:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Scientific fallacy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with your edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed Shabidoo | Talk 16:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Troy's Oxymoron 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=godDelusion.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806082037/http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm to http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124080122/http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/ to http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should "she" in the passage from Genesis be capitalized as it would be for most gods/goddesses? IndigoGollum (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Our manual of style for pronouns of deities (MOS:GOD) say not to capitalize them. Woodroar (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of pronouns