Talk:Discordianism

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)

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)

@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)

(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)

Eris said it's my turn with the write lock

@Skyerise: I don't think this is an appropriate use of {{in use}}. You can hold the page when you're actively making edits that would be disrupted by other editors interleaving, but stepping away for five hours ^{(intentionally)} and preventing other editors from working on multiple pages in that time is not what the template's intended for. The documentation specifically says "no greater than a few hours at a time". DefaultFree (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Five is a few. There is a bot that replaces it when the official limit is exceeded. Skyerise (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing what was unsourced (WP:BURDEN) or improperly sourced (WP:RS, since the banner was here for more than "a few hours at a time" (indeed, for 10 hours). My justifications are in my edit summaries. Furthermore, I have also removed the banner, because the template states "If this template has been left in place for more than two hours since the last edit, you may assume the placing editor has forgotten to remove it, and you may remove it yourself", and Skyerise has not edited since more than two hours. Veverve (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

And I have reverted you because that's exactly why I put an under construction tag on the article while I source it better. You may not remove that tag unless the article hasn't been edited in 24 hours, and while it is on the article, you need to respect the fact that I am aware of your concerns but actually have other commitments that prevent me from addressing them all immediately. That's what the tag is supposed to indicate. Ignoring it is considered disruptive editing. Feel free to add sources, tag deficiencies for me to address, but wholesale removals are counterproductive and I will just have to revert them every time I am able to edit further. Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

{{under construction}} is just informational. It doesn't actually create any obligations for other editors, and doesn't override Wikipedia policy. For that matter, the same is true of {{in use}}. Avoiding creating edit conflicts for an active editor is a matter of courtesy, and the template is informational. Nobody WP:OWNs this or any Wikipedia article. DefaultFree (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

And yet, I am still working on it, and every time I restart I will revert to where I was, and the tag is a reasonable warning that changes that aren't simple ones are likely to be reverted. Skyerise (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add sources, tag deficiencies for me to address, but wholesale removals are counterproductive and I will just have to revert them every time I am able to edit further: WP:BURDEN still applies whatever banner you put on top of an article or not. It is not disruptive to edit while this banner is here.

As a sidenote, I take it for granted that you are now perfectly aware of the problems there is with the article's concent since you have reverted all of my edits and that the latter had received ample justifications in my edit summaries.

I will leave you until next week end to do the work you intend to do on the article. Please note that this banner does not give you the right to WP:STONEWALL or WP:OWN an article. Veverve (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't expect to take that long, so try not to cast aspersions. I am neither stonewalling or owning the article. I simply cannot complete the work all at one go. Skyerise (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:BADREVERT, particularly Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit. DefaultFree (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't agree that that applies when under construction is on the article. I am working from a base; I am thinking about it when not able to edit. It's discourteous to remove that base; and if you find my reversion also discourteous, I suggest you read WP:KETTLE. Skyerise (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is a difference between the {{in use}} and {{under construction}} templates: the latter indicates that I am not done but does not require me to be actively editing, as long as I come back and continue within 24 hours. So please be more respectful of the difference between the two tags, their meanings, and the respective time periods. Please be patient, when I am completely done I will remove them. Skyerise (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the example actions listed at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR:

1. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article: [1] [2]
2. An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not: [3] [4] [5]
3. (admittedly, I can't find an example of #3 here)
4. An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit: [6] [7]
5. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions: User talk:DefaultFree/Archives/2024#Previous user names User talk:Veverve#Edit warring 2 User talk:Veverve#Removals while an under construction tag is in place
6. An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary: [8]

That's five out of six by my count. DefaultFree (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, our Bold, Revert, Discuss guideline cleary states that if your edit is reverted, you must then discuss on the talk page. It is not WP:OWN to revert a change made repeatedly without opening a discussion; the relevant guideline is WP:BRD, a guidelines I assume you are familiar with, so I didn't feel the need to link it from my revert. Skyerise (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

#2 is particularly illustrative here. A warning that every time [she] restart[s] [she'll] revert, and that wholesale removals [...] will just have to revert them every time [she is] able to edit further does seem to be pretty blatant WP:OWN behavior, specifically to protect a certain version, stable or not. As DefaultFree (talk · contribs) wrote, preventing edit conflicts is a matter of courtesy, not policy. I do not believe that there is policy which states that one [doesn't] get to remove an active under construction tag and then remove parts of the article while [another editor is] working on providing sources, at least in the case that the editor seems to have stepped away from actively editing the page (few is subjective, and this goes both ways.) wound theology◈ 07:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The {{under construction}} template clearly states that it should only be removed if it "has not been edited in several days". Whether an editor chooses to be courteous about it is their business, but once I put the in use template back on it, everything I do counts as a single edit. I don't have any problem with someone removing the tag if I step away and forget to come back within the time frame - but there is also nothing that says that I can't return the article to the previous state when I return. That's a single revert - which any editor can do at any time assuming they aren't already 3 reverts in over the previous 24 hours. So where exactly is the fault here? The fact that I used strong no-nonsense rhetoric while another editor was threatening to disrupt my work? I think its pretty telling that it has now been 12 hours since I removed under construction from two articles, and neither of the two impatient editors breathing down my neck has apparently found anything left unsourced that they can remove, despite the fact that they clearly strongly wanted to. Not a single edit. Skyerise (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You claim that once [you] put the in use template back on it, everything [you] do counts as a single edit. Is there policy to back this up? Furthermore, it seems that WP:OWN does imply that you cannot return the article to the previous state when [you] return. It specifically notes revert[ing] justified article changes [...] to protect a certain version, stable or not, emphasis my own. Also, please refrain from casting aspersions -- no one here is threatening to disrupt [your] work unless they specifically say that. Otherwise, assume good faith. wound theology◈ 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:3RR states that an uninterupted series of edits counts as a single edit for the purpose of counting reverts: " A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." I'm done here. Your comments are not serving any useful purpose and are beginning to verge on harassment, in my opinion. I'm under no obligation to justify or even explain myself to you. Skyerise (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I misunderstoof what you meant by counts as a single edit here; but it still seems that this doesn't really apply. Furthermore, asking for clarification on policy you cite opaquely is simply not harassment, and if you do not feel like justifying or explaining such citations, then don't expect anyone to take it seriously. wound theology◈ 12:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Please assume that henceforth I will ignore you. Your motivation for your interactions with me does not appear to be improving Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, your reactions have no bearing on whether my arguments hold weight for other editors, since building consensus is what is important here. wound theology◈ 12:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Which is why discussion on article talk pages are supposed to be limited to content, not behavior. Article talk pages are not where you go if you don't like an editors behavior. There are many more appropriate venues, depending on what you feel the issue is. This kind of BS just clutters up the article talk page, violates WP:AGF, etc. Skyerise (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Other than agreeing with the two other editors here that your edits seem to be WP:OWN behavior -- which I don't think is a violation of WP:AGF, and I specifically cited both policy and your own words -- what here is an assumption of bad faith? wound theology◈ 12:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There is an underlying assumption that I have some motivation other than improving the article. Please either keep your opinions to yourself in the future or go directly to an appropriate venue. I will continue to log harassing comments about behavior rather than content which you post on article talk pages, as I am sure you already know I am doing. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly believe that you have good intentions with your editing habits -- you're a prolific editor who has done a great deal of good work on many articles. There is no underlying assumption that you have a motiviation other than improving the article. What would that even be in the context of Discordianism?

However, that does not change the fact that I agree with the other two editors here, and hopefully the discussion here will inform you on how you contribute to the page moving forward. wound theology◈ 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

With the already much improved sourcing and detailing I think it's fair to give Skyerise the time they need to finish the work that they envision without the extra burden of defending tags. Maybe let them have the time and then check how the page shakes out. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh gee, thanks. That horse is already out of the barn. I was done 12 hours ago when I removed the {{Under construction}} template. Beat dead horses much? Skyerise (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Request that editors actually follow WP:BURDEN

Editors should please note that WP:BURDEN explicitly says that giving editors time to provide citations once they have said they intend to do so is part of the process: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Since multiple editors have stated that they intend to provide citations, a courtesy sensitive reading of WP:BURDEN would suggest that continued removals without first tagging and then giving other editors time to do their work would be against the clearly stated spirit of WP:BURDEN. Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Curse of Greyface

This section was removed even though Greyface seems to be a major figure in the topic and, as a descriptor, rounds out the page:

"A historical figure noted in the Principia is a man by the name of Greyface who existed in the year 1166 B.B., or 1 YOLD. Greyface believed the universe to be humorless and began teaching that anything besides seriousness was sinful. Deluded by society's view of reality as the happy romance they once knew it to be, Greyface's followers increased. Lost in the history of the Discordian society is understanding of the reason why people began following Greyface and the destruction of other cultures whose societies differed from their own, rather than continuing to look toward the humorful romance of disorder.""

Possible to bring it back? This has many sources but I'm not sure which are applicable to a reliable source here, some seem to be. Can others take a look, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)