Talk:Discordianism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discordianism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Principia Discordia "released into the public domain"

At Discordianism#Principia Discordia editions, the article stated that Principia Discordia was "released into the public domain", relying on a Boing Boing article which itself relies on this website which states "(K) ALL RIGHTS REVERSED - Reprint what you like".

While it is quite funny to state "(K) ALL RIGHTS REVERSED - Reprint what you like", copyright applies unless the clearly-identified author uses a clear language along the lines of "I release XXX in the public domain".

This along with the fact I do not believe Boing Boing is a RS on copyright law are the reasons why I have removed this part. Veverve (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this referenced on ANI. To speak strictly to the copyright issue - I don't believe this is accurate. Of course, it's a mess, because in the very very very unlikely scenario of someone claiming to own the Discordian works AND suing over them, it'd come down to what a judge thought rather than a simple hard-and-fast rule, but in general... legal notifications aren't, like, magic spells that have to be chanted exactly. It's okay to get the gist of them. I don't speak of this as what should be the case, but rather what is the case when judges have had to rule on things like poorly phrased wills, Miranda warnings with a mistake, and so on. And it's not even clear that this is a "mistake" at all. As an additional complication, courts generally grant extra deference to the wishes of religions to phrase things their way (See: Quakers are allowed to "affirm" rather than "swear" in court even though it's obviously the same thing). I would say that this was a pithy statement releasing the work into the public domain in Discordian-ese. And the fact that secondary sources agree strengthens the case: even though Boing Boing is a weak source, do we have any source saying the opposite? SnowFire (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: please see the discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Principia Discordia (1970), esp. Xover's comments. Veverve (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Borrowing from my own post in the deletion request linked immediately above)

A fundamental tenet of Discordianism co-creator Gregory Hill is that he made the book "Kopyleft" because he didn't want his intentions to be misunderstood--i.e. he didn't want to get sued. The idea that nothing Discordian should be copyrighted is a 21st century idea and was not agreed upon by Gregory Hill, Kerry Wendell Thornley, Robert Anton Wilson, or Robert Shea. Greg copyrighted a short Discordian work before Principia Discordia was produced (that's likely why it's not included in the book). Kerry Thornley contributed Discordian-related material to copyrighted collections. And Roberts Wilson and Shea definitely had Discordianesque The Illuminatus! Trilogy copyrighted.

But.... There have been several editions of Principia Discordia published that note it is public domain. These include an edition posted online since the 1990s by Carnegie Mellon University, a print edition by Loompanics Unlimited, a print edition by Steve Jackson Games, and others. Steve Jackson Games is famous for winning a case against the United States Secret Service. This led to the foundation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation which you can read about on Wikipedia. SJGames is extremely careful about these things.

Disclaimer: I've done work associated with or directly for some of the people/groups/companies I mentioned, have written professionally about more than one of the things I mentioned, have been interviewed and am planned for another professional interview in regard to the above. So I admit my bias. But the facts remain. Alden Loveshade (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of sources

@Veverve: I request that rather than just remove material you find inadequately sourced, that you tag each source as unreliable, or better source needed, etc. Can I get a consensus from other involved editors that this approach would be less WP:DISRUPTIVE? (@Randy Kryn: @Vajzë Blu:) Skyerise (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would make it easier to be alerted of the concern so that it could be remedied if possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Vajzë Blu (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep WP:BLOGSs. You keep WP:SPS (e.g. WP:Wikinews). You keep WP:FICTREF. You keep unsourced information (WP:BURDEN). You use primary sources, mostly to turn the article into a summary of the Principia Discordia (as a sidenote, it is a work which is neither clear nor considered as being written with the intention of being understood), regardless of the WP:NOTABILITY of the information you add (see also WP:ONUS). I have detailed in each of my edits the reasons of my edit. And you have the guts accusing me of being disruptive? Veverve (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Skyerise (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, WP:NOTABILITY applies only at the article level. If the topic itself is notable, all that material in the article has to be is sourced. It doesn't have to meet standalone article notability requirements. Not sure where you got an idea like that! Skyerise (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability also applies to information. Again, see WP:ONUS. Furthermore, WP:INDISCRIMINATE states: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Veverve (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." - it does not apply here. If you're going to Wikilawyer, at least go to Wiki Law School first! The primary issue here is WP:CONSENSUS, which you do not have. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. every time you post your lawyer blather here, I will expand the article. Skyerise (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personnal attack and from WP:BATTLEGROUNDS behaviours like in your latest two messages above. Content is not to be added on WP as a kind of revenge, but content is to be added as a way to improve an article.

Please keep in mind that in any case WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:ONUS are policies against indiscriminate additions of content. Veverve (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one with the battleground behavior, per other editors observations on ANI, you are. Skyerise (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what ANI discussion you are referring to. The only ANI discussion related to this article that I know about is the one in which I was not blamed in any way and in which the user I had reported was sanctionned. Again, please refrain from doing personnal attacks. Veverve (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were criticized for the rash of nominations of redirects after removing the content which supported them. You were criticized for removing content for which there were plenty of third party sources that you didn't look for. Just reporting what I read in a publicly available ANI thread. That's not a personal attack. Funny how you can dish it out, but can't take it. Skyerise (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, adding more information about Discordianism to an article on Discordianism is hardly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You're obviously grasping at straws when you make a ridiculous claim like that. As for WP:ONUS, it clearly requires that there be a consensus for any such removals. I don't see that you have any such consensus on this talk page. Skyerise (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Law of Fives" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Law of Fives has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 10 § Law of Fives until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Law of Fives" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Law of Fives has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 10 § The Law of Fives until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Law of fives" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Law of fives has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 10 § Law of fives until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]