Talk:List of Discordian works

message: This article was protected because of a dispute between one user, who is a sysop, and several other users.  That protection is supposedly still continuing.  Yet that one user is now allowed to edit the article and the others are not.  Does anyone have an explanation for this? Just curious. Reverend Loveshade 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected it. John Reaves (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobody can edit this now but who?

message: I do think that this page is worthwhile, but there is a lot of garbage here.  I'm going to go through and remove some statements that are mostly speculation.  DenisMoskowitz 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. NeoFreak 19:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem, impressive job so far with the references provided. I just love Smackbot, knew it would date the tags for me :) Cheers, Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Was passing, and saw your need: have fixed the Illuminet ref. Lots of work to go. Will try and get back here soonish. DrJon 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this page 

message: Shill formerly Ashibaka tried to delete this article twice. Both times the vote was keep. So he's just going to redirect it anyway?
And then he says we have to add sources. But on my user page he posted that if I add sources he doesn't think are good enough, he'll block me! Now NeoFreak said the same thing to anybody who edits this article! So they say we'll delete even if the vote is keep, and if you have to add sources, but we won't like any sources you add, and if you add sources we don't like we'll just block you? Why should we even try! We can't win anyway! I've made a few hundred edits and I've helped create some articles here. But now I'm like what's the point in even trying when they'll just destroy anything you do anyway and will block you from doing anything! Binky The WonderSkull 18:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down. If you want to better understand how to source an article you can find out what a reliable source is or how to include them in a citation by clicking and reading those links. It's all about our rule of attribution. I didn't want to give the impression that anyone who edits this page is going to get blocked (that's not the case) I just don't want anyone else adding to it without citing their sources. The AfD closed before I could get my opinion in and I'll go out on a limb and say that it would have been merged had I done so. Still, I didn't and that's that I suppose. I want to see what the other editors here think and then we'll do something. Feel free to add your voice. NeoFreak 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If you edit they will block you!

message: Overwhelming silence here in response to NeoFreak's independent call for sources two weeks ago, on top of the two months I waited. Any objection to removing the unsourced sections at this point? By that I mean anything below "The Honest Book of Truth." Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 05:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend a redirect. If not then I'd have no objections to the removal of unsourced material. NeoFreak 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: DrJon has said he'll be coming back to add more sources - you could at least give him a week to do so.  Waiting a day and then redirecting the page doesn't seem like following consensus to me.  At any rate, I've sourced what I can - if there's no further sources forthcoming, we should indeed remove the unsourced sections. DenisMoskowitz 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with that doctrine, but you may be right. DenisMoskowitz 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If Kerry Thornley writing about early Discordian topics isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is - he's obviously an expert in the field.  Do you have any citations claiming that Summa Universalia is a running joke, or is that just your own opinion? DenisMoskowitz 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not irrelevant - it's apparently the original source of some of the text in the Principia Discordia and an important part of Discordian history. DenisMoskowitz 11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't "every single thing in the Principia" - it's a foundational document that is discussed in an expert's history of the movement (that happens to have been included as an introduction to a printing of the Principia).  It's notable and sourced - why should we remove it?  DenisMoskowitz 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Summa Universalia was another work by Malaclypse the Younger, purported to be a summary of the Universe. It was excerpted in the first edition of the Principia but never published.
This, as a single sentence, could be included in the "Discordian works" section of the Principia Discordia article. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The only speculation I see is the last sentence - everything else is factual and cited.  What is the purpose of rushing to get rid of this article?  Is there anything in it now that is objectionable? DenisMoskowitz 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, I think this article is right at the cusp of "should be merged with parent" and "should be its own article".  I think that it's possible that more citations will be found for other Discordian works, and that what we have is well-cited, so this article is more likely to grow than shrink.  For that reason, I think that this article should be kept separate. I'd be willing to be overridden by consensus, but there's no consensus at the moment, just the two of us talking. DenisMoskowitz 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Before you try and rip into a respected and established editor please remember the primary rules of attribution and verifiability. These rules might give you a greater insight into his editorial actions. Also, I have yet to see Shii ever violate administrative ethics by using his authority as an admin to block another editor that he is in disagreement with. If you have evidence otherwise then please present it, otherwise please refrain from attempts to defame him because of a content disagreement. NeoFreak 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see Shii's actions that way.  He feels strongly that assertions in Wikipedia should be backed up by citations, which I agree with.  His diplomacy in this case may leave something to be desired but his point is good.  Nothing is keeping anyone from bringing back the removed content with added citations, which I think would be a good thing.  Bringing back the entire article in its pre-trimming state is not productive at this point.DenisMoskowitz 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So, yeah.

message: Hello, everybody; I realize I'm not very well known in the community (read: I doubt anyone knows me), but I'd like to help with the improvement of the article. Discordianism deserves it, yes?
That said, I'd like to know if material copies of the mentioned works exist, and if so, where they're sold. I'd gladly pony up the cash required for the books. If not, the PC forums will prove invaluable to .pdf seekers--www.principiadiscordia.com, I believe, has the appropriate links.
Ragaxus 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Not Be Difficult, Gentlemen 

message: First thought: the article seems to include a work a fiction (Illuminatus! Trilogy), which is not a ho-er, what passes for what we could reasonably describe as a Holy Text, in Discordianism. Does this mean that something (presumably notable enough to warrant reference in a "list of article", which typically seems to be only slightly less than is required for its own article) that simply features strongly and blatantly Discordian themes throughout it counts as a Discordian Work? I'm just curious - oh, and I've never heard of Discordianism until a few days ago, so please correct me (gently) if I'm a little off on this.
Second thought: It seems odd to me that Principia Discordia, the MAIN text of the Discordian religion/philosophy/whatever you want to call it, warrants only a line in the introduction - even though it is arguably one of the few we can determine actually exists in physical form. I realize it has its own article, which would tend towards people figuring "eh, they'll just click the link if they want to know more", but I thought the whole point of these list articles was to summarize the important points on connected works, which may or may not have a full article with further details. All that is mentioned about the PD currently in this article is name and publication date, and what potentially fictional other work on the list it is supposed to include excerpts of. Basic, notable things such as number of known editions, author name, and even the language it was originally written in (which IMO, it would seem logical to include for a work that has a non-English sounding title but is written in English), are all completely absent.
Third thought: Another interesting and I think easy way to expand this is to include a small (very small) section that notes what makes these "Discordian" works in the first place. I don't mean to say you have to define the entire philosophy, but rather noting common themes and memes within them - for instance, the number five/Law of Fives apparently features a lot in both the verifiably real, and potentially mythical, texts, as does randomness and chaos (for an example of both: the part I've heard about in Illuminatus!, where it's wondered if the Law of Fives would still be the same if everyone had six fingers instead of five on each hand), ah, and of course the number 23. This probably sounds harder to cite than it is, given that many of the proper citations are already included in say, the Discordianism article. If nothing else, it would seem slightly less like a stub with something like that in it, whether as a subsection, or as part of the introduction. :) Runa27 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Discordian Works"

message: You can't just come back after a year and a bit and try to sneak back in the same unsourced content we agreed wasn't suitable last time around. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh no, not again 

message: I don't see much content here beyond the main page on Discordianism. Looking at the AfDs above, I realize there's a devoted group of editors that want this article around, but the works that aren't already covered at Discordianism (some of which also have individual articles) don't seem to warrant a separate article. As it stands, this article is a partial WP:CFORK of existing articles, plus some contents that's not very notable. So I'm proposing to merge this with Discordianism. Pcap ping 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...so it's been a year... 168.99.136.54 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it's been a year with no consensus to merge.  During that year, at 03:22, 5 March 2009, someone renamed the page as a "List" article, so the original merge proposal is obsolete anyway, as this is now a different kind of article.   I've removed the merge tag.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: :As I poked about the links on the Principia Discordia page much to my amusement I found varied links to the Principia editions and various forewards and other writings, most of which don't appear on this page or on the Discordianism page. Maybe a link roundup of all the main links added to every page would serve just as well as moving everything over, a link list which describes the high points of each. And on the same topic, does anyone have change for a 5? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To Add (or not to add) other links to both this page and the Discordianism page which exist on the Principia Discordia page discussed above

message: Brenton Clutterbuck has published an article about what he sees as the problems with this wikipedia page. I would like to clarify why I feel this is an acceptable source for this page.
On the one hand, it seems sort of cheating to write a post about how a wikipedia page should change, publish it outside of wikipedia, and then not have it count as original research. But I think it's acceptable because:
* It's not published on wikipedia, but outside, so it can work as a reference.
* Mr. Clutterbuck's real name is attached to it.
* It's not even published on his own site, it's published on Adam Gorightly's. 
* Adam Gorightly published The Prankster and the Conspiracy, which is the best published source on the history of Discordianism there is right now.
* Brenton is working on a project to document the current state of Discordianism, has done most of his worldwide interviews with Discordians, and has published about this on his chasing eris website
In short, this post is pretty much the best source we can imagine on notability of these works right now.
I have searched for wikipedia policies forbidding this from happening, and I found none. So I'm going to use it as a source.
El sjaako (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post about this page as a source for this page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Discordian works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614022635/http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/Starship.htm to http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/Starship.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124014839/http://assets.nybooks.com/media/ipl/independents.pdf to http://assets.nybooks.com/media/ipl/independents.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has Early Works and Later Works which are Discordian.  What it does not have, however, is a section on works about Discordianism.  This could include The Prankster and the Conspiracy (which is about Kerry Thornley, co-creator of Discordianism), and the recent Chasing Eris (in which the author travels the world talking to Discordians).  If no one gives a reason why this section should be created, I'd like to do so. Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no objections in just short of five months.  So I'll do it. Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works about Discordianism