Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 10

I think I just accessed a worm hole. Found an edit war over Hitler still going on a hundred years from now. http://www.abyssandapex.com/200710-wikihistory.html--Aspro (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice one Aspro (talk · contribs). You can't go back in time so you can't get information from the future. It says at the bottom that it's fiction. – [[123Pie|Talk]] 20:40, 19 March 2108 (UTC)

Hi, how can I get Linux to run on my mac? (I think this is the right place for the question) – [[123Pie|Talk]] _Linux" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, two doors down on your left... -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Today, after reading an interesting article [1] about Internet Historiography, I decided to break my wikiabsence to check on the status of History of the Internet. I was moderately disturbed to discover that the article was, despite still being labeled as a 'Good Article', had suffered sever degradation because of improperly corrected vandalism. What's particularly worrying is that the article, which is pretty prominent, had been in this state since at least October. It's not that the article hasn't been edited by people trying to correct and maintain it, as the article history shows it's been regularly edited consistently. It's just seems that the amount of vandalism overwhelmed the editors who were maintaining the article. I've corrected it for now, but it's likely to end up in a state again, and I've not been made to feel welcome enough here to want to spend my time keeping it maintained.

This seems to me to be a clear warning that the 'identify and correct' response to vandalism is breaking down as Wikipedia has lost more and more capable editors to the attrition of the hostile environment Wikipedia has turned into. There are no longer enough people wiling to give time to the project to be able to cope with the growth, constant maintenance and upkeep needs; and this is a direct result of the failings of the community and foundation. I've been a warning voice saying that the project's been blundering towards this kind of failure for quite some time, and I'm not at all happy that it looks like I'm going to be proven right so quickly. I do hope there is time to correct the state of Wikipedia, and be able to bring back productive editors who've been driven out by the increasingly top-heavy bureaucracy, secrecy and combativenesses. --Barberio (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP is an odd environment. There's a whole bunch of meta stuff going on, which people seem to think is Terribly Serious. Meanwhile, there are people quietly gnoming away on typos, corecting correcting spelling in articles which, really, just aren't very good. You can find articles which have perfect grammar, no spelling mistakes or typos, are formatted nicely, have references correctly linked, but which are still a bit rubbish. Important subjects often attract trolls and vandals, and sometimes don't seem to attract enough editors to keep the article in good shape. And while people are battling about that stuff other people are adding articles for every bus route in england, or every character in some computer game. Or gently edit-warring over whether a fictional duck (I'm not kidding) is notable enough to go on the list of fictional ducks or not. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You captured it pretty nicely. Some of the edit warring, talk page raging, vandalism and meta stuff can make wikipedia seem pretty goofy at times. My experience has been that there is only a small percentage of the editors who are performing significant amounts of work on key articles. (Those listed under Wikipedia:Vital articles, for example.) But there are many editors also make useful contributions: small corrections and refinements that improve the article quality.—RJH (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a classic corollary of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" idiom-the noisy "edit wars", "vandalism" and "meta debates" receive all the attention while the quiet wiki-gnometry, article creation and maintenance fly under the radar. After six years of growing success, I think it is pretty clear that the sky is not falling on Wikipedia. Barerio's identification and correction the History of the Internet is part of that success, despite the pessimistic outlook of his post. While Wikipedia will never be an epitome of perfection, the dynamic nature of that site is what will bring readers in. It is the people that are motivated to respond to what they read (such as a typo or a correction) will continue to make the site better than it was before they clicked the edit button. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see this a lot...someone makes a post saying, roughly, "We used to have a working community of editors on this article, but for X reason, most of them are gone and the people who are left aren't up to the job, and the article is worse than it used to be." The response always seems to be either "Wikipedia is a success" or "Wikipedia is a failure", when the question was as much about people and process as about pages. Barberio, have you talked with any of the guys that you don't see around any more? If the problem is that they didn't feel up to the task of maintenance, would they be more interested in, say, an article for Version 1.0? Was there some other reason they moved on? I don't know the best place for this discussion, maybe on that article's talk page, or maybe here. P.S. You'll find a lot of support for your position on the talk pages over at Version 1.0, and you're in luck, the bots start rolling next month for Version 0.7, so this would be a very good time to invite people to come back to contribute in time to make the cut. P.P.S. This is not a criticism of the above replies, which I thought were insightful and helpful...just not complete. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The meta stuff, while it consumes a lot of time, is also an effort to take care of systemic problems and improve processes in ways that will produce benefits in the long run. We need both the metapedians and the exopedians because each is doing something that helps make the other's work worthwhile. As for people covering obscure subjects more than the mainstream ones, that's to be expected. After all, you can do a google search and easily find a plethora of comprehensive information on, say, Edgar Allen Poe. In that sense, having a good Wikipedia article on it might be considered less crucial, from the public's point of view. The obscure subjects, such as blood electrification, might be harder to find, and thus someone goes to the trouble of creating a wiki article on it. Of course, those cases often are on the boundaries of what the community considers notable, and those debates attract more attention to the meta aspects of Wikipedia. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we ought to give three cheers and a tiger for Barberio, to make him feel welcome again! Roaringly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As an occasional user and (very) occasional editor of wikipedia over the years, it seems to me that many articles are over-long and are really suffering as a result. If anyone has attempted to write a report - or even a letter - by committee, they won't be surprised: everyone has their own styles and viewpoints. This Newbury,_Berkshireis a good example of what was once a reasonable article - and one to which I contributed a few years ago - which is sort of OK, but is now showing signs of degradation as people add nonsensical points (e.g. the paragraph beginning 'Until the completion of the bypass'). I certainly wouldn't claim to be one of the 'productive editors' that Barberio is suggesting have been driven out, but while I once might have been tempted the Newbury article my feeling is that if I attempted to edit every nonsensical sentence or example of poor drfating I come across on wikipedia, I'd spend my time doing nothing else. --Andrew Cooper (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When an FA article is left alone, entropy sets in and it eventually decays to the point where significant re-work is needed. Hence, in order to keep certain favorite articles at FA level, I find I have to do a certain amount of "patrolling" to keep the content and citations tight. Rather than periodically re-editing the entire article, it's much easier to just stay on top of the changes; even though that can sometimes generate a little ego friction. =)—RJH (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While I would agree that a lot of productive editors have left, some of them truly good editors, I would also like to add that Wikpedia has driven them out. For the problem stated (i.e. nice articles degrading over time) I was wondering if there could be a patrolling system in place for FA, A and GA grade articles. That would make things way more efficient here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For a proposal to that end, see Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions. The proposal does not seem to be too active at the moment, however. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

 I feel concerned about wikipedia unintentionnally fostering DRM-piracy by informing Web viewers (and teens) about ways to crack DRM music titles and methods used.
 I am not saying that Wikipedia.org is directly explaining how to do it, but a malicious user could gain valuable general information on which strategy to operate to breakthrough the DRM licence.
 The topic about the "analog hole" I feel is very technical and I myself wasn't aware of its existence.
 One can't foster respect of legality and free sharing of information if that information in turn can help malicious people.
 Maybe Wikipedia should strenghten its ethical code by filtering information according to the audience?

For example, the DRM page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management#Methods_to_bypass_DRM) shouldn't be targeted to teens or young people who would be tempted to crack DRM licences. How to do this, I don't know. It might be utopic, since blocking access according to age, country, or status could be seen as discrimination and technically very difficult or impossible. One of copyright holders dream would be to force Web users to share their identity before having access to Internet (so that they can control who is downloading, etc). But that would BIG BROTHER Level 150 and I hope this will not happen anyday. But if the USA does it, then Europe (and the world)would follow, and citizens would have to respect laws,even related to the Internet. But let's face it: porn sites ask if one is under 18 or not because of the content.(and because it's the law). Could one extend the thinking to strategic information contained within Wikipedia articles? Should content editors and writers sign a chart of ethic before postin an article on Wikipedia? Filtering of information does not belong to Wikipedia, true. It is a matter of personal responsibility and personal ethics, true. But is also a matter of PUBLIC POLICY (so it is the government responsibility to manager what information can be damageful to the public). Private companies don't have to restrain information according the user, but they should do it if we all want to live in a safer and more respectful digital world.

I would not want honest and respectful citizens to have to pay for mistakes made by others.(such as more restrictions on downloading of music, higher fees and pricec to limit piracy, discrimination,etc).

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavyalex (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The article on Digital rights management has a very negative tone. Wow! What a surprise! Who would have thought such an attitude would be found among WPers! Borock (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So....only us teens pirate and bootleg? Sounds reasonable to me. (This is not saying i don't) -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ther problem is that it would violate one of Wikipedia's founding policies, that of neutral point of view. It is not Wikipedia's place to take one side or the other in one of today's most hotly contested legal and ethical disputes. Plenty of DRM opponents would claim that not including such readily available information would give undue weight to the opposite view. Unless and until such information violates the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, there is no reason for us to dictate this level of control over the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. We have articles on the Teller-Ulam design, on Molotov cocktail, and even on George W. Bush (very dangerous if mistaken for a role model ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the "how to" stuff so much as the tone of the article. As if the couragous hackers are fighting for freedom against the evil corporations which are trying to deny them the use of their computers. I was able to change one word in the intro ("sceme" to "system") before I gave up and left the article to its "owners." Borock (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of an advertisement for DRM-evasion if we observe that any DRM that allows CD-burning is allowing material to escape its control. Since (for example) Apple's DRM allows CD-burning, that's kind of a trivial observation. My only comment is that the current text of the article is a bit how-to-ish and that could be fixed by doing a style rewrite. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. If you, or someone, wants to do that it would be great. I don't feel like doing it myself since I don't know much about the topic, I'm not so interested in it, and I don't feel like dealing with "owners" who assume that you're an agent of big corporate interests if you make a comment they disagree with. Borock (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I need help trying to figure out how to create an entirely new page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffduke404 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. - BanyanTree 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that this question needs to be asked. Looking at our main page with the eyes of a keen and enthusiastic newcomer- how are they expected to know where to find this basic information? Looking at any browser- or Linux application- there is a Help option on the top bar- not in wikipedia. Right Click- no! No they are supposed to find Help in the interaction box, then work out how to navigate a table of links. Just to make it clearer- the option is Create an article while the user above wants to Create a page! So perhaps this is a bugle call to look at our archain terminology.ClemRutter (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Main Page: Help -> Contributing to Wikipedia -> Create new articles -> Wikipedia:Your first article. Four clicks. Everyone wants their help to be the first one they see. And there are an awful lot of things it's good to know before starting an article, like how to avoid seeing it deleted within five minutes. Franamax (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We're got way too many registered editors whose only goal is to create one or a few articles; once that happens - whether they're deleted or not in short order - they're no longer interested in helping out. If we charged new editors $5 per article, maybe we'd have fewer of these. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting people who are interested in a topic to create an article is the only reason wikipedia exists in the first place! Sneering at those who don't meet an arbitrary standard that you decide marks a "real" editor is ... let's see, how about misbehavior worthy of being charged a $5 fine? Then maybe we'd have fewer of these. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting people who are interested in a topic to create an article is the only reason wikipedia exists in the first place! - If you're saying that Wikipedia wouldn't exist if, in 2001, editors hadn't begun by adding articles, then that's true - and fairly trivial. If you're saying that Wikipedia - in 2008 - should take the same approach as in did in the early years, with fairly low standards (see, for example, many of the featured articles in 2005, which aren't close to being FA quality as of today), then that's obviously wrong. So I'm not sure what the first sentence says that has relevance to where Wikipedia is today - with around 1,500 articles deleted every day, most of the via CSD, and with an acknowledged need to focus on quality rather than quantity. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How can I download an article (for Ex: Cats) and added to my web page that I creating as information and as a link to Wikipedia?

Please advise. Thank you

You might do best to just give a link on your site. Then you wouldn't have to keep updating your copy as the Wikipedia article is improved. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But the answer is yes, you can, but you have to follow the link to the GNU Free Documentation License (see the bottom of every Wikipedia page) to understand that you can't claim copyright over the material you have downloaded. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As unsolicited general advice regarding user categories, editors and administrators may wish to watchlist categories on their user pages, so that they are aware of discussions on the category talk page or deletion discussions at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. --Iamunknown 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is my edit count according to my preferences ~1000 more than the # here? ~EdGl 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits in deleted articles. –Pomte 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I suppose that would've been my best guess. ~EdGl 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'Nuff said--Daftism (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one do you want to join? Each project should have detailed instructions on their own pages to join them. Just look at the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject and choose one or more that you like --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm interested to know if folk have any opinions about the suggestions here, as the template involved appears in many articles. Hope I've posted this message in the correct Village pump area. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A project I've been working on for a while has been resurrected. WatchlistBot is an XMPP bot (Google Talk is an XMPP service, for you gmail folks) that will send messages out when certain pages are modified. It's still in development but is quite stable. Right now it only works with enwiki but interwiki support is planned down the road.

There are only a few people using it right now and I'd like to widen the audience a bit, both so more people can benefit from it and so I can get more feedback about it. If you're interested hop on over. --Chris (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in me explaining my work and how I see its implications for Wikipedia and Wikipedians, here's a video presentation. I recently spoke to high school kids in Calhan, Colorado about how to edit Wikipedia, but also included a discussion of my work and how they can copy me. This is essentially the same talk. --David Shankbone 15:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

have noticed numerous articles which are in fact jokes and/or hoaxes and vandalism related to Discordianism. discordianism is a fictional creation of Robert Anton Wilson. Allot of Robert Anton Wilson's work is based on blurring fact and fiction, but it seems that this has infiltrated Wikipedia and there are many articles which are presenting fictional characters or Wilson's as though they were real. Its a funny joke but I think it's a serious threat to the credibility of Wikipedia, and underscores the Achilles heel of the collaborative nature of wikipedia. If allot of people think its amusing, its fairly easy to use Wikipedia to distort the truth. Rich.lewis (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I had believed that Discordianism was created by Gregory Hill (writer) and Kerry Wendell Thornley, who were friends of Anton Wilson's. Is there reason to believe that he invented them? Algebraist 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than those two bios (if that), could you give several examples of articles that you think are hoaxes? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, my point is that Gregory Hill (writer) and Kerry Wendell Thornley are both fictional characters, not real people. And, the only hoaxes I've found so far are the articles on Greg Hill and Kerry Thornelly, but because of the nature of this problem I would not be surprised to see more distortions of fact having been inserted in key locations in other articles. But, I've done a bit of poking around and those two biographies seem to be the only outright hoaxes. Much of the article on Discordianism however is misleading and blurs the line between a discussion of Discordianism itself, which I think is fine, and venturing into the fantasy world of the fictional writing of Robert Anton Wilson. For that I say the reader should be able to see for themselves what Discordianism is all about then take the rest of the article with a grain of salt. Rich.lewis (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can ignore this - based on this comment on Popefauvexxiii's user page, Rich.lewis seems to be making a rather deadpan joke. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment's here and on Popefauvexxiii's user page are serious, although I added a joke about existentialism at the end. I have to admit on some level this is amusing, as it pushes the boundaries of what is fact and what is fiction. That is the central point or Robert Anton Wilson's literary work, which I would recommend as some light reading. However, I think this is also a serious threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is often as a reliable source of fact, and if we allow fiction to be mixed with fact here, pretty soon people are going to be citing the Wikipedia article on Kerry Wendell Thornley as established fact, which it isn't. The more disturbing part is my edits on both pages that they were both hoaxes were summarily reverted without discussion. I think it's important that we resolve these issues and come to the bottom of what is in fact TRUE, or more in keeping with Wikipedia policy, VERIFIABLE, or not. Self reference is not a verifiable source, and most of the statements in the Kerry Wendell Thornley are not verifiable. The Greg Hill bio is alot shorter but still asserts eh is an alias for a fictional character (Malaclypse the Younger), the author of another work of fiction, Principia Discordia and an associate of another fictional character, Kerry Thornley. You could make the argument that possibly as a pen name for Robert Anton Wilson he could be considered the author of the Principia Discordia, but the rest is unverifiable nonsense Rich.lewis (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Rich.lewis has acknowledged that some person named Kerry Wendell Thornley did indeed exist (see Talk:Kerry Wendell Thornley). He is questioning whether the person named in the JFK investigations is, indeed, the same person associated with Discordianism etc. If Thornley isn't real, then at the very least the pen name goes back a long, long time. I have copies of Factsheet Five from 17 to 20 years ago in which Thornley (or, if you insist, someone using that name) wrote a regular feature. That much is verifiable and established, you can see one such article here. On the other hand, can anyone verify that the Thornley persona is an invention of Robert Anton Wilson (or anyone else for that matter)? Let's say that the Thornley persona is a hoax, that does not make the Wikipedia article a hoax (compare Ted L. Nancy). (By the way it looks like we ended up making the same existential joke, I didn't see it on Popefauve's talk page until now.) Addendum: Kerry Wendell Thornley still owes me a couple of bucks. At a time when I only knew him as a writer for Factsheet Five, I ordered (and paid for) a copy of his zine and I never received a response. Perhaps, however, this proves Rich.lewis' point. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I accessed the image (I get a 403-forbidden, but I can go to the main page [2] and then go back, and I can see it), and guess what, the PO box for contact is the same as the PO box for the The Orthodox Discordian Society [3]. What a coincidence, geeez, exactly as it would happen if Kerry was an invention by a discordian, like, for example, Robert Anton Wilson.

Or what about this [4], with pearls like When in 1968 I first declared myself a Saint, Gregory Hill said, "That's impossible," insisting, "Only dead people can be Saints," adding, "and fictional characters," guessing, "You are neither one." or maybe witnessed by either Gregory Hill or Malaclypse the Younger or perhaps Mad Malik or Reverend Doctor Occupant or some guy who must have vaguely resembled one or another of them. (this reminds me that the "Real life" section on Malaclypse_the_Younger is a total joke, written on the same style). Also see the mention to creating the fictional character "Fenderson" as a practical joke, and creation of a conspiracy with no purpose - so that investigators would never be able to figure out what it was doing.

Reading the 4th introduction to Principia Discordia, it's obvious that Wilson is the author and that he is bullshitting with stuff like Actually, the PRINCIPIA is the work of a time-travelling anthropologist from the 23rd Century. [5].

I would even venture that Malyclipse and Kerry are just nom-de-plume for Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. Come on, the joke is over, conform the article to wikipedia standards already. That includes removing poor Emperor Norton I from the {{Discordianism}} template (I already removed it myself). And, hum, removing the Pineal gland from the "Symbols and Mythological Personas" list. Wikipedia is not for making WP:POINTs about discordianism in detrition of accuracy.

Geez, I must look like a very bitter and sad person, removing all this funny stuff, lol --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more likely, then, that several Discordians (e.g. in the Atlanta area) are behind the nom-de-plume (cf. Monty Cantsin). But read my other response further down in this section (wow, even this is getting fragmented, I thought keeping it on one page would help!) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Come on, the joke is over...": it appears that we can agree that each of us thinks the other is behind some kind of wind-up. I thought this might be a joke on the part of yourself and Rich.lewis. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I agree. Well, you don't seem to be in the Discordian "conspiracy", and I am interested on making the wikipedia more factual, so this should easy. I don't know who is behind Kerry, if it's only Wilson or more people, but it appears that the discordians have been at work on those articles (I just removed "bowling alleys" from the list of mythological symbols on the Discordian template), so we can' t probably trust anything on them. I even noticed that Kerry's article does not link Wilson's article and viceversa, despite both of them having written books on Discordians and wilson writing a foreword on kerry's book, Hill (Kerry's collaborator) being, I think, a fictional character on Wilson's books, etc, etc.

I say to treat him as a fictional character unless verifiable sources are found --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you bet that the Discordian PO box is the only address he has ever been reacheable at? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was (ostensibly) homeless, how and where else might one have reached him? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to revert myselft here. While looking on the external links section for that info, I found this [6], that includes an Atlanta journal article about his death and connects with the guy mentioned at the Warren report, and that there are also two more photos of him, which look sort of legitimate. I even checked the article author, just in case it was another Discordian joke "Joel Groover is a freelance writer based in Atlanta, Georgia".

So, let's rehash the argument:

• Greg Hill's article, merge it into Kerry's article for non-notability of his own (I now reckon that he could be a real person)
• Kerry's article needs better sourcing (like adding the atlanta journal reference, for example)
• Malaclypse needs to be reworded to make clear it's a fictional character (I hope we can agree). Once the article is cleaned, we can see if it's necessary to merge as a fictional character of Kerry or if it can stand on his own.

note: if we find some proof that Greg Hill was a real person, then (geez, I read all the Usenet thread linked at the Greg Hill article, and it appears like a legitimate thing, and not a discordian hoax. I'm going to have to accept that Greg Hill was actually a real person, even if we can find no proof. I'm sure that he would be happy to know that his very existance as a physical person was put in doubt at wikipedia) his article and Malaclypse should be merged together, distinguishing between the physical person of Greg and the fictionality of Malaclypse --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove the hoax tag from Kerry and Hill, but leave it at Malaclypse, until the fictionality is made clear. I'll also change the merge tags --Enric Naval (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that it is not acknowledged on the articles that they are talking about a fictional topic, which why I re-added the hoax tags and asked for merging both the Gregory Hill (writer) and the Malaclypse the Younger‎ articles into the Kerry_Wendell_Thornley article, as well that clearing that Kerry is a fictional character created by Robert_Anton_Wilson. (On retrospective, maybe Malaclypse don't need to be merged and could stand on its own as well fictionality and author are also stated there, and the article has enough content) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If Thornley, et al are indeed fictional personae, then it certainly needs to be mentioned in the article. At the same time we would have to cite a verifiable source that says they are fictional people and/or that Wilson created them. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We know that someone called Kerry Wendell Thornley testified in front of the Warren commission. The burden of the proof is in stablishing on wether this guy actually wrote those books. Compare the ample coverage of Wilson's real life actions with Kerry's. Also notice how he claims that he worked with Greg Hill, of which there is no proof of existance except for mentions on Kerry's books, and who is a character on Wilson's books, so lots of circumstantial evidence that he is fictional. Only connection is a "biography" that then again provides no verifiable proof (and appears to be probably a fiction work based by liking together real facts). This connection goes against WP:V. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does seem like the type of prank that Wilson might pull. But without a verifiable source, your assertion that Wilson invented the Thornley persona is, itself, original research. If you were to include something to the effect of "Kerry Wendell Thornley, Greg Hill, and Malaclypse the Younger are all pen names of Robert Anton Wilson," without citing a reliable source to that effect, then I fail to see how you would be improving the article. One might just as easily speculate that Thornley (or perhaps even Wilson himself) is an invention of the Cato Institute, designed to lure self-described hipsters into investigating Libertarianism. I will ask, again, for a verifiable source (this is at least the third such request I have made). If Wilson is behind the Thornley name, then I am among those who has been hoodwinked (actually, I have had suspicions, but apparently not as strong as yours. I am actually more suspicious about Thomas Pynchon). The verifiability sword cuts both ways and I, for one, would have to insist on some verifiable source(s) corroborating your assertion. On the article's talk page, I had suggested comparing the Thornley article with Ted L. Nancy: A lot of people suspect that Nancy is an invention of Jerry Seinfeld, but that article cites sources to that effect. Thus far, we only have the assertions of fellow Wikipedians that Thornley is "a fictional topic." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read my comment [7] (you already read it), you can see that, in this case, the verifiability sword is cutting on your direction. The discordian template had two hoaxes/jokes, the articles' content is a joke, Wilson explains how he created several identities with the express purpose of confusing people, and how other people could continue the confusion, his foreword to principia doesn't say a single word about the supossed author. Put all this together, then add that there is no verifiable source for Kerry's existence, and, well, I think that, yes, you were hookwinded. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not object if the article stated something like "Thornley was a witness for the Warren Commission and was charged by Jim Garrison. The same purported person is credited as the author of [Zenarchy, the Factsheet Five columns, etc]." One might further add something like "no proof exists that the person and the author are one and the same" except that we could just as easily say that about any number of writers. But again, if Wilson is behind it, we need a source that says exactly that. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest that we maintain this discussion in one place, either on this page or at Talk:Kerry Wendell Thornley but not both. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If we carry it at the talk page, then the discussion will probably get stuck on a stalemate by the current contributors, so I'd rather have it here where other people can have their say and put on the talk page a link to the archived version --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I left a note to that effect on the talk page (I had already linked to this discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, first, thanks everyone for taking notice. To go back to what we know are verifiable facts, we have only this: A man named Kerry Wendell Thornley appeared as a witness before the Warren commission. We don't know what he said, although that would be in the transcripts if they are publically available, but that does not make him NOTEWORTHY. None of the other facts on the bio page are verifiable, so in my opinion the article should be removed. However, if the article were to be reworded to clarify that either Thornley is a character in Wilson's Discordianism fantasy world, then most of the statements can stand as is, with the caveat that the article state clearly there is no FACTUAL basis to believe the witness at the Warren commission and the Discordian mythological figure are the same person. For that matter, why not elevate Thornley to the status of a mythological figure. That might actually make some of the Discordians, who are also part of the Wikipedia community, happy.

As far as asserting Kerry Wendell Thornley is a pen name of Wilson's, I wouldn't necessarily say that is verifiable either, which is beside the point. If Wilson has used Kerry Wendell Thornley as a pen name, maybe that’s true, maybe it isn't, but it does not impact my comments about the verifiability of the facts on the Kerry Wendell Thornley bio page. In truth I suspect Kerry Wendell Thornley is a sort of a communal joke amongst the Discordians, many of whom may have hopped on the band wagon and written misinformation under his name. That's the whole point of discordianism, after all, so we would expect a good Discordian to do this sort of thing.

And as for the "real" obituary in the ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION in 1998, first we have only the reference to this article from a Discordian source, hence it is likely a hoax. Furthermore, the article itself has factual errors. It references Thornley as the author of "The Idle Warriors," BEFORE the Kennedy assassination. It is an important piece of Discordian mythology that not only did Thornley "The Idle Warriors" as a bio of Oswald before the Kennedy assassination, but also that THIS was the reason why he was called at a witness by the Warren commission. However, this book is referenced as a source of the Thornley bio page, but published in 1991 by IllumiNet Press. You will find that many works of Discordian fiction are also published by IllumiNet Press. Also notice the listed address PO Box 2808, Lilburn, GA 30226. Again, this is all fiction.

And one more thing, I also submit the bio on Greg Hill is also not noteworthy, other than unverifiable references to Discordian mythology, and should also be removed.

My last statement is that, until these issues are fixed, someone please step up and put back the hoax reference I put on both articles. I don’t think I should do it because that would encourage an edit war. I won't make any more changes to either article; I'll leave it up to others involved to make changes based on objective facts. Rich.lewis (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thornley mentions his book in the Warren Commission Hearings: [8], [9], [10], [11]. As I'm sure you'll point out, this does not mean the book mentioned in the Hearings is the same one published in 1991, but do you have proof that it isn't? (Can you convince me that any book credited to any writer was actually written by that person?) But I don't think it's unusual for a book to go unpublished for years. I have not seen nor read the book, but I can speculate (for what that's worth) that IllumiNet would have considerably more interest in this than say, Simon & Schuster (particularly if the book itself isn't very good - again, just speculation). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, with the actual sources, both Greg Hill and Kerry look like actual real persons, and even looks as if they wrote the books that they claim. I compared the Kerry photos here [12] with the one at kerry's article, and they look like the same person. He also looks different from Wilson's photos [13] [14]. I have come to realize that we don't actually have any RS sources that say that it is a hoax, so we can't put on the article even if we think it's true. The facts on kerry's article will have to be checked for accuracy to catch any discordian hoax, of course. Before nominating the article for deletion, we should clean it up to stablish which facts are true and which are not, or we will be accussed of rushing the nomination. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For Greg Hill, we can say "the only proofs of his existance are the claims of Kerry, a phto at the-bio-that-was-done-and-that-I-cant-remember-the-name, and a Usenet post about his death". that would be on a section inside the Malaclypse article. This is coherent with the sources we have --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a Thornley obituary on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website. Try this link and scroll down about halfway. There's a fee involved for full access to AJC's archives. I am willing to do it, but it will have to be later. (Can we cite a fee-based web page?) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

if the only way to read the article is throught the pay site, then we can probably link it as a source because of lack of a free replacement, since WP:EL says to avoid linking to registration needed sites, but does not forbid it --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if the obit in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is real and can be considered a reliable source, at least that is verifiable, and it does reference the "The Idle Warriors" too. I still perosonally think the whole thing is a load of nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if either Joel Groover got his facts badly wrong in his article or did so on purpose. However, that isn't for us to go into here is it? We only want our facts to be verifiable, not necessarily true. On the other hand, many of the most outrageous statements on the Thornley still are not verifiable, but I'll address those one at a time. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Did so on purpose?" As far as verifiability goes, I don't see how we can do any better than the Atlanta daily newspaper. And yet even that doesn't meet with your approval. I've offered to pay for access to the article, although I think there's enough in the preview to give us a sufficient idea as to the rest of the contents. In contrast, I have not seen a single citation offered here indicating that the Thornley persona is a hoax and/or that Wilson is behind it. How many more times should I ask for one? Just who is pulling a "hoax" here? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been paying attention to Discordianism for more than 15 years, and I have seen a lot of discussion of the personages involved. This is the first time that I have seen anyone seriously suggest that Thornley and Hill were invented by Wilson. If they are a hoax, the number of people who have been fooled is staggering and would include usually reliable sources like Margot Adler. When Thornley died, there was quite a lot of discussion including Sondra London's pages about being with him as he died, and I've seen pictures of him that are clearly not Wilson. All evidence that I have seen indicates that Hill and Thornley wrote the PD together, at which point Hill kind of dropped out of sight, while Thornley stayed active in countercultural circles, went slightly crazy, lived in Atlanta's "Little Five Points" area, and republished the PD. If you want to contradict the consensus to this degree, I think you need to cite something other than your own original research. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rich.lewis has since stated that "not only are Kerry Wendell Thornley and Greg Hill both real people, but they really did know eachother" (link). Meanwhile, I have obtained Thornley's obituary from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website, along with some other AJ-C articles that mention Thornley. A few samples for your consideration:

• "Kerry Thornley was a fixture in Atlanta's Little Five Points district." (from Thornley's obituary)
• "...[A]fter languishing for years as government evidence in the slaying, the novel 'The Idle Warriors' is in print.... The book remained in the National Archives until last winter, when Atlanta publisher Ron Bonds retrieved a copy; he published it in April." ("Only pre-assassination book on Oswald finally published," Dec. 15, 1991)
• "KERRY THORNLEY, 60, Atlanta; founding father of Discordian philosophy whose early book on Lee Harvey Oswald became Warren Commission evidence; Nov. 28" ("1998 Notable Deaths in Georgia, the South.") Furthermore, Thornley's listing among "notable deaths" supports the notability of the subject.
• "...Out of Order, a free one-page missive (typed on both sides and photocopied) sent out about once a month by longtime Atlanta underground sage Kerry Thornley to about 200 friends and acquaintances. Concerned with Discordian philosophy (as popularized by Robert Anton Wilson), with a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in, Out of Order is 'strictly a social thing, a way for an eccentric to meet people,' says Mr. Thornley." ("Zine Scene", Dec. 1, 1992)
• "It's a quality local writer Kerry Thornley brings by the bucket. Author of 'Principia Discordia,' 'Zenarchy,' and 'The Idle Warriors,' scouted by Oliver Stone and featured on 'A Current Affair,' this Kennedy assassination theorist, chaos philosopher and one-time scribe for the underground newspaper The Great Speckled Bird has been a fixture around Little Five for almost 20 years.... These days Thornley, 56, lives in the street, sleeping in basements of indulgent shopkeepers and showering at the offices of Highpoint, a neighborhood newspaper." ("The greening of Little Five Points," May 22, 1994)

I've already placed a couple of citations in the article, and will add more at a later time. I move that we close this discussion. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. RS have been provided that support the point in discussion. A few links to the relevant articles (even if they require rigistration) should stablish his existence --Enric Naval (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

After having read the court transcripts of Thornley, both from the warren commission, here: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0046b.htm, and testimony before a grand jury in New Orleans, here: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/garr/grandjury/Thornley/html/Thornley_0001a.htm, its clear not only that he was a real person, but also that he did know Oswald in the marines and did write a book "The Idle Warriors" based on Oswald before the Kennedy assassination. These facts alone are quite a revelation and noteworthy by themselves. In the grand jury testimony he also mentions moving to New Orleans with Greg Hill. The problem is the article focuses on Thornley as author of Principia Discordia and founder of Discordianism, who by the way also did all those things with Oswald and the Warren Commision. This immediately strains credulity, in spite of the fact that the FACTS about Thronley, Oswald, and the Warren Commission are all true. It also makes outrageous statements, citing references from the Principia Discordia as if they were facts, such as this statement: "According to Principia Discordia, it was around this time that he and Greg Hill—alias Malaclypse the Younger or Mal-2—shared their first Eristic vision in a bowling alley in their hometown of Whittier, California." Never mind that writing a "biography" with statements like immediately brings into question the credibility of the entire article, the more important question is how should the Principia be used as a source. The Principia is a work of fiction, and (arguablly) a religious text. So, even if we give it the status of a religious text, it can not really be used as a reliable source of fact per se. We can say, however, "the Principia Discordia says..." or "according to Principia Discordia..." which, unfortunately, is how it is being used. In spite of this, the way the article is written and the outrageous claims it makes are really the problem here. So, at this point my complaint is the style and tone of the article. It’s clear Thornley is a real person, just the way the article is written makes him sound like some fantasy character of Wilson’s. That’s I was immediately convinced the whole thing was a hoax. I apologize for taking my misunderstanding so far, but the way the article is written really begs this kind of reaction. Rich.lewis (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I digged throught the article history, I could probably pinpoint who was the joker that tweaked the article that way, relate him to the joke changes on the Discordianism template, and then uncover two or three users doing only edits to discordian articles. For now, it seems that they are no longer active, so I'll just help improve the article a bit --Enric Naval (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest closing this discussion and going back to the talk pages of the relevant articles. If nobody opposes, I'll put my next messages there --Enric Naval (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find my way around well enough to find the proper format to insert "date needed" or even "citation needed" into an article's text. Please, what is the right format, and where can I find things like this myself? Wandering around in TEMPLATE: land has done me no good. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 07:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'citation needed' is inserted by {{fact}}. I can't find a template that adds 'date needed', though one could easily be made. Algebraist 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Inline_with_article_text as my resource for {{old fact}}, which is not ideal but will do. I really hate not being able to find templates for this sort of thing easily, and wish it were not so hard to research. Maybe everybody else knows some shortcut I don't. I wasted over an hour looking. I don't know where to go to request a inline template such as "date needed," but thank you for the suggestion. And thank you for the "citation needed" - I was able to find that by looking for articles which already contained it, but I still appreciate the boost. — LisaSmall ^T/C 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

{{when}} and {{year}} are the nearest matches. If you want a new template but cannot build it yourself, just request it somewhere (EAR or VPA, for example) or ask another editor directly. Wandering around in the template namespace will not be very fruitful; better to look through the categories, like this one. Adrian M. H. 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, thank you so much for the helpful links and advice. :) --LisaSmall ^T/C 12:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, Lisa. Always happy to assist! Adrian M. H. 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Shamelessly copied from User Talk:Jimbo Wales, thanks to WAS 4.250. -- Nifboy (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Erik Moeller says:

Hm, playing about with it, the implementation is fairly ugly. Will there be UI improvements before it goes live? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• As a reminder, proposals regarding how to use this feature in the English Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't flagged revisions a wholly different extension? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• For all I know, Flagged Revisions is precisely the extension which is referred to in the above message. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)