Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, unverifiable. Praise Bob!  RasputinAXP  c 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia

I smell a hoax.

As a religion or a website, this fails miserably. Apparently it's a sect of Discordianism practiced by a small circle of followers, and the website isn't even rated on Alexa, and has only one incoming link.[1].

Well, okay, if it's not a notable religion or notable website, is it a notable criminal case? I'd say yes, but I can't find any evidence whatsoever that the child pornography or terrorism allegations exist. Google searches only turn up forum/blog posts obviously made by Loveshade/Ek-sen-trik-kuh posters.

I wouldn't mind keeping this if some real evidence of the criminal charges could be offered, but I'm betting this one's a hoax. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this article with Gerina, and while you're entitled to your opinion, I don't think Wikipedia's policy encourages you to say that a religion or website "fails miserably." Whether you like the religion or the website is your own opinion, but isn't reason to call for deletion of an article.
I don't know much about an Alexa rating, but the site http://discordia.loveshade.org hasn't been there very long. The beginnings of the work Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, though, has been around since 1994 and online since 1995. Read the sources I link to in the article--there are references going back to the 1990s. Check the index of the BloodStar site at http://www.geocities.com/bloodstar84 (it was last updated in 2001); or groups.yahoo.com/groups/illuminatusinnersanctum; or http://appendix.23ae.com/apocrypha/; or http://www.23ae.com; or http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/7971/panpleasant/apocrypha.html (check the index--it was last updated in 1997).
Also the Alexa search engine you mentioned gave 388 hits for rev loveshade and 549 for reverend loveshade. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me. And check any version of the published Rev. DrJon Swabey's version of Apocrypha Discordia and you'll find Reverend Loveshade and BloodStar in it. You can also find this has been translated into German.
While it's a joke site, Reverend Loveshade is popular enough that there's an article about him at http://en.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Reverend_Loveshade that's been there for months. If an article there isn't about something important enough for people to get the jokes about, it's deleted. Do a search on Uncyclopedia for Reverend Loveshade and see how many references you can find. I got 22.
As for the legal parts, the sites are there that show that too. "Stripping Away American Freedom: A Call to Action" which deals with the terrorism is on both BloodStar's site and the new Loveshade site. Check the index of the BloodStar site and you'll see it was posted in December 2001 just like it says. Check my article for the links to the legal problems in Illuminatus Inner Sanctum posted in 2003, or the profile of 2002. Check the links!
I know I'm not supposed to take comments personally, but Gerina and I worked on this article for a month. If you don't believe that, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discordianism and look at the section for Apocrypha and Ek-sen-trik-kuh. We were encouraged to write the article by DrJon and even by DenisMoskowitz. Denis was against it at first until he realized that Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia was originally called "the non-existent Apocrypha Discordia," and had been around and well-know for years. And DrJon compiled the 2001 Apocrypha Discordia, and also encouraged us.
Please check the links and you can see there are references to this all over. Gerina and I worked very hard on verifying what we posted. Check the links! Binky The WonderSkull 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Er. It fails the respective notability standards miserably. I'm not passing judgement regarding quality, merely noting that the following is extremely small.
Do you have any evidence from a reliable source that this is a religion with a large following, a popular website, or a major legal case? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
These are from the page you quoted.
"When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources." We site several primary and secondary sources, as Wikipedia suggests.
"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." We site primary and secondary sources verifying opinions, which makes it a fact that they hold that opinion.
"Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account." We have done this, as explained above.
"A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source." That's why we didn't use just the http://discordia.loveshade.org site. We used several. I have a list of others I could have included, but I thought a dozen or so would be enough. Should I add another dozen?
"Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." Again, we didn't use just the one site, although it is acceptable as a primary source. It was not our sole source by any means.
"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible...." We only used English-language sources, even though we have a couple in other languages. Should we use those?
"Historical research involves the collection of original or “primary” documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues. To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents." This is why we did a search of the index of some of the sites, to learn when items were posted and last updated. You can check these yourself if you want--they're in the article.


"Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected, but sources for these topics should not be held to as strict a standard. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Sources_for_popular_culture." Feel free to check that out. I think you'll find it backs us up. Binky The WonderSkull 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete - per article creator. Geocities and Yahoo profile links have never helped anyone's cause. Less than 50 unique hits for "Reverend Loveshade" many of which are irrelevant and are, at best, non-credible sources. Wickethewok 07:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I borrowed this from Weregerbil's comments on Apocrypha Discordia. It fits here. If this work has a third as many unique hits as Microsoft, I think it belongs here. JennyGirl 08:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As to google hits, it's not that simple: see how many unique hits you get for Microsoft (I get 136, YMMV.) If google's "of about N for TheSubject" is greater than 1000 then the unique page count can't be interpreted directly. Weregerbil 08:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - First you say that unique Google hits are an inaccurate measurement, and then you say that its amount of unique Google hits is the reason it should be kept. Makes no sense.... 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - That's what is known as a circular argument. The point is that unique google hits isn't reliable. But is that really the point of this discussion? MRN 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Please read more carefully: If google's ... is greater than 1000. 50 is not greater than 1000. Weregerbil 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable joke, mixed with what appear to be hoax claims of FBI arrests and whatnot. Article title gets 15 google hits [2], the claimed older name "non-existent Apocrypha Discordia" two hits [3]; all on blogs and geocities and such. No notability established per WP:WEB or any other way I can think of. Every spin-off of a joke religion isn't automatially notable. Weregerbil 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Do a search for Apocrypha Discordia. It was called that since 1995. It hasn't been called Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia very long, and wasn't usually called "non-existent Apocrypha Discordia." Binky The WonderSkull 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have put up Apocrypha Discordia for deletion in addition to this. I also find it interesting to note that when editors write paragraphs and paragraphs about why an article should be kept, its deleted more often than not. Wickethewok 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - So because Binky has a lot of support for his position, that's a reason to delete it? Binky's arguments sound good to me. JennyGirl 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No offense, but I think some of you are mixing apples with oranges. So the book's had a lot of different titles, so why judge it based on one? And I don't know why nobody's mentioned it, but there's a really long article about the whole legal thing at http://www.logicalreality.com . There's even a link to it on the article. Maybe nobody's checked it out because it's a totally controversial site. But is controversy a reason to not use it? JennyGirl 08:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where on that site is this really long article? Nobody's checked it out because nobody has linked it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Welcome to WP editing, JennyGirl. Enjoy your stay! Wickethewok 08:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I think it is notable enough to keep... If only for the criminal charges. I think it should be merged into Apocrypha Discordia, though.--Dakart 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if the criminal charges are real, then sure, that's notable enough. I just can't find a reliable source that confirms that they're not a hoax. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment If it's a hoax then it's been going on since 2001 because that's when the links about criminal stuff date from. If it's been a continuing hoax for five years, that in itself makes it notable! --MRN 09:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Forget about the criminal stuff that's icing on the cake. Hasn't anybody here mentioned that Greg Hill who wrote Principia Discordia praised Loveshade's work before he died? And that Mark Steele/Icarus who worked on the Illuminatus! comic book for Robert Anton Wilson who popularized Discordianism contributed to Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and so did S. John Ross who created Warehouse 23 that was Steve Jackson Games organ for Discordian and other weird stuff? Remember the Steve Jackson Games edition that made Discordianism famous? Check your history, folks! --MRN 08:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So the claim of notability is that the founder of the sect knew a handful of marginally notable authors and game designers? Or am I missing something here?
      Incidentally, this is MRN's fifth edit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per all delete votes above. No truly independent sources used that I can see. Vizjim 10:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Miserably fails on verifiability and notability and nothing posted by any of its supporters remotely changes that. Fan1967 14:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to fall short on everything, in fact - WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEB, WP:VSCA... Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable unless good source citations meeting WP:RS is provided. Currently the sole source is the "official online version of Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia," which does not qualify. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must Merge with Discordianism. Discordianism and its subcomponents are a notable religion and/or cultural phenomenon. - CNichols 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because Discordianism is notable does not mean some small, unverifiable offshoot inherits that notability. Fan1967 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must Merge with Apocrypha Discordia. The work itself is notable with selections from it on lots of websites--the entire book is "evolving" as they say, but pieces from it are all over the web. It includes the long-missing and famous "The Myth of Starbuck" by Greg Hill which DrJohn found, and also "Five Blind Men and an Elephant" which is well-known in Discordian circles--it was even translated into German, which I think is notable. Some of the links do show the history of the work and the group's legal hassles. I think the only real problem here is that the article on LogicalReality that verifies the FBI stuff can't be accessed by non-members. If there's a way a copy of that article could be posted where everyone could see it, I'd say Definitely Keep it. IamthatIam 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - strange how there are all these users on WP who have never contributed before except to this single article subject. Wickethewok 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Damn Straight! All of these other commenters are members of those Sinister Ministers the Bavarian Illuminati. I know some of them and have had to face off with them over a number of issues. They are trying to infiltrate Wikipedia, you must stop them and their mad dash to get people to think that just because many Discordians are aware of Rev Loveshade, his work, his legal issues and the correctness of his facts, that somehow its actually worthy of the Grand Wikipedia. I warn you, if you do not delete this entry soon, the Illuminati will overtake Wikipedia and all will be lost. The next thing you know servers will get hit with golden apples dunked in fire and brimstone (like carmel but more spicy!). I urge to to stop this madness before all is lost! - Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord, Muncher of the ChaoAcorn, Chatterer of the Words of Eris, POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.211.132 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment - Like who? IamthatIam 03:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - like you, sir, with less than 20 edits, most of which are to talk pages. Like MRN, who has less than 10 edits. Like JennyGirl, who has never contributed to an article. And Binky, who has been here about a month and only contributed to the couple articles in question. Wickethewok 03:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - Wickethewok said "strange how there are all these users on WP who have never contributed before except to this single article." Then when I questioned him, he completely contradicted himself. Now instead of me contributing 0 edits, it's less than 20. And instead of MRN contributing 0, it's less than 10. And what the f*** are you talking about Binky? Check Binky The WonderSkull again--he's only been here a month and has already made about 75 edits!Is this the way you work, Wickethewok by making up facts to support your position? Isn't that what you're accusing Binky of? Talk about calling the kettle black... IamthatIam 04:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Response - What I meant to say was that you hadn't contributed to anything except contributing information about the SUBJECT in question, and only a few edits at that (I have edited my comment to be more specific). And I never said that anyone had contributed "0 edits". Please don't put words in my mouth or text in my edit. I am merely pointing about how you and your friends have only contributed to this single article's subject, so you might not realize the fuller scope of Wikipedia, that is all. Other editors helped point me in the right direction when I started, too, so please don't take offense. Wickethewok 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - I'm going to assume you really are as ignorant as you're acting (my ohter option is to assume you're lying). "I never said that anyone had contributed '0 edits'" You're right, you didn't. You said, more or less (I see you'd edited your own comment) there are "all these users on WP who have never contributed before except to this single article subject." To enlighten you, if you've done something zero times, you've never done it. You might want to look it up. Maybe you'd learn something. IamthatIam 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - Please note the "except" section of this sentence of mine you have become so fond of. "Except" is used to modify the previous clause of a sentence. Wickethewok 05:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - Yes, I know basic English. So let me explain. If, with the exception of this article, you've done something zero times, then, with the exception of this article, you've never done it. You're focusing on semantics instead of the fact that you made a bold assertion that was verifiably not true. Why don't you just admit you made a statement that was utterly wrong and stop arguing about my use of English. IamthatIam 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - Siiigh. How about instead of attacking me and MY use of English, you focus your efforts on the deletion of this article? I believe this discussion is over. Please present any additional evidence of notability you have. Though I must say, you are rather enjoyable to argue with :). Wickethewok 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SwatJester. Naconkantari 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: despite all the talk from this articles strident defenders, none of them have been able to provide any reliable sources. --Hetar 05:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Indeed, Hetar. In fact, according to WP:RS, We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. All of the sources cited most certainly fall under this category. Wickethewok 05:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of all this, as I am obviously biased. Just for my posting a comment here, some of you may be motivated to rip me to shreds. Go ahead, rip. I've had a lot of life experience and I've been ripped to shreds before. I've learned to lick my wounds, heal, and move on.

But you've torn not only into me and the work of myself and other Discordians, but into Binky The WonderSkull and Gerina who wrote this article. That is completely uncalled for. Call my work crap, call me crap, say I deserve to burn in Hell. But please don't hurt them. Maybe they're hoaxers, maybe they're lying. But if they are at least attempting to tell the truth, this is both of their first article on Wikipedia. They worked on it very hard for a month together.

Binky is very hurt, as I think you can tell from her posts. And Gerina, who is fresh out of high school and was very excited about this, is now afraid to even post comments here for fear she'll be torn to pieces. Both of them had been encouraged to write this article by active posters and administrators (see the Apocrypha and Ek-sen-trik-kuh discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discordianism). Now, I don't know if either one of them will feel comfortable ever posting here again. Maybe some of you don't care. But I'm hoping some of you do.

Please look at your comments again, and see if you might want to consider an apology to them. They are people, they are human beings, they have feelings. Please consider that.  :-) Reverend Loveshade 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Indeed, if I have hurt any feelings, I apologize. However, feelings aside, I stand by recommendation for deletion - Wikipedia is not compromised for people's feelings, whether that is a good or a bad thing. Wickethewok 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Just to add to that, the people you mention have been asked repeatedly to come up with evidence of notability and verification, and haven't done so to the satisfaction of any independent person contributing to this discussion. Nobody has been deliberately insulting, and feelings hurt by process are very, very irrelevant. Vizjim 10:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep or at most Merge with Apocrypha Discordia~~ Brother William 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete – unless credible sources are found, as possible hoax – Gurch 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxy and missing reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must merge with Apocrypha Discordia; been called that for a while, and verifiable with some searching. Notable enough in its own right. Voretus the Benevolent 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Revrend Loveshade is a heretical follower of the Bavarian Illuminati and has long been known as a Discordian Triple Agent (He was a double agent but converted). He has worked closely with Cecil Weishaupt (Great Great Grandson of Adam Weishaupt) in the development of this work. We cannot allow these false groups to overtake the sacred works of Eris K. Discordia. We know that She speaks only to those that have a pineal gland (and we have medical proof that Rev. Loveshade's pineal gland was removed in a secret Masonic rite on the 20th of last month). Therefore, this no-ledge could not have come from Eris, but instead from the False Non-Prophet, known as Auntie Kryst. Could one imagine granting a Wikipedia entry to The Gospel of Judas?!!! Surely not, for Judas' gospel is little known and (until it became popularized by the media) would have turned up few Google entries. This obviously is the same. Revrend Loveshade's apocryphal work sould not only be removed from Wikipedia, but all copies should be found, burned and his additional works banned! - Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord, Muncher of the ChaoAcorn, Chatterer of The Words of Eris, POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.211.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as unsourced (WP:V, WP:RS), also rambling nonsense concerning a very non-notable sect. Sandstein 16:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.