Talk:Discordianism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Chasing Eris

The Addition of Chasing Eris to the list of related works has been undone on the base that it is a "self-published book". When I added it, I was warned that self-published books are filtered to prevent self-promotion. In this case though, the book is highly relevant to the understanding of contemporary Discordianism, and thus should be included. Reverting it without any proof of self-promotion seems dubious to me. Just for transparency: Yes, an interview with me has been included in this book, but this is not a major part of the whole work. I wanted to include the book because I consider its outcome important, not because I'm part of it.--Bwana Honolulu (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If it should be covered here, it should have some independently written secondary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It has been referenced on the companion blog to Historia Discordia multiple times, for example in the article Sex, Drugs and Discordia or in a piece about early Discordian Bob Newport. Reviews have been featured on blogs like RAWillumination and The Daily Grail. And it had been heavily referenced in Fiction, Invention and Hyper-reality: From popular culture to religion, chapter 10: "Discordians stick apart": The institutional turn within contemporary Discordianism by J. Christian Greer.--Bwana Honolulu (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Chasing Eris & Historia Discordia were both recently removed by a newer Wikipedia account "Breastone" who appears to be Alden Loveshades himself (who has talked previously on this page), He is known to the Discordian community to insert himself into Discordian history, remove contributions from more academic sources, and operate many sockpuppet accounts to continually do so. I just reverted his most recent changes as WP:Vandalism. DerKirche (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

While I posted the below response on this editor's page about a year and a half ago, innocent people are still being targeted. So I'm copying and posting my response here.

I will add that Chasing Eris talks about me, and I wrote an interview with the author that was published in a magazine. (It was originally planned to be published by Yahoo, but right before then the company shut down its contributor program). And I wrote a favorable review of the book. So if the editor's accusation "He is known...to insert himself into Discordian history" was accurate, there'd be no way I'd want Wikipedia references to the book removed.

Your Conspiracy Theory

There's a few little problems with your conspiracy theory.

1) You're mixing up several different people. That's apparently including the late, great, Robert Anton Wilson (at least according to a report by a member of Wilson's family--I can't personally confirm that).

2) I started writing professionally before Wikipedia began. I've written thousands of professionally published pieces. (That's not unusual for an employed journalist.) With all of that, I've only had to write a correction for a professionally published factual error that was my fault one (1) time. (Note that I'm not including spelling and grammatical errors, or factual errors that came from another source.) I've also written professionally for universities--with no reported factual errors. So unless you can provide me with evidence that I "remove contributions from more academic sources," I'd suggest you reconsider.

3) Please show me where in Wikipedia policy the edit by another editor that you pointed out was vandalism. If you check the history as I did, you might find it actually restored a section that had once been removed by someone accused of vandalism.

4) I fairly recently got a book professionally published. And here's what's happened in just the last week and a half: One of my stories appeared in a fantasy-science fiction collection. I had a freelance article professionally published. And I had a 3,000+ word article published in an Origins Award-winning magazine. The articles received comments and even promotion from some of the top people in their industries. (Don't believe me? Check here.) So why would I push to get an out-of-print book, with which I was only one of many contributors, publicized here instead of my current work that I'm trying to make money on?

5) You seem to have a history of problems here. You might want to read Wikipedia policy before making more unverified accusations.

Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC) -- date of original posting

Alden Loveshade (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop this discussion please, this is WP:NOTFORUM. Veverve (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia

Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht has been mentioned in this article for several years, and has had its own paragraph since 2016 as you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discordianism&type=revision&diff=750397473&oldid=742679404

It was very recently removed with the edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discordianism&type=revision&diff=1006830376&oldid=1006819520 (this contains the complete paragraph as it last appeared in the article). The editor's posted reason for the removal was "(Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht is not considered a major Discordian work and this edit was placed here by the author.)" While the book had been listed in the article for years previously, the editor who added the full paragraph, who is not the book's author, suggested I put it back in. However, as I am listed as one of the book's contributors, I'm concerned about that looking like shameless-self promotion/conflict or interest or some such.

As it says in the link above, the book was not published by a "vanity press," and has a foreword by S. John Ross (game designer), with blurbs (short reviews of the book) by R. Crumb, Sondra London, Alan Moore, Rev. Ivan Stang, Robert Anton Wilson, and others. It was listed in the New York Review of Books. All those facts are verified by the provided links.

Could somebody please add the paragraph shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discordianism&type=revision&diff=1006830376&oldid=1006819520 back into the article? If an admin gives me permission, I can add it back in, but do not want to do it myself without permission. Thanks to anyone who can help me. Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI:Admins have zero authority over content. None at all. Consensus is the primary method of decision making with regard to content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox I appreciate your help and input. While I don't know if there was a formal consensus, I would tend to believe that dozens of editors making hundreds of edits on the article for a period of years and not removing the paragraph on the book would amount to some sort of consensus to keep it in. But I'm still left with the dilemma that, as I am associated with the book, I don't want to be the one to restore it. Hopefully someone will feel motivated to do so. Alden Loveshade (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE may be relevant here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Alden Loveshade (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)