Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yup, that looks good. --Harry R 18:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPU Atheist? 

message: 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? --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 03:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: They weren't removed via consensus, so just put them back on if it suits you. --Yath 03:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better right now without them, but I wouldn't mind a poll.  –Andre (talk)  04:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 00:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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.
#   Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   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)
thread_title:  Can we bring back the pictures of the IPU? 

message: ==== 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. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 00:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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.
#   Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   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)
thread_title:  Poll on presence of San Juan pic (4/8) 

message: : 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. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 00:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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.
#   Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   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)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: # Aris Katsaris 23:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete