Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 3

message: I've protected the article until the dispute is settled on the talk page. Gamaliel 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The crux of this issue is not whether Eris is the goddess of Discordianism, but rather whether it is appropriate to mention Discordianism at all.  From the religious movements page on Discordianism, "the size of this group is hard to ascertain".  Large, stable groups do not have this problem.  
I submit the proposition that the mention of Discordianiam in this page violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight due to the uncertain but almost certainly miniscule nature of its membership.  I therefore propose that all mention of Discordianism be permanently removed from this article, and call for a survey on this proposal. --EMS | Talk 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind - There is a now a functioning poll below. --EMS | Talk 00:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if the Discordians worship Eris. If they worship the Greek Goddess Eris, that is their prerogative. It has nothing to do with the naming of the dwarf planet. I am sure there are other religions (or cults, whatver you prefer to call them) that worship Jupiter. Or Mars. Or Neptune. That doesn't mean they need to be mentioned in an article about the planet named after the god or goddess. THe origin of Eris is Greek Mythology - the Discordians did not make her up, they adopted her. It even says in the article on Discordians "The matron deity of Discordianism is Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of discord,". I don't care if the religion is large or small, or how many members it has. They adopted an established deity, and deserve no more mention than any other group that adopts a deity that is already established. Any mention of groups that also worship the goddess should be under the mythological entry, not the astronomical entry. --Exodio 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crux of this issue 

message: # As stated above. --EMS | Talk 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Support
 

message: Nice try. Please read WP:POINT. This sort of game is going to get you nowhere. Kyaa the Catlord 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if the Discordians worship Eris. If they worship the Greek Goddess Eris, that is their prerogative. It has nothing to do with the naming of the dwarf planet. I am sure there are other religions (or cults, whatver you prefer to call them) that worship Jupiter. Or Mars. Or Neptune. That doesn't mean they need to be mentioned in an article about the planet named after the god or goddess. THe origin of Eris is Greek Mythology - the Discordians did not make her up, they adopted her. It even says in the article on Discordians "The matron deity of Discordianism is Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of discord,". I don't care if the religion is large or small, or how many members it has. They adopted an established deity, and deserve no more mention than any other group that adopts a deity that is already established. Any mention of groups that also worship the goddess should be under the mythological entry, not the astronomical entry. --Exodio 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This article is not stable. It is in a protected state. Kyaa the Catlord 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: I suggest that the language at the beginning of the Name section which currently reads:
:136199 Eris is named after the Greek goddess Eris (Ἔρις in Greek), a personification of strife and discord. The contemporary religion of Discordianism also worships this goddess.
Be amended to read as follows:
:According to the U.S. Geological Survey's Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature, 136199 Eris was named for "the Greek goddess of chaos and strife; she created a quarrel among goddesses that led to the Trojan War. This name could be considered quite fitting for the body that has fueled the debate concerning how to define a planet.". Michael Brown, the discoverer of Eris, further explains:
::"We officially suggested the name on 6 September 2006, and it was accepted and announced on 13 September 2006. In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of  warfare and strife. She stirs up jealousy and envy to cause fighting and anger among men. At the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the parents of the Greek hero Achilles, all the gods with the exception of Eris were invited, and, enraged at her exclusion, she spitefully caused a quarrel among the goddesses that led to the Trojan war.  In the astronomical world, Eris stirred up a great deal of trouble among the international astronomical community when the question of its proper designation led to a raucous meeting of the IAU in Prague."
:In Greek, the name of the goddess is Ἔρις.
RandomCritic 22:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems needlessly detailed and unnecessary and fails to resolve the issue at hand. --Pipian 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a better suggestion:  Remove the second sentence entirely. --EMS | Talk 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either suggestion is fine. I prefer more detail, because it's an encyclopedia article, although the quote needs condensing. Melchoir 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The detail seems unwarranted.  Just provide the source mentioning that fact after 'The name in part reflects the discord in the astronomy community caused by the debate over the object's nature.' --Pipian 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This does nothing to solve the problem which has caused the article to become protected. It simply ignores it and begs to be replaced by something else. Kyaa the Catlord 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I support this proposal, though the quote could use some tightening.  Rather than adding irrelevant and POV information, it only references what the Brown group intended to name this dwarf planet after.  If need be, to end this, you add "Eris is also revered in the Discordian faith, but there is no evidence that Brown et al. refer to that aspect of the goddess Eris", or something to that effect.  --Volcanopele 23:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article about the goddess Eris, rather, it is about the dwarf planet. The Dwarf planet was named after the Greek God. If I create a religion today that worships Eris, it should have no more mention in this article than the Draconians. Now, I do fully agree that it IS appropriate to talk about this in the article about the goddess Eris, but not in this entry... The only reason to mention the fact that Eris is a greek god is the very fact that it was the reason for giving it it's name. Thus, I agree that it should be removed, and stick only to the facts. Tuvas 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, the article already contains this information with the phrase 'The name in part reflects the discord in the astronomy community caused by the debate over the object's nature.'  Expand that rather than changing the initial paragraph to prove your WP:POINT. --Pipian 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: So far as I can tell, here are the two arguments:
For
* The Greek goddess of discord, Eris, is the same as the Discordian goddess of the same name due to shared mythology.  Hence, as this is a fundamental aspect of Eris, there should be no issue in adding something to that effect in the article.
* Discordianism is large enough to warrant mention, rather than being ignored in the context of the article.
* Adding this fact is NPOV as both the Greek and Discordian goddesses are one and the same.
* This fact does not irreparably harm the article, as there is relevance in so far as the Discordian goddess and Greek goddess both have 'personification of strife and discord' as a primary aspect of their description.
* Brown refers to a myth that plays a strong focal point for both the Greek and Discordian mythos, and hence, it is not irrelevant to mention Discordianism in this context.
Against
* The Eris of Discordianism is NOT the same as that of the Greek goddess which Brown explicitly cites.
* Discordianism is insignificant and does not garner enough attention to justify mention.
* Adding this fact is POV as it unfairly promotes Discordianism.
* This fact harms the article as it is irrelevant to the reasoning for the name.
* Brown only mentions the myth in the context of the Greek goddess and does not explicitly mention Discordianism OR 'The Original Snub'
--Pipian 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also For is the fact that if we add it, the activities by those who keep adding it and contributing to the sort of edit wars we saw today will be lessened. It won't go away, Erisian Discordia lives to... um... play pranks. Kyaa the Catlord 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is a good summation of the arguments against.  First, I do agree that Discordians believe that their Eris is the same as the Greek goddess.  However, Brown et al. only state that Eris, the dwarf planet, is named after the Greek goddess, and not the Discordian aspect.  To say that "Eris is named after the Greek and Discordian goddess" is not correct.  It wasn't.  Eris is named after the Greek goddess.  It is irrelevent in this regard whether Discordian believe that their Eris is the same Eris. --Volcanopele 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AgainstI would also add that planets, and other large objects have traditionally been named for ancient greek and roman mythology, and not modern occurances.  Tuvas 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of these arguments seem only germaine to the now not-present phrase 'Greek and Discordian goddess'.  Please read more of the discussion above to see some of the completely ignored compromises that ignore these arguments (at least in so far as they do not give equal rights to Greek and Discordian.) --Pipian 23:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arguments Thus Far... 

message: (Changed from Vote to Straw Poll, Wikipedia works to consensus. :) ) Electrawn 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, not a vote, a straw poll. Electrawn 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: At least one thing will come out of this, we will have something clear and coincise, and we will be able to see how many people are in support of it each way. Otherwise, all I see is alot of bickering going on. All that will happen is we will fight until we all get old about the topic. If most people support including it, then I will swallow my pride and support including the reference. There will always be people who aren't happy, it's a fact of life. However, I don't see any way to compromise, either you include the reference, or you don't. Personally, I think it's best mentioned on the Eris (mythology) page, and not here, but I'd like to see everyone's argument down to their one or two sentance reason why they support their position. Tuvas 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tuvas has largely it the nail on the head.  I for one am very strongly against the mention of Discordianism here, but am willing to back off of that view and agree to a compromise if there is not a strong consensus (meaning at least 2-1 in favor) favoring that view.  A significant minority amongst us favoring its inclusion means that my being dogmatic on this issue is not good for Wikipedia, and I will respect that. --EMS | Talk 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see it written in a better way, since the current compromise is good, but will not meet our needs for GA/FA. There's one based off it on this page that read better. And you're precisely correct, as soon as Discordianism was removed from the main article, the edit war reinvigorated. Kyaa the Catlord 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We are trying to find a compromise position here.  This is not an attempt to game the system, or make a WP:POINT.  This is a method of conflict resolution intended to end this edit war.  I have offered one compromise, and several others have offered compromises as well, but they seem to have been shot down.  I am afraid this may have to go to some kind of arbitration.  I am almost at the point of just accepting the way it is worded now, as long as it is clear that 136199 was only named after the Greek aspect.  Otherwise, it would be POV. --Volcanopele 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree, if we can't come up wit::h a reasonable solution within the next day or so, we're probably going to have to request it to be arbitrated... Wow, never thought I'd get myself into one of those...Tuvas 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitrate with who? Me? I'm not the one edit warring, I'm simply playing devils advocate. Kyaa the Catlord 23:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.  Regardless, I'm willing to compromise to something similar to the current wording, as long as it makes clear that the Brown et al. group only intended to name this dwarf planet after the Greek goddess, and made no mention of the Discordian aspect.  While I'm not happy with including any reference to the discordian aspect, for relevency and WP:NOR reasons, I'd rather find something to end this. --Volcanopele 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I support this compromise. --Volcanopele 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Stilted, and in such a way, it could raise MORE, rather than LESS relevancy issues in the future.  All the same, if the Opposes are willing to compromise on this phrasing, I'm quite willing to as well. --Pipian 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Some people still seem to think that this is all about 'The Greek and Discordian goddess' even though that phrase is long-gone.  As others have pointed out, some who are staunchly against ANY mention of Discordianism are making this a larger problem than it really ought to be. Others against merely the thought that it MIGHT be interpreted as being named for the Discordian goddess first and Greek goddess second. --Pipian 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply think that if it was named after the Greek godess, that's all the article should say about it. That the Greek goddess is also worshipped in a modern religion is trivial and honestly, adds nothing to an article about a dwarf planet. shaggy 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that not including that "trivial" modern religion is spawning edit wars and caused the page to become full protected. A compromise from the hardline "do not include" position is required. Kyaa the Catlord 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, this isn't the place for this information. The article about the godess Eris is. Things here will calm down as soon as the link from the main page is gone, I'm sure. Consistent low-level vandalism is nothing new on wikipedia, but there are enough people watching this article to ensure things stay under control. As far as including it just to prevent vandalism? That would set a terrible precedent... shaggy 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Low-level? The majority of edits today were related to this "vandalism", which it isn't. There is precedent for referring to alternative gods and faiths when discussing the origin of the name of a planetary body. Kyaa the Catlord 00:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And have that passage read: "136199 Eris is named after the goddess Eris (mythology), a personification of strife and discord." With a reference to Mike Brown's Eris site as well.  hmm, interesting... I could go along with this if other will. --Volcanopele 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, we're actually doing the right thing with this survey, see WP:DR. Conducting a survey is exactly the intent. Granted, it says wait for a week, but we really have a week's worth of posts in just one day. If this doesn't work, then we request Mediation. Final step is to request Arbitration, in which we ask a group of appointed Wikipedians to tell us who is right. I will also agree that those who are opposed are really opposed, they don't want to see any mention of the Draconians. I totally agree with Number36, leave more info about Eris the godess on her page. Tuvas 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would leave the issue unresolved and again, not stop the edit war from occuring in the future. We should find a happy medium that leaves all sides less likely to engage in warfare instead of ignoring the root cause of the issue, which is that the Discordians want their goddess aknowledged, the hardliners don't, and everyone else is caught in the middle. Kyaa the Catlord 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a need for mediation or arbitration here.  We first need to resolve the issue of whether the reference stays or goes, and the survey will do that.  As I mentioned above, if there is not a strong consensus against including Discordianism present at the end of it, then a compromise can be hammered out in good faith.  Otherwise, it is good riddance to this business. --EMS | Talk 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you would not support the language I posted and Number36 suggested?  Listen, I understand that Discordians want their goddess recognized, but if their is no evidence to support it, I am afraid that it really is nothing more than WP:POV.  Personally, I like this compromise language, mentioning neither Greek nor Discordian, is not so bad.  --Volcanopele 00:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with such a compromise.  It leaves the decision and complexity of the goddess for the reader to decide. --Pipian 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel it will resolve the issue, but I won't stand in the way. Kyaa the Catlord 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does acknowledge the Discordian Goddess Vyaa, -Eris, my main problem is the sole inclusion of the attribute Greek denies by exclusion the Discordian aspect. If we leave both out, but include the link to the mythology page where both are included in some detail, then I think we are equally acknowledging both with the link.Number36 00:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't considered that...I may have to think about this some more.  --Volcanopele 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It certainly does get around the issue in an interesting fashion.  Yes.  I can easily support that language as it does not mention Discordianism.  Instead it leaves it on the Eris (mythology) page, and I am happy to let the editors of that page deal with the issue instead.  Indeed, if Kyaa is willing to live with it, then this may be an ideal solution. --EMS | Talk 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  After reading the Eris (mythology) article, as it stands now, I can support this. --Volcanopele 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also add my favor to omitting any reference of Greek or Discordian. I would be happy with such a change.Tuvas 00:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm really not your enemy here. I just question whether this will... solve the problem with the edit warring. Kyaa the Catlord 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully it will.  We can spell out the decision in a seperate section below.  If it doesn't, then we may have to go into mediation.  The point is to at least try to solve it.  And I think this will.  --Volcanopele 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: & I'm not really at odds with you Vyaa, indeed on the whole I side more with you on this I think, but I do think that this is the best compromise for both sides. And there's only one way to find out if it'll stop the edit warring. And yeah a new section to discuss this would be good, this is getting a bit unwieldy.Number36 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no big problem with leaving out the word "Greek".  In fact, by the time it gets down to the astronomers we are no longer talking about "Greek" anything but the name itself, but a sort of muddled handbook mythology which mixes elements from different cultures and centuries.  Which is why I mentioned above that we are really drawing on a sort of generic, literary classical mythology, and not Greek religion per se.  We still need to include (somewhere) "in Greek, Ἔρις".  However, it seems to be a misstatement of fact to consider this as a question of "Greek vs. Discordian".  It is not a two-sided affair.  The Eris of classical mythology belongs to everyone, now -- not to the dead Greeks of long ago, not to neopagans, not to discordians.  A vast number of writers and poets have a piece of her.  The astronomical application is one aspect of this central, mythological theme which is public property. The discordians have their own distinct application, as do the writers of various types of fiction.RandomCritic 01:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to take a guess that we've got something that at least most of us will be happy about. I vote we remove the page protection, and stick with this solution, and see how it holds. I've put forth a request to remove the protection (This page is listed on the main page, it's not supposed to be protected any longer than it has to), and we can make this change and see how it holds up. Tuvas 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that, my fault... I knew I was misspelling it... Tuvas 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: # Support - While this is an article about the planet, if the mention of the intrinsic Discordian aspect of Eris is made secondary to the Greek rationale proposed by Brown, then there appears to be no issue with POV, and the phrase should, logically, be allowed to stay (c.f. My proposal for a compromise: "136199 Eris is named after the Greek goddess Eris (Ἔρις in Greek), a personification of strife and discord and primary deity of the modern religion Discordianism.") --Pipian 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose This is an article about the planet, not the goddess. The planet was named after the Greek Goddess and had nothing to do with the modern religion. Tuvas 23:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Another attempt to game the system. Please review WP:POINT. These pointless polls will not resolve the fact that if we do not come to some sort of compromise, the edit war will continue. Kyaa the Catlord 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one thing will come out of this, we will have something clear and coincise, and we will be able to see how many people are in support of it each way. Otherwise, all I see is alot of bickering going on. All that will happen is we will fight until we all get old about the topic. If most people support including it, then I will swallow my pride and support including the reference. There will always be people who aren't happy, it's a fact of life. However, I don't see any way to compromise, either you include the reference, or you don't. Personally, I think it's best mentioned on the Eris (mythology) page, and not here, but I'd like to see everyone's argument down to their one or two sentance reason why they support their position. Tuvas 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tuvas has largely it the nail on the head.  I for one am very strongly against the mention of Discordianism here, but am willing to back off of that view and agree to a compromise if there is not a strong consensus (meaning at least 2-1 in favor) favoring that view.  A significant minority amongst us favoring its inclusion means that my being dogmatic on this issue is not good for Wikipedia, and I will respect that. --EMS | Talk 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see it written in a better way, since the current compromise is good, but will not meet our needs for GA/FA. There's one based off it on this page that read better. And you're precisely correct, as soon as Discordianism was removed from the main article, the edit war reinvigorated. Kyaa the Catlord 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We are trying to find a compromise position here.  This is not an attempt to game the system, or make a WP:POINT.  This is a method of conflict resolution intended to end this edit war.  I have offered one compromise, and several others have offered compromises as well, but they seem to have been shot down.  I am afraid this may have to go to some kind of arbitration.  I am almost at the point of just accepting the way it is worded now, as long as it is clear that 136199 was only named after the Greek aspect.  Otherwise, it would be POV. --Volcanopele 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree, if we can't come up wit::h a reasonable solution within the next day or so, we're probably going to have to request it to be arbitrated... Wow, never thought I'd get myself into one of those...Tuvas 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitrate with who? Me? I'm not the one edit warring, I'm simply playing devils advocate. Kyaa the Catlord 23:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.  Regardless, I'm willing to compromise to something similar to the current wording, as long as it makes clear that the Brown et al. group only intended to name this dwarf planet after the Greek goddess, and made no mention of the Discordian aspect.  While I'm not happy with including any reference to the discordian aspect, for relevency and WP:NOR reasons, I'd rather find something to end this. --Volcanopele 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I support this compromise. --Volcanopele 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Stilted, and in such a way, it could raise MORE, rather than LESS relevancy issues in the future.  All the same, if the Opposes are willing to compromise on this phrasing, I'm quite willing to as well. --Pipian 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Some people still seem to think that this is all about 'The Greek and Discordian goddess' even though that phrase is long-gone.  As others have pointed out, some who are staunchly against ANY mention of Discordianism are making this a larger problem than it really ought to be. Others against merely the thought that it MIGHT be interpreted as being named for the Discordian goddess first and Greek goddess second. --Pipian 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply think that if it was named after the Greek godess, that's all the article should say about it. That the Greek goddess is also worshipped in a modern religion is trivial and honestly, adds nothing to an article about a dwarf planet. shaggy 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that not including that "trivial" modern religion is spawning edit wars and caused the page to become full protected. A compromise from the hardline "do not include" position is required. Kyaa the Catlord 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, this isn't the place for this information. The article about the godess Eris is. Things here will calm down as soon as the link from the main page is gone, I'm sure. Consistent low-level vandalism is nothing new on wikipedia, but there are enough people watching this article to ensure things stay under control. As far as including it just to prevent vandalism? That would set a terrible precedent... shaggy 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Low-level? The majority of edits today were related to this "vandalism", which it isn't. There is precedent for referring to alternative gods and faiths when discussing the origin of the name of a planetary body. Kyaa the Catlord 00:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And have that passage read: "136199 Eris is named after the goddess Eris (mythology), a personification of strife and discord." With a reference to Mike Brown's Eris site as well.  hmm, interesting... I could go along with this if other will. --Volcanopele 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, we're actually doing the right thing with this survey, see WP:DR. Conducting a survey is exactly the intent. Granted, it says wait for a week, but we really have a week's worth of posts in just one day. If this doesn't work, then we request Mediation. Final step is to request Arbitration, in which we ask a group of appointed Wikipedians to tell us who is right. I will also agree that those who are opposed are really opposed, they don't want to see any mention of the Draconians. I totally agree with Number36, leave more info about Eris the godess on her page. Tuvas 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would leave the issue unresolved and again, not stop the edit war from occuring in the future. We should find a happy medium that leaves all sides less likely to engage in warfare instead of ignoring the root cause of the issue, which is that the Discordians want their goddess aknowledged, the hardliners don't, and everyone else is caught in the middle. Kyaa the Catlord 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a need for mediation or arbitration here.  We first need to resolve the issue of whether the reference stays or goes, and the survey will do that.  As I mentioned above, if there is not a strong consensus against including Discordianism present at the end of it, then a compromise can be hammered out in good faith.  Otherwise, it is good riddance to this business. --EMS | Talk 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you would not support the language I posted and Number36 suggested?  Listen, I understand that Discordians want their goddess recognized, but if their is no evidence to support it, I am afraid that it really is nothing more than WP:POV.  Personally, I like this compromise language, mentioning neither Greek nor Discordian, is not so bad.  --Volcanopele 00:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with such a compromise.  It leaves the decision and complexity of the goddess for the reader to decide. --Pipian 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel it will resolve the issue, but I won't stand in the way. Kyaa the Catlord 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does acknowledge the Discordian Goddess Vyaa, -Eris, my main problem is the sole inclusion of the attribute Greek denies by exclusion the Discordian aspect. If we leave both out, but include the link to the mythology page where both are included in some detail, then I think we are equally acknowledging both with the link.Number36 00:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't considered that...I may have to think about this some more.  --Volcanopele 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It certainly does get around the issue in an interesting fashion.  Yes.  I can easily support that language as it does not mention Discordianism.  Instead it leaves it on the Eris (mythology) page, and I am happy to let the editors of that page deal with the issue instead.  Indeed, if Kyaa is willing to live with it, then this may be an ideal solution. --EMS | Talk 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  After reading the Eris (mythology) article, as it stands now, I can support this. --Volcanopele 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also add my favor to omitting any reference of Greek or Discordian. I would be happy with such a change.Tuvas 00:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm really not your enemy here. I just question whether this will... solve the problem with the edit warring. Kyaa the Catlord 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully it will.  We can spell out the decision in a seperate section below.  If it doesn't, then we may have to go into mediation.  The point is to at least try to solve it.  And I think this will.  --Volcanopele 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: & I'm not really at odds with you Vyaa, indeed on the whole I side more with you on this I think, but I do think that this is the best compromise for both sides. And there's only one way to find out if it'll stop the edit warring. And yeah a new section to discuss this would be good, this is getting a bit unwieldy.Number36 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no big problem with leaving out the word "Greek".  In fact, by the time it gets down to the astronomers we are no longer talking about "Greek" anything but the name itself, but a sort of muddled handbook mythology which mixes elements from different cultures and centuries.  Which is why I mentioned above that we are really drawing on a sort of generic, literary classical mythology, and not Greek religion per se.  We still need to include (somewhere) "in Greek, Ἔρις".  However, it seems to be a misstatement of fact to consider this as a question of "Greek vs. Discordian".  It is not a two-sided affair.  The Eris of classical mythology belongs to everyone, now -- not to the dead Greeks of long ago, not to neopagans, not to discordians.  A vast number of writers and poets have a piece of her.  The astronomical application is one aspect of this central, mythological theme which is public property. The discordians have their own distinct application, as do the writers of various types of fiction.RandomCritic 01:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to take a guess that we've got something that at least most of us will be happy about. I vote we remove the page protection, and stick with this solution, and see how it holds. I've put forth a request to remove the protection (This page is listed on the main page, it's not supposed to be protected any longer than it has to), and we can make this change and see how it holds up. Tuvas 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that, my fault... I knew I was misspelling it... Tuvas 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I just emailed Professor Brown and asked him for his input. Kyaa the Catlord 00:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  *nervous twitching* 

message: Taking on board the critiques and suggestions above, how about this for the beginning of the Name section:
:136199 Eris is named after the goddess Eris (Greek Ἔρις"), a personification of strife and discord. .
:RandomCritic 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool. Kyaa the Catlord 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep thats a great way around it *two thumbs up* -- Nbound 01:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree, which shouldn't come as any great surprise since I suggested it in the first place:)Number36 01:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did there have to be all this drama, I wonder quietly to myself... I'm not 100% satisfied with it, but it works. shaggy 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems fine to me --Pipian 01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a greek word. shaggy 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Greek is way cool. Kyaa the Catlord 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, convinced me.Number36 01:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pie for all! (I've been way too serious today) Kyaa the Catlord 01:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray :) I made a difference. I would also like to strongly second the call for pie.Number36 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Page changed. Probably could use a change to the proper footnote system, but that's a secondary issue at this point.  Now where's that pie?  ;) --Volcanopele 01:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will apple do? Gamaliel 01:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything is better with meat! Kyaa the Catlord 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just love you guys so much right now, I mean can ya feel the love?? can ya??? (I mean that in a purely platonic way of course) Pie is the great healer, mender of rifts and unifier of mankind. It is truly the food of the Gods, both Greek, Discordian and Other.Number36 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: I archived all the Discordian discussion except for the last section, as it seems unlikely that we'll need to refer to those sections again. RandomCritic 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we can return to arguing about Eris (dwarf planet) vs. 136199 Eris :) RandomCritic 02:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I know this explosion seems to be over, and I'm glad it was resolved intelligently, but I wanted to note that I'm a Discordian and I see no reason to mention Discordianism in this article.  The planet was almost certainly named after Eris as a Greek goddess, and Discordianism played no part in the process.  Just didn't want people to think Discordians were of one mind on this issue. DenisMoskowitz 15:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late comment