User talk:EdibleKarma/Invisible Pink Unicorn Sandbox

This is a subpage of EdibleKarma's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Here's the draft combining the November 2008 version and the April 2009 version of the Invisible Pink Unicorn page. I think the remains of the Dogma section - specifically the reasoning behind the creation of the IPU argument, and the Carl Sagan note - should be incorporated into some other section of the article… they seem a little out of place where they are. EdibleKarma (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is substantially shorter than the November 2008 version. You sure you combined prior to the mass deletions? jbolden1517 ^Talk 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old version I used is here. There were a few paragraphs I removed, and some paragraphs I swapped for similar ones from the current article. All of those changes are, of course, up for debate. EdibleKarma (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK well the Cast version is much longer. Something large is missing. I won't be available much between now and Tuesday but if you haven't found it, I'll try and figure out what is missing. But Cast is a reasonable baseline IMHO. jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cast version is now (I'm pretty sure) all in the article source code, I've commented out the sections that I removed, and marked each paragraph as either new or old and as hidden or kept. It might be a little hard to read for editing at this time, but all the material from the 04/09 and the 11/08 versions should be in there somewhere. EdibleKarma (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK good we have agreement on the Sandbox version, that represents November! Now moving on, can you explain your rationale for the deletions of the theology material, for example whether the IPU is visible to the faithful or has an opponent. I think all this material could get combined into a single "mock theology" section but it should be included. Ultimately what separates IPU from Russel's teapot is the elaborate mock theology putting it half way in between Russel's Teapot and Church of the Subgenius. Without some discussion of the mock theology we lose the whole feel of the topic. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point on the distinction between Russell's Teapot and the IPU. My issue is - being fairly unfamiliar with the Internet culture surrounding the IPU - I don't know how well associated the IPU's mock theology is with the IPU. Are most people familiar with the IPU also aware of the Purple Osyter (for example)? Also I think that these sections are likely where some of the contention surrounding "reliable sources" arose. Citing Usenet when discussing the creation of the meme seems to be on pretty solid ground, but with the mock theology material it's hard to tell whether or not people are just making stuff up (…?).

Anyways, if the mock theology is going to be incorporated into the article it should probably be better sourced (if possible), but I think that the creation of a Mock Theology section is a better idea than having the material split between the Dogma and History sections. I will add the new section (at some point) since this is a sandbox, the inclusion of the mock theology material can maybe be raised as a separate issue if we ever feel the need for an RfC. EdibleKarma (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let me repeat this back making it a bit more specific.

History contains actual history and actual dates. It also indicates this whole meme was born on alt.atheism (with refs from mainstream source for that0
Dogma is renamed to "mock theology"
the content about IPU gets put in "mock theology" with refs (and we tag what we can't with citation needed). In this section we can use alt.atheism
In the intro we give a sentence or two explaining the difference between Russel's teapot and IPU (one is single point analogy the other a collection of related analogies).

Is that correct? jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the Mock Theology section meets with approval those are the changes that should be made, yes. Since during my absence the IPU article was updated with the Mock Theology-less sandbox version I will make the above changes here and refer to the sandbox on the IPU's talk page again. (Also, please forgive the lateness of my reply) EdibleKarma (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the Mock Theology section and added in a lot of the old paragraphs, some of it might be a bit redundant or unnecessary, and on the other hand I may have missed something. Anyway, the introductory sentence making the distinction between the IPU, Russel's teapot, and the Church of the SubGenius still needs to be written (I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it, so feel free to add one in). EdibleKarma (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]