Talk:List of Discordian works

Fresh start

Hey folks. Here's the facts:

• I'm here because Shii asked me to take a look at the page.
• I have no bias against Discordianism.
• I do not tolerate fools
• I know Moreschi (from around here, not personally) and he's not a sockpuppet or a bad faith editor.
• Discordianism and published works about it are verifiable but that hasn't been shown (yet).
• This page does not meet the attribution policy.
• There are assertions made in this article that are original research
• Most everyone here is guilty of being uncivil or assuming bad faith at some point.
• This article can be alot better than it is.

So with these facts in mind let's work on improving this article and getting it in compliance with what wikipedia is all about. I have no doubt that Shii will hold off on a redirect for a resonable amount of time (read not forever) so we can get reliable sources. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about editors, I'm here to get this article in shape and policy complaiant. If anyone adds any unsourced material after this article is unprotected I will leave you one warning on your talk page. If it happens again I will refer the party to an outside admin for a block. We all now know what can and cannot be added to wikipedia and knowingly breaking the rules by adding inappropriate material you will be commiting vandalism. If and when unsourced material is added it will be removed, period. Let's all calm down and work together to find sources. Anyone and everyone can feel free to hit me up on my talk page at anytime. Also note that I have archived the previous discussions. If anyone feels that any of those discussions can be constructive and would like to continue them they can be moved from the archives back to this page without a problem. NeoFreak 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"If anyone adds any unsourced material after this article is unprotected I will leave you one warning on your talk page. If it happens again I will refer the party to an outside admin for a block. We all now know what can and cannot be added to wikipedia and knowingly breaking the rules by adding inappropriate material you will be commiting vandalism."

I just had to repeat that statement. I'm sure it will encourage people to try to add sources. I am so glad that every single person who might consider editing this Wikipedia article knows exactly what you consider to be unsourced. Makes my day! Reverend Loveshade 05:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. My opinion on this is outlined here, and I don't think that's unreasonable or fascistic. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My initial reaction was the same as yours but I want to give it a chance. I'm not opposed to the idea of a "List of Discordian works" type article with a brief synopsis of the individual books. Still if some reliable sources can be found about the "Works" as a concept then that would be great. Barring those sources, yeah, this article is a pretty clear case of WP:SYN. NeoFreak 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but this article has been in this state for weeks: sources being requested and none being given. They are needed if this page is not to go/be merged to elsewhere sooner or later. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I just want to make sure that it's given that last chance. In the next few days (or a few days after the unprotect) I would concur with a merge which, as it stands at this moment, is the policy compliant move. NeoFreak 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but this article is up for deletion - will it be unprotected in time for changes to be made, so that it can become good enough to not be deleted? It kind of feels like a Catch-22 at the moment, with Moreschi saying that he'll change his vote if the page is improved when the page can't be changed. DenisMoskowitz 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about the state of the page itself right now, although it would be nice to have it unprotected (the protection was requested on a false premise). What I do care about is sources. You can post them either here or on the AfD page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When the page is unprotected there should be a few days so that editors that feel they can source the article can do so. After a couple days, failing any sources about the subject emerging, then I would agree with a merge. The AfD will close on the fifth of this month. That should leave time for the page to be unprotected and sources added if they can be found. If they aren't I will advocate either a deltion or a mege before the close of the AfD. NeoFreak 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The AfD closed and nobody has edited the article despite the unprotection. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 14:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Barring any kind refs I'm going to turn the page into a redirect. Any thoughts on what (if anything) can be merged over? Sorry I haven't been active here, I've been busy with some...frustrating editors elsewhere. NeoFreak 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can edit this now but who?

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)

I've unprotected it. John Reaves (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving this page

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)

Sounds good. NeoFreak 19:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Moreschi for adding some "citation needed" tags. I've cited some references that I had handy. Could someone who owns the Illuminet edition finish up the Summa Universalia citation? There are still a lot of citations needed, so let's dive in and cite what we can. DenisMoskowitz 12:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you edit they will block you!

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)

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)

Summary of my edits: I got "Five Blind Men and an Elephant" and "Author:Reverend Loveshade" deleted on Wikisource, and accordingly I removed the red links to those pages. I also removed the link to Cafepress because it was being used as a citation. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So, yeah.

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)

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)

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)

I thought Jimbo said that you can remove any unsourced information on sight, and if it turns out to be true it can be added back later. Since when were we taking the opposite view? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Excellent, so we have some agreement here. I am quite relieved to finally have a resolution. Now, let's decide what to do with these legitimately sourced Discordian works.

• The "Summa Universalia", as the article admits, might not even be a real work at all but merely a running joke. It would be encyclopedic if we were sure it was real, but we don't even have an excerpt, so I think we can remove it without hesitation (claiming it's real is original research).
• The overlapping "Honest Book of Truth", being the only work left that doesn't have its own article somewhere else, can thus be merged into the Principia Discordia article. We can give it its own heading at first and then incorporate it into the article's flow.

Please let me know what you think. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Even if it is real, devoting a whole section to a book that is irrelevant to anything, was never published, and apparently never even finished is kind of overkill, isn't it? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 04:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I highly doubt that it is at all important. It only gets mentioned as an aside in these little pages, right? We don't need to mention every single thing in the Principia. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I kind of doubt it's all that important, but I guess we can keep it in. At least remove the speculation and reduce it to what we know about the Summa Universalia:

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)

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)

Well, the main thing is that it only has two headings, both about excerpts from other books included in various editions of the Principia; so it would be more convenient to list these under the Principia article. At this point I wouldn't remove that much from the article, simply move what we do have. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Shii formerly Ashibaka has burned some people out who got tired of him continually deleting their work. I'm one of them. He also scared people off with his threats of blocking them if they made edits he didn't like, a threat also made by NeoFreak. And he's insulted several people here. I don't know how he is allowed to stay here as an administrator, but apparently consideration for others and civility are not required to be a sysop. I think some have left Wikipedia because of his actions. As for his threats and insults, check this article's history and the discussions, and the postings on Reverend Loveshade. One of the threats to block is on Binky The WonderSkull. DenisMoskowitz, Binky The WonderSkull, myself and several others did a great deal of work on this article. But once again, Shii formerly Ashibaka has simply ripped it all out. How long can you fight someone who's little bit of power has gone to his head? IamthatIam 16:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Let's Not Be Difficult, Gentlemen

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)

"Discordian Works"

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)

Discordian Works seem like a difficult thing to define (having been a Discordian for quite some time I find this seems true, even for myself). However, "The Illuminatus Trilogy!", does tend to be considered as much of a Discordian work as the Principia. When the Principia provides a baseline of ideas, the TIT! provides allegory and a story setting for those ideas. This might be compared to the difference between the Jewish Torah and other Jewish works like the books of the Prophets or Kings. One was their law, the others were about the society that lived by those laws. From a Discordian's perspective, they are much more likely that not to consider any writing about Discordia to be a Discordian Work. Dclydew 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again

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)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge, despite a year of debate. -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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)

• Merge. This discussion would be easier to find, though, if it were on the talk page of the article being merged-to, where it belongs. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Granted, this article is quite stubbish, but there are quite a few more Discordian works out there than are referenced, and it could easily be expanded. Essentially this is a list article that needs to have more items added to it, and it's much more likely to get that sort of attention as its own article. And please take a look at WP:DEADLINE before making any arguments regarding how little has been done to improve it thus far . . . we all have real lives, even the fictional Discordians.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. This content can be expanded... but it should be done over on Discordianism. This individual page absolutely does not prove its own notability as a stand-alone in a general interest encyclopedia. Blue Danube (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, The Discordian-inspired works section has blossomed into a rather weedy example farm, (and I have tagged it as such). I'm loathe to agree to adding MORE to it, unless the target section is significantly pruned down. (Yes, the irony of arguing to impose order upon an article about Chaos is not lost on me) -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Better than a merge would be to change the works section in the main article to a prose discussion emphasizing the important works, and make the works article a more complete list of all the related works. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, this article will expand, separate from the discordianism article. Discordianism article should link here. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Discordianism doesn't need the bloat and it's a meaningful topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge This page is distinct subject and doesn't need the bloating of the added page. Also both pages merit being seperate. MasteroftheWord (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge Discordians encourage schisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.81.133 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree to Merge we do not need redundant and overlapping materials in Wikipedia, and we do not want deletionists to take over this argument --—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - if this is considered "bloat" on the main topic page, why include this at all? It's not distinctly different than the main article, just a list of the works that doesn't amount to more than a few additional lines of text. And I can't imagine a way to construe this as worthy of its own article in a general interest encyclopedia. Blue Danube (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, no reason to cut down on information regarding religious texts unless you want to do it to Christianity too (hint: you don't because people would be MAD). Also I know this is an old discussion but it hasn't been closed yet. Voretus (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Slightly Oppose, at this moment. But I do have a suggestion to add to this page from that page, see next topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...so it's been a year... 168.99.136.54 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) and I forgot to log in Fruckert (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)

Post about this page as a source for this page

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Works about Discordianism

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)

Well, no objections in just short of five months. So I'll do it. Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)