Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn

3714:

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

3950:, 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 Knowledge territory." Despite this and other protestations, however, the editors held firm, and again rejected it; see post #82 2244:, 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. -- 3539:- 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 4376:. 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. -- 2235:. 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 3051:

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.

227: 2723:. 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. 540: 519: 491: 1165: 1110: 1092: 3418:- 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 "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. 992: 2294:

and speaking only from the standpoint of what is acceptable for inclusion in Knowledge, 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.

1002: 971: 2938:

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

2877:

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. --

3381:. It is also worth noting that user-generated wikis, including those with controls similar to h2g2, have been consistantly rejected as reliable sources as a general rule. I do not see an sufficiently overwhelming reason to ignore the rule in this instance. The Invisble Pink Unicorn (bless her colorful unseen glory) is reasonably well-covered in reliable sources, who determine 335: 393: 366: 403: 3531:

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

1376:"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. -- 1514:. 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 Knowledge 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 3942:. 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 1994:

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.

4608:

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.

4419:

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

4073:

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

3786:

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

3530:

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 Knowledge (but for registered members who can be anyone). Their 'Edited Article' can probably be equated to our 'Featured Articles', but that still makes

3068:

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

2876:

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,

1993:

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

1890:

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.

1700:

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.

1361:

4310:

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

4008:

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

3116:

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

2553:

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

2017:

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

1483:

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

4607:

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” –

3050:

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

2375:

More recent additions to the list of atheist gods are: Maeve - catgod of The Church of Last Thursday (the universe was created last Thursday and all memories of things happening before this were placed in our minds. Can you prove otherwise?), Nirfur - the catgod of All Things Yellow & Fuzzy and

1997:

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

1889:

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

4586:

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

3728:

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

3162:

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

2937:

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

2293:

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

2222:

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

1580:

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.

1445:

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

4055:, 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 3912:

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

3713:

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

3651:

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

3403:

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

2534:

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

2322:

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

4456:

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.") Check pages 5 onwards, 146 onwards, and other various pages in the book to see it

3767:

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

1345:

Returned the material cited to printed books. And the full context of your quote: "Knowledge 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

4356:

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

3721:

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

1960:

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

1400:

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

1330:

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

2082:

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

2367:

So, some atheists will instead respond with some preaching of their own. There are a number of suitable deities available. J.R. "Bob" Dobbs is popular with SubGenius atheists, and the goddess Eris is popular with Discordians. But alt.atheism also has its own deity: The Invisible Pink Unicorn

3857:

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.

3290:

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

2352:

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:

3899:

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

3221:

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? --

1350:. " 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.-- 2987:. (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? 3601:

h2g2 entries in the "Edited Guide" are much more stable than Knowledge articles, but usually of a much lower quality than Knowledge'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

2181:

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."

4435:

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?

2371:

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.

2239:

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

1401:

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

2638:

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.

3812:

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.

2858:

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.

2001:

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.

2477:

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

3921:-- 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." 3718:. 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. 1824:: 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. 1284:

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

4420:

if you pay them to do so. Knowledge 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.

3579:

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.

2685:

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

2379:

The point of this silliness is to prod the theist into remembering that their preaching is likely to be viewed by atheists as having all the credibility and seriousness of their preaching about the IPU and various catgods.

153: 1315:" (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 1933:. 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. 3971:

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.

3479: 3370: 4311:(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 2202:

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

3031:

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.

3698:

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.)

2051:

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)

2544:

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.

688: 1258:

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, www.pinkunicorn.net, etc. Please edit something else

4091:

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.

3503: 3374: 3242:

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.

2018:

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? --

3266:

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. --

4111:

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!

3729:

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

2364:

Some times theists get carried away, and begin preaching. As pointed out elsewhere, preaching is not appreciated on alt.atheism. On the other hand, flame wars over preaching aren't much fun either.

1606:

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.

3438:

editor mentions h2g2, saying, "You are adding sources which are basically self-published it seems, ... and the BBC's h2g2 is certainly not, it's more or less a Wiki where anyone can contribute."

2670:. 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. 3527: 3378: 2624:

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.

4588: 2596:

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. --

3652:

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. --

3431: 3362: 4020:, 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 1472:. 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). -- 4967: 4512:"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. 305: 2258:

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

1610:

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

2376:

my very own catgods Si & Am who reside near The Great Litterbox In The Sky (evildoers are placed head down in the more pungent sections). (Lots of atheists like cats, y'see.)

2548:

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.

2131:

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...

1484:

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

147: 4972: 5007: 2036:

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? --

4357:

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.

4317:

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.

3451: 3415: 3366: 3358: 4962: 4133:

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. --

424:

on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

3904:

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

3745:.) 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 2667: 2516: 1961:

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.

1126: 912:

needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.

3010:" 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... -- 2568:

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".

4846: 4842: 4828: 4724: 4720: 4706: 3789:"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... -- 2446:

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. --

44: 5002: 4243:

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.

4024:

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. --

2535:

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:

700: 1398:

Again, RedPen, your claims have been challenged here by two independent contributors, don't just revert others edits while this discussion is taking place.

4957: 461: 451: 1117: 1097: 857: 79: 3486:

reviewer notes a link to h2g2 and says, "it is not a reliable source (also, ... any other h2g2 sites that may be there). It is a wiki." The link is to

3163:

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.

1782:: 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). 4461:

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,

3571:. If the latter, I'd agree with discounting h2g2 references. The Edited Guide should be considered reliable, because the staff editors can keep junk 4992: 3628:

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.

1074: 1064: 1028: 498: 376: 3069:

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.--

4982: 3832:

indicates that the "peer reivew" is simply other editors, which would make the site no more a reliable source than a featured wikipedia article. --

2538:

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.

832: 631: 590: 580: 637: 1944:

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. --

4997: 1507: 850: 764: 2554:

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. --

2754: 1191: 1186: 1181: 426: 198: 194: 190: 85: 1599:

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 Knowledge is

4952: 4223: 4118: 2844:

As I recollect, that was part of the process leading to the "sandbox version" discussed under November 2008 version, above in this talk. --

2693:

The sandbox version is much better and an inclusion of the original, completely invisible picture of the unicorn would make it perfect. --

1603:

a place for you to come for a lighthearted joke. There are other sites whose mission is to entertain you, but Knowledge is an encyclopedia.

1416: 1271: 1036: 2726:

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?

4572: 4522: 4478: 4318: 2735: 2435:

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.

792: 778: 693: 626: 253: 2757:

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.

4987: 4244: 4203: 2308:

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. --

621: 556: 248: 3117:

just found has "a proven track record of reliability". Absent evidence of that, you would conclude that the source was not reliable.

1653:

of the sections removed were simply uncontroversial examples of "believer" activity and were appropriately sourced for their claims.

168: 4977: 4824:

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

4702:

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

4692: 4592: 3742: 2807: 3996:(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: 3624:, which includes the Invisible Pink Unicorn entry). Sub-Editor is a volunteer position. What several of us regard as crucial for 3490:

but the statement "It is a wiki" is incorrect. (Actually, not even the unedited Guide is a wiki.) No other editor discusses h2g2.

2963:

I don't know whether citing to h2g2 has ever been formally considered by Knowledge. For what it's worth, the list of links to the

2405:

Huh? Before counting me as a vote, I'd like an opportunity to see and react to a draft version, as EdibleKarma already proposed. --

135: 4009:

this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click here. For any other comments, please start a Conversation above.

2096:

When the Invisible Pink Unicorn makes usenet entries about herself, then we can use those under the primary source guidelines. --

3980: 3866: 3757: 3636: 3588: 3319: 3171: 3059: 2995: 2867: 2834: 1246:. The personal web pages and the blog/forum at h2g2 are not sources that have a reputation for reliability and fact checking. -- 1032: 416: 371: 4332:

About your first point, I've modified the sentence in a way that I think addresses it. Does that work? About your second point,

2223:

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

2078:

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.

4947: 244: 99: 30: 3234:

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

2984: 1040: 1016: 976: 665: 104: 20: 4016:

On the one hand, the BBC is distancing itself from "views expressed" and from external sites linked to. On the other hand,

2942:

reliable than when a writer submits a story to a magazine or newspaper, and it's published after review by a single editor.

3514:(which is to an Edited Guide entry) and says only, "h2g2 isn't really a reliable source." No other editor addresses h2g2. 2383: 796: 771: 745: 648: 609: 547: 524: 74: 2358: 1533:, notable enough to have a wiki entry. No, it doesn't imply notability of the book, but the publishing house is notable. 1280:

I'm (mostly) with Raven here. Even WP:RS admits that "ow reliable a source is depends on context". Usenet and blog posts

4889: 4767: 3951: 3943: 3794: 3614: 3015: 1864: 807: 346: 129: 4059:, so that if the question comes up in the future, the distinction between the edited and unedited guide is made clear. 3158:

What I pointed out, in response, was that such a procedure would not be appropriate. We typically rely on the general

1331:

caliber, true, but that's why WP:RS clearly states that less-than-stellar sources can be appropriate for some claims.

4189: 2794:".] These epithets recall, and are intended to satirize, the religious practice of adjoining epithets to the names of 2541:

In the "formerly dogma" section, I would delete the first of the two paragraphs. It's redundant, and doesn't add much.

2486: 1426:

Show me anywhere in our policies or guidelines where it states that articles about internet memes are exempt from our

800: 670: 65: 4814: 1289:

here, but I think you're going overboard by requiring that every statement be backed up by a peer-reviewed journal.

2515:

I see that the old version of the article has been (temporarily) reinstated; regardless, the sandbox draft is here:

1460:

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

185: 125: 226: 3833: 3802: 3267: 3223: 3185: 3070: 3021: 2907: 2447: 2263: 2212: 2151: 2097: 2060: 2037: 1977: 1945: 1915: 1914:. If you think community consensus supports an exception, go to the WP:V talk page and suggest such a change. -- 1871: 1615: 1548: 1519: 1473: 1468:

secondary source that gives context meaning analysis specifically to that quote, the quote itself is essentially

1435: 1377: 1351: 1320: 1247: 642: 4845:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4782:

The article states the IPU was revealed on July 7, 1990, but looking up the usenet post, it seems to be on July

4723:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3454:- One editor refers to "user-written content here on the BBC site" and says it "doesn't appear to be a reliable 1203: 207: 4613: 4227: 3722:(well, except that the Edited Guide probably offers more opportunities along the way for errors to be caught). 1412: 1267: 653: 4122: 3046:

Tryptofish, I disagree, but if it's OK with you I'd rather defer that discussion so we can concentrate on the

175: 4576: 4526: 4322: 3895:

RedPen, your question (request for sources) is a good one -- so good that you might reasonably have posed it

4909: 4880: 4806: 4758: 4670: 4248: 4207: 3790: 3610: 3462:

part of the Edited Guide). The only response is an unsigned comment, "I think this is explained clearly at

3011: 2739: 1860: 659: 238: 109: 4039:

Since the entry is in the edited guide, I agree that it is a reliable source, per the observations made by

1649:, there is a whole section on using self-published and questionable sources where appropriate. I feel that 1547:

After reviewing links, the books appear reliable enough for me for the material that they are sourcing. --

243:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the 4802: 4798: 4666: 4662: 4312: 4064: 3554:

The fact is that this thread has much more useful information and analysis than all these others combined.

3335: 3296: 895: 24: 3702:

The major problem is that the RfC refers without distinction to "content hosted on the h2g2 blog site".

4864:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4852: 4742:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4730: 4361: 2980: 2675: 2629: 2573: 2524: 2439: 2393: 2328: 2299: 2135: 2087: 2007: 1965: 1937: 1894: 352: 4905: 4805:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4669:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3938:

If you want to see the Italics in action safeguarding the reliability of the Edited Guide content, see

4686: 4628: 4568: 4542: 4518: 4509:

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

4494: 4381: 4341: 4219: 4138: 4114: 4079: 4029: 3977: 3863: 3848: 3818: 3773: 3754: 3683: 3657: 3633: 3585: 3316: 3248: 3168: 3056: 3037: 2992: 2882: 2864: 2849: 2831: 2720: 2644: 2615: 2601: 2587: 2559: 2410: 2313: 2278: 2249: 2187: 2023: 1706: 1658: 1367: 1336: 1294: 2780:

Epithets to the name of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in jocular discourse usually follow in brackets:

334: 141: 4609: 3184:. But, I have begun a formal request for comment to see what the consensus of the community is. -- 1870:

Since no one has disputed the above analysis of sources, they have been applied to the article. --

1758: 1408: 1263: 817:

by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

758: 161: 55: 2758: 1125:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

555:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4928: 4693:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110806082037/http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

4680: 4642: 4556: 4463: 4441: 4425: 4271: 4175: 3390: 2273:

To repeat what I said: "Challenge by one editor does not always mean likely to be challenged." --

2128: 1582: 1489: 1447: 1209: 931: 676: 212: 70: 4904:

Should "she" in the passage from Genesis be capitalized as it would be for most gods/goddesses?

4849:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4727:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4865: 4743: 3905: 2826:. My Yahoo! search for "blessed be her holy hooves" -wikipedia returned more than 2,000 hits. 1446:

identity if it comes to that. Is a primary source confirmation 'verifiable' enough for you? --

4395: 4060: 3738: 3707: 3308: 3292: 3287: 3239: 2803: 2762: 2698: 1930: 1642: 1634: 1515: 408: 51: 4617: 3829: 4358: 4097: 2903: 2671: 2625: 2569: 2520: 2436: 2390: 2324: 2295: 2259: 2132: 2084: 2003: 1962: 1934: 1891: 1637:

says, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and

1586: 1563: 1538: 1493: 1451: 1205: 1164: 1122: 943: 814: 209: 4872: 4750: 3404:"self-published" or a wiki and displaying no knowledge of how the Edited Guide is compiled. 806:

Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see

761:

to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.

4624: 4538: 4490: 4377: 4337: 4294: 4186: 4134: 4075: 4051:

about the process by which entries make it into the edited guide are backed up by the FAQ

4048: 4044: 4040: 4025: 3973: 3859: 3844: 3814: 3769: 3750: 3679: 3653: 3629: 3581: 3532: 3382: 3312: 3244: 3217:

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

3164: 3052: 3033: 2988: 2896: 2878: 2860: 2845: 2827: 2640: 2611: 2597: 2583: 2555: 2483: 2406: 2309: 2274: 2245: 2183: 2019: 1973: 1702: 1654: 1363: 1332: 1290: 1007: 4696: 4369:

Thanks for explaining what you meant, here. I think we have a misunderstanding. The page

3939: 3706:

Content is not "hosted" there any more than it is on the website of a major newspaper.

3357:

as a valid source. For other examples of it being considered inappropriate as a source:

2433:

Usenet or h2g2 when chronicling the creation of a Usenet and h2g2 meme seems acceptable

4831:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4709:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3606:(bbHhh) article was edited by "SchrEck Inc.", "a fake company that was founded in 1982" 1511: 1461: 828: 749: 4871:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4749:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3843:

I'm not sure. I looked at that link, and it appears to be about the unedited guide. --

3768:

editor, then I agree with you that this is, like the BBC itself, a reliable source. --

539: 518: 490: 4941: 4924: 4638: 4552: 4437: 4421: 4258: 4162: 4056: 3909: 3908:

in The Forum at h2g2. After I gave a brief account of the h2g2 editorial process in

3386: 3354: 3283: 1611: 1607: 1600: 1286: 919: 909: 838:

Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating

3901: 4416: 4391: 4052: 3625: 3564: 3463: 3263: 3181: 3047: 3005: 2899: 2892: 2819: 2729:

It would be good if somebody could check this example in the original 1957 book...

2716: 2694: 2232: 2228: 2208: 2204: 2147: 2143: 2056: 1907: 1903: 1646: 1503: 1469: 1465: 1431: 1316: 1239: 915: 843: 4932: 4913: 4894: 4815:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101124080122/http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/

4772: 4645: 4632: 4596: 4580: 4559: 4546: 4530: 4498: 4483: 4445: 4429: 4399: 4385: 4363: 4345: 4326: 4297: 4275: 4252: 4231: 4211: 4179: 4142: 4126: 4101: 4083: 4068: 4033: 3984: 3870: 3852: 3838: 3822: 3807: 3777: 3761: 3687: 3661: 3640: 3592: 3394: 3340: 3300: 3272: 3252: 3228: 3190: 3175: 3075: 3063: 3041: 3026: 2999: 2912: 2886: 2871: 2853: 2838: 2766: 2743: 2702: 2679: 2648: 2633: 2619: 2605: 2591: 2577: 2563: 2528: 2452: 2441: 2414: 2395: 2332: 2317: 2303: 2282: 2268: 2253: 2217: 2191: 2156: 2137: 2102: 2089: 2065: 2042: 2027: 2011: 1982: 1967: 1950: 1939: 1920: 1896: 1876: 1710: 1662: 1620: 1590: 1567: 1553: 1542: 1524: 1506:. Here are two places that you can start if you do wish to verify your identity: 1497: 1478: 1455: 1440: 1420: 1382: 1371: 1356: 1340: 1325: 1307:

for any article. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for

1298: 1275: 1252: 1207: 211: 3563:

As for the unspecified AfD mentions, I don't know if they were in the context of

1641:: exceptional claims require high-quality sources" (emphasis mine). Later, under 4838: 4716: 4093: 3568: 3455: 3291:

acceptable. It would be better if other external sources were provided as well.

2976: 2968: 2224: 1911: 1626: 1596: 1559: 1558:

Thanks. You are right though, the selfpub and newsgroup sources aren't sources.

1534: 1427: 1304: 1243: 1109: 1091: 872: 1001: 4837:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4715:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4551:

It should be called the stuttering, mute, hornless, invisible pink unicorn. --

4291: 4193: 3674:

vouch for the accuracy of the material (see my comment below), and the source

3536: 2972: 2814:

Why was it removed? I see some edit summaries (for other edits) arguing that

1701:(Of course, that's obviously not true since you removed them, but whatever.) 1362:(Of course, that's obviously not true since you removed them, but whatever.) 997: 421: 398: 3452:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 28#BBC self-published content?

3367:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 28#BBC self-published content?

3180:

In answer to your question, No I do not consider content in h2g2 to meet our

2933:

To keep things manageable, let's start with RS. The Edited Guide in h2g2 is

1595:

There are a lot of things that are "anecdotal by ... nature" and Knowledge's

2792:, which in turn are often shortened to bbhhh, pbuh, or mhhnbs respectively. 1530: 991: 970: 839: 3603: 3540: 2823: 4818: 3918: 3511: 3487: 2262:

of the person wishing to add or return material to provide the source. --

2198:

The claim that deletions were made "by one lone editor" is not true - see

1027:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 608:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the

3734: 3621: 3607: 2799: 1629:

differently, but I believe that policy allows for sources of this nature

1023: 2967:

article readily yielded other articles citing it as a source, including

2431:

He gave. I gave others gave it 2 years ago. To quote his latest post:

1729:: what is this referencing? There's no page number or entry description. 4920: 3730: 3331:

According to JamesMLane's information below, it should be considered a

2818:

is not a reliable source, but I think the Edited Guide qualifies under

2795: 1810:: this isn't a bad source, a fluffy ad written as an article, but okay. 937: 552: 420:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to 3480:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Lincolnshire, Illinois/archive1

3371:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Lincolnshire, Illinois/archive1

4587:

the more the true metaphysical nature of the Invisible Pink Unicorn

4537:

I would think this is so obvious that it really is already clear. --

2362:

The IPU is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves).

1434:

guidelines, and then I will believe that I "fail to understand". --

602:

For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

392: 365: 4687:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=godDelusion.php

3737:, whose name is written by some Muslims as "Muhammad (pbuh)". (See 3432:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive506#User:EEMIV

3363:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive506#User:EEMIV

2490: 3670:

Despite the lack of clarity about how the process works, the BBC

3504:

Knowledge:Peer review/Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/archive3

3375:

Knowledge:Peer review/Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/archive3

2323:

section that I feel should be kept, I'll look into that as well.

1974:

What non-notable people think about a subject is non-encyclopedic

4415:

This articles uses a number of sources that do not seem to meet

4196: 2964: 2815: 2493: 2055:

Material based on usenet as a source is clearly not acceptable.

1910:. There is no exception for "internet memes" from our policy of 946:

defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

3434:- In a discussion at AN/I that's primarily about user conduct, 3311:

is inapplicable, for reasons explained in the subthread below.

3715: 2355: 1743:: if the publisher is trusted, these 2 mentions would be good. 1210: 1158: 328: 213: 15: 4334:

I cannot find that phrase in the current version of the page.

4390:...and not dead, really. Just stable. This is a good thing. 3725:

This RfC is meaningless unless limited to the Edited Guide.

489: 247:. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be 3528:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Alien (film)/archive1

3379:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Alien (film)/archive1

1845:: this seems dicey to what it's supposed to be referencing. 4809:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

4673:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

4257:

Additional effort not required to demonstrate the point.--

791:

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see

1750:: Usenet group FAQ - like a personal page, blog, or wiki. 2719:

gives an example of a non-stimulated phrase in his book

4374: 733: 728: 723: 718: 283: 4697:

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

3416:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#H2G2

3359:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#H2G2

2772:

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

160: 3620:

More precisely, SchrEck Inc. was the Sub-Editor (see

1859:+ = fine once notability is establisehd thru RSs. -- 4786:

7, 1990, in US timezones. Can someone confirm this?

1121:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 551:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 257:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

4841:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4719:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3307:The material is appropriate and properly sourced. 2519:. I've left a note on the talk page there as well. 2200:

Talk:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn#Looking_at_the_sources.

472: 4161:to be a paradox, it is not necessarily the case.-- 2666:I've made some alterations to the sandbox version 1853:x = not a reliable, published, third party source. 1346:authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. 842:, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see 827:Find sources for all positions of an article (see 4567:It is supposed to be taken as seriously as the ' 4452:I have removed notinsource tag following cite #3 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2517:User:EdibleKarma/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Sandbox 2127:Things don't have to contribute to wikipedia. 1021:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 813:Ensure atheism-related articles are members of 4968:Low-importance philosophy of religion articles 4827:This message was posted before February 2018. 4705:This message was posted before February 2018. 2776:The article formerly included this paragraph: 4919:Our manual of style for pronouns of deities ( 1529:In any case, the Sunday School guide is from 1502:"all over the web" is not a reliable source: 174: 8: 2199: 1311:or likely to be challenged, or the material 1736:: the books.goog page is not loading for me 1348:How reliable a source is depends on context 701:Articles recently added to Category:Atheism 4973:Philosophy of religion task force articles 4797:I have just modified one external link on 4661:I have just modified one external link on 4306:Contradictions & Inability to Disprove 2715:We learned at school that famous linguist 1135:Knowledge:WikiProject Fictional characters 1086: 965: 598: 513: 469: 360: 262: 221: 5008:WikiProject Fictional characters articles 4336:I see another editor already fixed it. -- 3913:also look at any h2g2 Guide Entry that's 3749:for the whole thing in the first place. 2144:reputation for fact checking and accuracy 1138:Template:WikiProject Fictional characters 3946:, and also post #30. The post was from 1639:should be appropriate to the claims made 4963:C-Class philosophy of religion articles 4819:http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/ 4018:unlike the disclaimer on unedited pages 3383:what we should cover and to what degree 1902:It was an editorial and personal essay 1727:Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy 1088: 967: 515: 362: 332: 4286:This one is pink and truly invisible: 3704:The Edited Guide on h2g is not a blog. 3353:. h2g2 has been regularly rejected at 2582:I agree, that would be even better. -- 1508:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 430:about philosophy content on Knowledge. 2755:colorless green ideas sleep furiously 7: 5003:C-Class fictional character articles 4589:2001:558:6006:28:2077:F8B9:EB08:452C 4157:that is both pink and invisible may 3482:- In a Featured Article assessment, 1614:which you would like to improve. -- 1115:This article is within the scope of 1013:This article is within the scope of 632:Links to atheism-related information 545:This article is within the scope of 414:This article is within the scope of 4373:based on the sandbox version. See: 4107:The "Invisible Pink External Links" 1226:: Please place new sections at the 351:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 4958:Low-importance Philosophy articles 3575:, but they don't decide what goes 3543:. No other editor mentioned h2g2. 3458:" (linking a page on h2g2 that is 14: 4801:. Please take a moment to review 4665:. Please take a moment to review 4216:May her holy hooves be blessed! 4047:. Also, the description given by 3743:Islam and veneration for Muhammad 2808:Islam and veneration for Muhammad 4993:Low-importance Religion articles 3910:the previous thread on this page 2906:has no place in the article. -- 2753:Well, Chomsky did originate the 1163: 1118:WikiProject Fictional characters 1108: 1090: 1000: 990: 969: 851:list of atheism-related articles 538: 517: 436:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy 401: 391: 364: 333: 225: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 4983:Low-importance Atheism articles 4778:Typo in the date of the reveal? 3917:in the Edited Guide -- such as 1518:and not a reliable source.) -- 1309:any material that is challenged 1069:This article has been rated as 585:This article has been rated as 456:This article has been rated as 439:Template:WikiProject Philosophy 4923:) say not to capitalize them. 3006:for fact checking and accuracy 2985:All your base are belong to us 1049:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 1: 4998:WikiProject Religion articles 4773:00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC) 4597:14:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4581:22:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 4560:06:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 4346:15:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 4327:20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC) 4276:07:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) 4253:21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 4232:21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC) 4212:21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 3008:? No. (see the comment above 2767:04:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 1877:17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 1775:: first known Usenet mention. 1129:and see a list of open tasks. 1052:Template:WikiProject Religion 638:List of free online resources 565:Knowledge:WikiProject Atheism 559:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 4895:14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC) 4547:23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 4531:19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 4400:12:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 4298:15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC) 4185:I see what you did there. -- 3004:Does h2g2 have a reputation 2790:May Her Hooves Never Be Shod 1796:: not pink, article link 404 1711:18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1663:19:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 1621:12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 1591:06:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 1576:..." You're no longer even 1568:06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1554:05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1543:04:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1525:04:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1498:04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1479:03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1456:03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1441:20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1421:19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1383:18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1372:18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1357:11:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1341:10:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1326:21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1299:20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1276:20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1253:20:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1141:fictional character articles 884:Articles on notable atheists 568:Template:WikiProject Atheism 4953:C-Class Philosophy articles 4499:22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 4484:18:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 4386:23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 4364:22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 4180:02:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 4102:13:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4084:13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4069:07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2482:over basic common sense. -- 1838:: personal website, not RS. 1836:The Revelation of St. Bryce 1831:: personal website, not RS. 1803:: good source, not pink tho 1244:our policy of verifiability 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 5024: 4900:Capitalization of pronouns 4858:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4794:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4736:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4658:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4646:16:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 4633:21:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 4623:I agree with your edit. -- 4618:14:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 4143:17:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 4127:16:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 4043:and the links provided by 4034:16:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3985:00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3871:00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3853:00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3839:23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3823:23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3808:23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3778:15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3762:15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3688:16:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3662:16:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3641:16:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3593:08:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3395:06:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 3341:15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3301:10:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3273:12:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3253:08:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3229:02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3191:03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3182:reliable source guidelines 3176:02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3076:00:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 3064:18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 3042:18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 3027:03:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 3000:02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 2913:00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 2887:20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 2872:20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 2854:15:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 2839:14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 2782:Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves 1983:17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 1968:21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 1951:21:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 1940:21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 1921:21:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 1897:20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 1794:Camp: "It's Beyond Belief" 1766:A Call to Sanity Web Forum 1303:There is no exception for 1075:project's importance scale 922:: discuss whether you are 591:project's importance scale 462:project's importance scale 251:. Editors may also seek a 4988:C-Class Religion articles 4933:03:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 4914:02:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 4603:Professor Troy's Oxymoron 4446:02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC) 3710:is totally inapplicable. 2822:, and these epithets are 2703:09:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 1768:: web forum, now defunct. 1103: 1068: 985: 858:write for an encyclopedia 597: 584: 533: 497: 468: 455: 386: 359: 319: 291:Good article reassessment 265: 261: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 4978:C-Class Atheism articles 4602: 4430:23:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 2744:20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 2680:02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 2649:17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 2634:01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 2620:17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 2606:20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 2592:18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 2578:03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 1787:Veracity of Christianity 1631:in certain circumstances 1470:worthless to the article 1039:standards, or visit the 746:Join WikiProject atheism 622:Project's main talk page 4790:External links modified 4654:External links modified 2904:non-encyclopedic trivia 2564:21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2529:19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2453:03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2442:02:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2415:00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2396:00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2333:23:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2318:22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2304:22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2283:16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2269:23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2254:18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2242:likely to be challenged 2218:17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2192:16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2157:00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2138:19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2103:17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2090:13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2066:02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2043:22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 2028:22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 2012:21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 1822:The Dragon In My Garage 1687:Looking at the sources. 1581:Lighten up a little. -- 853:and add to accordingly. 666:About original research 473:Associated task forces: 4948:Delisted good articles 4799:Invisible Pink Unicorn 4663:Invisible Pink Unicorn 4313:Proof_by_contradiction 2812: 936:Clarify references in 643:Writing about religion 499:Philosophy of religion 494: 417:WikiProject Philosophy 341:This article is rated 233:Invisible Pink Unicorn 75:avoid personal attacks 25:Invisible Pink Unicorn 3617:), 2009-08-08t09:09z 3488:an Edited Guide entry 2981:Madonna (entertainer) 2778: 2711:Chomsky, the Creator? 2142:Physics books have a 1885:November 2008 version 1829:Fall & Redemption 797:"The perfect article" 694:the "Atheism" article 493: 322:Delisted good article 306:Articles for deletion 245:good article criteria 100:Neutral point of view 4839:regular verification 4717:regular verification 4569:Buttered cat paradox 4489:Looks good to me. -- 3506:- In a peer review, 2893:not reliable sources 2721:Syntactic_Structures 1989:Call for a consensus 1929:Actually there is: 1856:RS = reliable source 1625:Maybe we're reading 1597:verifiability policy 1132:Fictional characters 1123:fictional characters 1098:Fictional characters 1017:WikiProject Religion 105:No original research 4829:After February 2018 4707:After February 2018 4505:Scientific fallacy? 3835:The Red Pen of Doom 3804:The Red Pen of Doom 3694:RfC needs rewording 3541:the challenged link 3269:The Red Pen of Doom 3225:The Red Pen of Doom 3187:The Red Pen of Doom 3072:The Red Pen of Doom 3023:The Red Pen of Doom 2909:The Red Pen of Doom 2449:The Red Pen of Doom 2265:The Red Pen of Doom 2214:The Red Pen of Doom 2153:The Red Pen of Doom 2148:Usenet posts do not 2099:The Red Pen of Doom 2062:The Red Pen of Doom 2039:The Red Pen of Doom 1998:is better sourced. 1979:The Red Pen of Doom 1947:The Red Pen of Doom 1917:The Red Pen of Doom 1873:The Red Pen of Doom 1741:Like Rolling Uphill 1617:The Red Pen of Doom 1550:The Red Pen of Doom 1521:The Red Pen of Doom 1475:The Red Pen of Doom 1437:The Red Pen of Doom 1379:The Red Pen of Doom 1353:The Red Pen of Doom 1322:The Red Pen of Doom 1287:assuming good faith 1249:The Red Pen of Doom 903:Immediate attention 867:Articles to improve 777:Help out with this 649:Article development 548:WikiProject Atheism 442:Philosophy articles 4883:InternetArchiveBot 4834:InternetArchiveBot 4761:InternetArchiveBot 4712:InternetArchiveBot 2891:No. Content from 2746:(DJS from Hungary) 2129:Special relativity 1789:: Usenet post sig. 1773:how about refuting 1488:deleting stuff. -- 1029:assess and improve 833:atheism references 765:Help with articles 495: 427:general discussion 347:content assessment 266:Article milestones 86:dispute resolution 47: 4859: 4737: 4521:comment added by 4482: 4472: 4468: 4222:comment added by 4117:comment added by 3983: 3869: 3760: 3739:peace be upon him 3639: 3591: 3322: 3238:". I think that 3174: 3062: 3019: 2998: 2900:original research 2870: 2837: 2804:peace be upon him 2786:Peace Be Unto Her 2388: 2387: 1612:about the article 1572:"Reliable enough 1216: 1215: 1197: 1196: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1080: 1055:Religion articles 1043:for more details. 964: 963: 960: 959: 956: 955: 952: 951: 822:Maintenance, etc. 801:Featured articles 770:See this month's 671:Assume good faith 660:Verifying sources 512: 511: 508: 507: 504: 503: 409:Philosophy portal 327: 326: 315: 314: 284:November 10, 2005 220: 219: 66:Assume good faith 43: 5015: 4893: 4884: 4857: 4856: 4835: 4771: 4762: 4735: 4734: 4713: 4684: 4533: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4289: 4268: 4263: 4234: 4172: 4167: 4156: 4129: 3976: 3862: 3836: 3805: 3753: 3733:, most famously 3632: 3622:list of subbings 3584: 3338: 3333:reliable source. 3315: 3270: 3226: 3188: 3167: 3073: 3055: 3024: 3009: 2991: 2910: 2897:non-encyclopedic 2863: 2830: 2798:, most famously 2450: 2356: 2266: 2215: 2154: 2100: 2083:consensus is. 2063: 2040: 1980: 1948: 1918: 1908:reliable sources 1874: 1801:The God Delusion 1757:: no quote, the 1755:A Call to Sanity 1618: 1551: 1522: 1476: 1438: 1380: 1354: 1323: 1250: 1240:Reliable sources 1234:Reliable Sources 1211: 1178: 1177: 1167: 1159: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1136: 1133: 1112: 1105: 1104: 1094: 1087: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1047: 1041:wikiproject page 1010: 1005: 1004: 994: 987: 986: 981: 973: 966: 944:Secular movement 940:using footnotes. 844:deletion process 772:adopt-an-article 709: 708: 599: 573: 572: 571:Atheism articles 569: 566: 563: 542: 535: 534: 529: 521: 514: 480: 470: 444: 443: 440: 437: 434: 411: 406: 405: 404: 395: 388: 387: 382: 379: 368: 361: 344: 338: 337: 329: 320:Current status: 286: 263: 229: 222: 214: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 5023: 5022: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5014: 5013: 5012: 4938: 4937: 4902: 4887: 4882: 4850: 4843:have permission 4833: 4807:this simple FaQ 4792: 4780: 4765: 4760: 4728: 4721:have permission 4711: 4678: 4671:this simple FaQ 4656: 4605: 4516: 4507: 4481: 4464: 4454: 4413: 4354: 4308: 4287: 4264: 4259: 4217: 4168: 4163: 4154: 4151: 4112: 4109: 3944:the second page 3834: 3803: 3782:And the key is 3696: 3533:Rotten Tomatoes 3336: 3323:15:22, 7 August 3268: 3224: 3219: 3186: 3071: 3022: 2908: 2774: 2713: 2513: 2511:Sandbox version 2448: 2264: 2213: 2152: 2098: 2061: 2038: 1991: 1978: 1946: 1916: 1887: 1872: 1748:alt.atheism FAQ 1734:Mapping Reality 1689: 1616: 1549: 1520: 1474: 1436: 1378: 1352: 1321: 1313:may be removed. 1248: 1236: 1221: 1212: 1206: 1172: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1008:Religion portal 1006: 999: 979: 896:an atheism stub 738: 706: 705: 683:Recent activity 570: 567: 564: 561: 560: 527: 478: 441: 438: 435: 432: 431: 407: 402: 400: 380: 374: 345:on Knowledge's 342: 301:August 16, 2006 282: 235:was one of the 216: 215: 210: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 5021: 5019: 5011: 5010: 5005: 5000: 4995: 4990: 4985: 4980: 4975: 4970: 4965: 4960: 4955: 4950: 4940: 4939: 4936: 4935: 4901: 4898: 4877: 4876: 4869: 4822: 4821: 4813:Added archive 4791: 4788: 4779: 4776: 4755: 4754: 4747: 4700: 4699: 4691:Added archive 4689: 4655: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4610:IdreamofJeanie 4604: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4506: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4477: 4453: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4412: 4409: 4407: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4353: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4316: 4307: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4224:217.85.210.184 4202:HA HA! "see." 4150: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4119:86.177.213.169 4108: 4105: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4005: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3799: 3695: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3678:satisfy RS. -- 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3512:this reference 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3398: 3397: 3346: 3344: 3343: 3325: 3324: 3304: 3303: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3256: 3255: 3218: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2773: 2770: 2752: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2688: 2687: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2542: 2539: 2512: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2386: 2385: 2382: 2360: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2031: 2030: 1990: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1924: 1923: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1857: 1854: 1849: 1847: 1846: 1843:Re: PROVE THAT 1839: 1832: 1825: 1818: 1811: 1808:Female Bonding 1804: 1797: 1790: 1783: 1776: 1769: 1762: 1751: 1744: 1737: 1730: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1604: 1570: 1512:Knowledge:OTRS 1464:and without a 1462:primary source 1409:Raven in Orbit 1406: 1399: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1278: 1264:Raven in Orbit 1260: 1235: 1232: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1213: 1208: 1204: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1189: 1184: 1174: 1173: 1168: 1162: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1144: 1127:the discussion 1113: 1101: 1100: 1095: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1071:Low-importance 1067: 1061: 1060: 1058: 1012: 1011: 995: 983: 982: 980:Low‑importance 974: 962: 961: 958: 957: 954: 953: 950: 949: 948: 947: 941: 934: 913: 899: 898: 888: 886: 885: 876: 875: 863: 862: 861: 854: 847: 836: 829:Citing sources 819: 818: 811: 804: 783: 782: 775: 768: 762: 740: 739: 737: 736: 731: 726: 721: 715: 713: 707: 704: 703: 698: 697: 696: 680: 679: 668: 654:Citing sources 651: 640: 629: 627:Article layout 624: 615: 614: 604: 603: 595: 594: 587:Low-importance 583: 577: 576: 574: 557:the discussion 543: 531: 530: 528:Low‑importance 522: 510: 509: 506: 505: 502: 501: 496: 486: 485: 483: 481: 475: 474: 466: 465: 458:Low-importance 454: 448: 447: 445: 413: 412: 396: 384: 383: 381:Low‑importance 369: 357: 356: 350: 339: 325: 324: 317: 316: 313: 312: 309: 302: 298: 297: 294: 287: 279: 278: 275: 272: 268: 267: 259: 258: 230: 218: 217: 208: 206: 205: 202: 201: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5020: 5009: 5006: 5004: 5001: 4999: 4996: 4994: 4991: 4989: 4986: 4984: 4981: 4979: 4976: 4974: 4971: 4969: 4966: 4964: 4961: 4959: 4956: 4954: 4951: 4949: 4946: 4945: 4943: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4899: 4897: 4896: 4891: 4886: 4885: 4874: 4870: 4867: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4854: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4830: 4825: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4795: 4789: 4787: 4785: 4777: 4775: 4774: 4769: 4764: 4763: 4752: 4748: 4745: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4732: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4708: 4703: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4688: 4682: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4659: 4653: 4647: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4573:180.200.180.5 4570: 4561: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4523:140.254.60.38 4520: 4513: 4510: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4480: 4475: 4460: 4451: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4418: 4410: 4408: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4372: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4362: 4360: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4319:173.26.228.48 4314: 4305: 4299: 4296: 4293: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4267: 4262: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4241: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4200: 4198: 4195: 4191: 4188: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4171: 4166: 4160: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4106: 4104: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4010: 4006: 4004: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3986: 3982: 3979: 3975: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3920: 3916: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3898: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3872: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3837: 3831: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3806: 3800: 3798: 3796: 3792: 3785: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3759: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3747:raison d'etre 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3726: 3723: 3719: 3717: 3711: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3668: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3642: 3638: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3618: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3605: 3600: 3599: 3594: 3590: 3587: 3583: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3513: 3510:editor notes 3509: 3505: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3456:source on BBC 3453: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3417: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3342: 3339: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3305: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3289: 3285: 3282: 3281: 3274: 3271: 3265: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3227: 3216: 3192: 3189: 3183: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3161: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3077: 3074: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3025: 3017: 3013: 3007: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2941: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2914: 2911: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2869: 2866: 2862: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2811: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2777: 2771: 2769: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2736:81.183.125.23 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2722: 2718: 2710: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2547: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2510: 2495: 2492: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2454: 2451: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2440: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2394: 2392: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2354: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2292: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2267: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2216: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2158: 2155: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2136: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2104: 2101: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2081: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2067: 2064: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2050: 2049: 2044: 2041: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2009: 2005: 1999: 1995: 1988: 1984: 1981: 1975: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1966: 1964: 1952: 1949: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1913: 1909: 1906:based on not 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1893: 1884: 1878: 1875: 1869: 1868: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1844: 1840: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1826: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1619: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1552: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1523: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1477: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1404: 1384: 1381: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1355: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1279: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1251: 1245: 1241: 1233: 1231: 1230:of the page. 1229: 1225: 1218: 1201: 1200: 1193: 1190: 1188: 1185: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1161: 1160: 1145: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1076: 1072: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1059: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1009: 1003: 998: 996: 993: 989: 988: 984: 978: 975: 972: 968: 945: 942: 939: 935: 933: 929: 925: 921: 920:False dilemma 917: 914: 911: 910:State atheism 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 897: 894: 893: 892: 891: 883: 882: 881: 880: 874: 871: 870: 869: 868: 864: 859: 855: 852: 848: 845: 841: 837: 834: 830: 826: 825: 824: 823: 816: 812: 809: 805: 802: 798: 794: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786:Be consistent 780: 776: 773: 769: 766: 763: 760: 756: 755: 754: 753: 751: 747: 742: 741: 735: 732: 730: 727: 725: 722: 720: 717: 716: 714: 711: 710: 702: 699: 695: 692: 691: 690: 689:Core articles 687: 686: 685: 684: 678: 675: 672: 669: 667: 664: 661: 658: 655: 652: 650: 647: 644: 641: 639: 636: 633: 630: 628: 625: 623: 620: 619: 618: 613: 611: 606: 605: 601: 600: 596: 592: 588: 582: 579: 578: 575: 558: 554: 550: 549: 544: 541: 537: 536: 532: 526: 523: 520: 516: 500: 492: 488: 487: 484: 482: 477: 476: 471: 467: 463: 459: 453: 450: 449: 446: 429: 428: 423: 419: 418: 410: 399: 397: 394: 390: 389: 385: 378: 373: 370: 367: 363: 358: 354: 348: 340: 336: 331: 330: 323: 318: 310: 308: 307: 303: 300: 299: 295: 293: 292: 288: 285: 281: 280: 276: 273: 270: 269: 264: 260: 256: 255: 250: 246: 242: 241: 240: 239:good articles 234: 231: 228: 224: 223: 204: 203: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4906:IndigoGollum 4903: 4881: 4878: 4853:source check 4832: 4826: 4823: 4796: 4793: 4783: 4781: 4759: 4756: 4731:source check 4710: 4704: 4701: 4660: 4657: 4606: 4566: 4517:— Preceding 4514: 4511: 4508: 4458: 4455: 4414: 4411:Poor sources 4406: 4370: 4355: 4333: 4309: 4265: 4260: 4245:76.185.61.24 4204:76.185.61.24 4169: 4164: 4158: 4152: 4110: 4090: 4021: 4017: 4015: 4007: 4002: 3995: 3952:on this page 3947: 3914: 3896: 3793:, 2008-10-14 3788: 3784:professional 3783: 3746: 3727: 3724: 3720: 3712: 3703: 3701: 3697: 3675: 3671: 3576: 3572: 3507: 3483: 3459: 3435: 3351:RfC Response 3350: 3345: 3332: 3326: 3235: 3220: 3159: 3014:, 2008-10-14 2939: 2934: 2813: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2779: 2775: 2751: 2728: 2725: 2717:Noam Chomsky 2714: 2665: 2514: 2479: 2432: 2389: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2363: 2351: 2241: 2236: 2079: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1959: 1888: 1863:, 2008-10-14 1848: 1842: 1835: 1828: 1821: 1814: 1807: 1800: 1793: 1786: 1779: 1772: 1765: 1761:looks dicey. 1754: 1747: 1740: 1733: 1726: 1650: 1638: 1630: 1577: 1573: 1485: 1402: 1397: 1347: 1312: 1308: 1281: 1238:Please read 1237: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1169: 1116: 1070: 1031:articles to 1022: 1015: 1014: 927: 923: 916:False choice 902: 901: 900: 889: 887: 878: 877: 866: 865: 821: 820: 793:layout style 785: 784: 744: 743: 682: 681: 673: 662: 656: 645: 634: 616: 610:project page 607: 586: 546: 457: 425: 415: 353:WikiProjects 321: 304: 290: 289: 254:reassessment 252: 237: 236: 232: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 4515:Thank you 4359:jbolden1517 4218:—Preceding 4113:—Preceding 3940:this thread 3906:this thread 3327:2009 (UTC) 2977:The Needles 2969:Paula Yates 2895:to include 2672:EdibleKarma 2626:EdibleKarma 2570:EdibleKarma 2521:EdibleKarma 2437:jbolden1517 2391:jbolden1517 2325:EdibleKarma 2296:EdibleKarma 2133:jbolden1517 2085:jbolden1517 2004:EdibleKarma 1963:jbolden1517 1935:jbolden1517 1892:jbolden1517 1815:Portrait of 930:this merge 873:Agnosticism 249:renominated 148:free images 31:not a forum 4942:Categories 4890:Report bug 4768:Report bug 4625:Tryptofish 4539:Tryptofish 4491:Tryptofish 4378:Tryptofish 4338:Tryptofish 4194:25 October 4190:(contribs) 4135:Tryptofish 4076:Tryptofish 4049:JamesMLane 4045:JamesMLane 4041:Tryptofish 4026:Tryptofish 4003:Disclaimer 3974:JamesMLane 3860:JamesMLane 3845:Tryptofish 3815:Tryptofish 3770:Tryptofish 3751:JamesMLane 3708:WP:SELFPUB 3680:Tryptofish 3654:Tryptofish 3630:JamesMLane 3582:JamesMLane 3537:Metacritic 3313:JamesMLane 3309:WP:SELFPUB 3288:WP:SELFPUB 3245:Wyatt Riot 3240:WP:SELFPUB 3165:JamesMLane 3053:JamesMLane 3034:Tryptofish 2989:JamesMLane 2973:Darjeeling 2879:Tryptofish 2861:JamesMLane 2846:Tryptofish 2828:JamesMLane 2641:Tryptofish 2612:Tryptofish 2598:Tryptofish 2584:Tryptofish 2556:Tryptofish 2487:(contribs) 2407:Tryptofish 2368:(pbuhhh). 2310:Tryptofish 2275:Tryptofish 2246:Tryptofish 2184:Tryptofish 2020:Tryptofish 1931:WP:SELFPUB 1703:Wyatt Riot 1655:Wyatt Riot 1643:WP:SELFPUB 1635:WP:SOURCES 1578:pretending 1516:WP:SELFPUB 1405:reliable. 1364:Wyatt Riot 1333:Wyatt Riot 1291:Wyatt Riot 849:Watch the 840:neologisms 779:to-do list 617:Quick help 433:Philosophy 422:philosophy 372:Philosophy 4873:this tool 4866:this tool 4751:this tool 4744:this tool 4681:dead link 4153:Though a 4074:brief. -- 3902:this page 3337:Auntie E. 2480:guideline 1759:publisher 1608:Consensus 1531:Zondervan 1192:Archive 3 1187:Archive 2 1182:Archive 1 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 4925:Woodroar 4879:Cheers.— 4757:Cheers.— 4639:Shabidoo 4553:Shabidoo 4519:unsigned 4438:Belg4mit 4422:DreamGuy 4220:unsigned 4115:unsigned 3919:this one 3787:editor: 3735:Muhammad 3731:prophets 3387:Vassyana 2800:Muhammad 2796:prophets 2610:Done. -- 2545:Wallace. 2080:Everyone 1466:reliable 1417:contribs 1317:analysis 1272:contribs 1259:instead. 1219:Untitled 1170:Archives 1046:Religion 1024:Religion 977:Religion 808:info box 677:Be civil 377:Religion 296:Delisted 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 4921:MOS:GOD 4803:my edit 4685:tag to 4667:my edit 4637:Indeed 4392:Rumiton 4352:sandbox 4288:unicorn 4155:unicorn 4149:Paradox 3948:Jimster 3797:21:34z" 3791:Jeandré 3611:Jeandré 3018:21:34z" 3012:Jeandré 2802:. (See 2759:Kenahoo 2695:Henriok 1867:21:34z 1861:Jeandré 1073:on the 938:Atheism 928:against 856:Always 815:Atheism 759:userbox 750:be bold 724:history 589:on the 562:Atheism 553:atheism 525:Atheism 460:on the 343:C-class 274:Process 154:WP refs 142:scholar 4677:Added 4261:Jeffro 4199:(GMT) 4192:22:30 4165:Jeffro 4094:NBeale 4057:WP:RSN 3897:before 3377:, and 3355:WP:AFD 3284:WP:SPS 3160:nature 2983:, and 2902:about 2489:16:24 2260:burden 2231:, and 1817:: blog 1601:WP:NOT 1583:SFEley 1574:for me 1560:tedder 1535:tedder 1490:SFEley 1486:before 1448:SFEley 1228:bottom 890:Expand 879:Create 757:Add a 712:To do 349:scale. 277:Result 126:Google 4479:CNTRB 4467:OBERT 4417:WP:RS 4187:Gwern 3626:WP:RS 3609:. -- 3565:WP:RS 3464:WP:RS 3264:WP:OR 3048:WP:RS 2820:WP:RS 2788:, or 2686:(UTC) 2496:(GMT) 2491:9 May 2484:Gwern 2233:WP:RS 2229:WP:OR 2211:. -- 2209:WP:OR 2205:WP:RS 2150:. -- 2059:. -- 2057:WP:RS 1976:. -- 1904:WP:OR 1647:WP:QS 1633:. As 1510:and 1504:WP:RS 1432:WP:RS 918:into 734:purge 729:watch 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 4929:talk 4910:talk 4643:Talk 4629:talk 4614:talk 4593:talk 4577:talk 4557:Talk 4543:talk 4527:talk 4495:talk 4471:FROM 4442:talk 4426:talk 4396:talk 4382:talk 4342:talk 4323:talk 4292:Emil 4272:talk 4249:talk 4228:talk 4208:talk 4197:2009 4176:talk 4159:seem 4139:talk 4123:talk 4098:talk 4080:talk 4065:talk 4053:here 4030:talk 3849:talk 3830:this 3819:talk 3774:talk 3741:and 3684:talk 3676:does 3672:does 3658:talk 3615:talk 3569:WP:N 3391:talk 3385:. -- 3297:talk 3286:and 3249:talk 3236:this 3038:talk 2965:h2g2 2940:more 2883:talk 2850:talk 2824:here 2816:h2g2 2806:and 2763:talk 2740:talk 2699:talk 2676:talk 2668:here 2645:talk 2630:talk 2616:talk 2602:talk 2588:talk 2574:talk 2560:talk 2525:talk 2494:2009 2411:talk 2329:talk 2314:talk 2300:talk 2279:talk 2250:talk 2237:some 2225:WP:V 2188:talk 2024:talk 2008:talk 1912:WP:V 1780:h2g2 1707:talk 1659:talk 1651:some 1645:and 1627:WP:V 1587:talk 1564:talk 1539:talk 1494:talk 1452:talk 1430:and 1428:WP:V 1413:Talk 1368:talk 1337:talk 1319:.-- 1305:WP:V 1295:talk 1268:Talk 1242:and 1224:Note 1035:and 1033:good 932:here 831:and 799:and 748:and 719:edit 311:Kept 271:Date 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 4847:RfC 4817:to 4725:RfC 4695:to 4315:). 4022:has 3915:not 3801:-- 3716:BBC 3604:IPU 3573:out 3567:or 3535:or 3508:one 3484:one 3460:not 3436:one 3020:-- 2935:not 1806:RS 1403:are 1282:can 1065:Low 1037:1.0 926:or 924:for 581:Low 452:Low 176:TWL 4944:: 4931:) 4912:) 4860:. 4855:}} 4851:{{ 4738:. 4733:}} 4729:{{ 4683:}} 4679:{{ 4641:| 4631:) 4616:) 4595:) 4579:) 4571:'. 4555:| 4545:) 4529:) 4497:) 4473:LI 4459:is 4444:) 4436:-- 4428:) 4398:) 4384:) 4371:is 4344:) 4325:) 4295:J. 4290:.— 4274:) 4266:77 4251:) 4230:) 4210:) 4178:) 4170:77 4141:) 4125:) 4100:) 4082:) 4067:) 4061:LK 4032:) 3851:) 3821:) 3813:-- 3776:) 3686:) 3660:) 3577:in 3466:." 3393:) 3373:, 3369:, 3365:, 3361:, 3299:) 3293:LK 3251:) 3040:) 3032:-- 2979:, 2975:, 2971:, 2885:) 2852:) 2810:.) 2784:, 2765:) 2742:) 2701:) 2678:) 2647:) 2639:-- 2632:) 2618:) 2604:) 2590:) 2576:) 2562:) 2527:) 2413:) 2384:” 2359:“ 2331:) 2316:) 2302:) 2281:) 2252:) 2227:, 2207:/ 2190:) 2182:-- 2146:. 2026:) 2010:) 1841:x 1834:x 1827:x 1820:+ 1813:x 1799:+ 1792:x 1785:+ 1778:x 1771:+ 1764:x 1753:? 1746:x 1739:? 1732:? 1725:x 1709:) 1661:) 1589:) 1566:) 1541:) 1496:) 1454:) 1419:) 1415:| 1407:/ 1370:) 1339:) 1297:) 1274:) 1270:| 1262:/ 846:). 835:). 803:). 795:, 612:. 479:/ 375:: 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 4927:( 4908:( 4892:) 4888:( 4875:. 4868:. 4784:1 4770:) 4766:( 4753:. 4746:. 4627:( 4612:( 4591:( 4575:( 4541:( 4525:( 4493:( 4476:/ 4469:M 4465:R 4440:( 4424:( 4394:( 4380:( 4340:( 4321:( 4270:( 4247:( 4226:( 4206:( 4174:( 4137:( 4121:( 4096:( 4078:( 4063:( 4028:( 3981:c 3978:t 3954:. 3867:c 3864:t 3847:( 3817:( 3795:t 3772:( 3758:c 3755:t 3682:( 3656:( 3637:c 3634:t 3613:( 3589:c 3586:t 3389:( 3320:c 3317:t 3295:( 3247:( 3172:c 3169:t 3060:c 3057:t 3036:( 3016:t 2996:c 2993:t 2881:( 2868:c 2865:t 2848:( 2835:c 2832:t 2761:( 2738:( 2697:( 2674:( 2643:( 2628:( 2614:( 2600:( 2586:( 2572:( 2558:( 2523:( 2409:( 2327:( 2312:( 2298:( 2277:( 2248:( 2186:( 2022:( 2006:( 1865:t 1705:( 1657:( 1585:( 1562:( 1537:( 1492:( 1450:( 1411:( 1366:( 1335:( 1293:( 1266:( 1077:. 860:. 810:) 781:. 774:. 767:. 752:. 674:· 663:· 657:· 646:· 635:· 593:. 464:. 355:: 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index