Talk:Principia Discordia

untitled

See also the Wikipedia repository of Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

(Why? I see nothing related there. Do we need a talk page here?)

-- Discordianism seems to inspire people to write a lot of silly things - I wanted to direct them to the appropriate page for (merely) silly things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.191.188.xxx (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 November 2001 (UTC)

-- see the note at the bottom of Discordianism.

Discordians also don't tend to follow directions. Better to just watch the page and revert or (better) refactor silliness. Martin

Just scanning this entry softened my brain around the edges. --Wetman 09:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Printing

The Principia has not been printed in a single run.

I'm not even sure what this means, if anything, but I suspect it to be inaccurate. You can get one on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.41.104 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they mean that it has had more than one printing? DenisMoskowitz 19:44, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

There have been many different printings. You can print your own as well since the original material is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutante23 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

User:23skidoo, I don't think your comment on the SJG version is accurate - do you have some support for it? My understanding was that SJ just thinks Discordianism is cool. DenisMoskowitz 20:54, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

You shouldn't take anything they say about anything(including themselves) seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidaki (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uploading?

I would like to upload the complete Principia as jpg scans ,since its not copyrighted (see above) that should be no problem. But would you think that takes too much space and delete it? (Or send me to Wikibooks maybe?) Wanted to ask before starting.. If you say using jpg files is too much, i would like to post a text/html version. Mutante23 22:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are already many versions of the Principia already uploaded, just do a quick Google search and you should be able to find any format you want. Eldamorie 00:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Does it really pre-date the Illuminatus Trillogy? I always figured it was written afterwards. When was it originally written? Anyone know? First printed? By whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.67.36 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Strange to notice that that's missing from the article. I'll add what's known. DenisMoskowitz 00:43, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

any word on including the intire text? IreverentReverend 03:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still think it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. If anywhere, it should go on Wikisource, but it's so widely available, I don't know what the value in uploading it would be. DenisMoskowitz 15:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I concur - Wikipedia is not the place for quoting the entire text. It would be appropriate for Wikisource. Drjon 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be Wikisource. Also be careful what is reprinted. Although the original text is "All Rites Reversed", the individual editions still carry copyright, at least the Steve Jackson black cover version does. I don't know about the Loompanics yellow cover edition. 23skidoo 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Though the Loompanics one does have some content unique to it, it does not have a copyright. I can't locate my Illuminet Press copy; that one might have a cw. Both of these publishers are kaput, however. Esquizombi 01:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm my copy of Loompanics edition doesn't contain anything closer to a copyright than the sentence "published by Joshua Norton Cabal / San Francisco (K) All rites Reversed". The absence of the "copyright string" (at least here in Italy) is NOT sufficient to say that it is public domain (copyright is "by default"; is it different in the US, where the book comes from?) but it seems to be "consensus" that this book indeed is. --Lapo Luchini 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in most of the world is by default these days, notification just makes it easier to identify the copyright holder. The onus falls on somebody using material to prove it is public domain if it becomes a legal matter, well it's more complicated then that, but basically unless you have written from permission the author and copyright holder it is in breach of copyright. Public Domain status being given on a copyright page can be taken as permission, a name without the word copyright is still a claim of copyright over the work. Various editions can only claim ownership of original material. Czarnibog (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

appropriated from other sources

"It features typewritten and handwritten text intermixed with clipart, stamps, and seals appropriated from other sources, possibly in violation of copyright laws." This had originally read "from other sources, possibly illegally." I think the reason for that was to cover the possibility that some of the physical stamps (e.g. gov't stamps) were "appropriated."Schizombie 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First three editions

Is there any verification that the first three editions existed ? Or could they be added to give versimilitude to the 4th edition ?

-- Beardo 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to scans of the third edition at the bottom of the page, though they leave something to be desired. I don't doubt the former existence of the earlier editions, but I am curious about where they might be now if any are still extant. There's also supposed to be some pre-PD Discordian material, but I don't know what might have become of that. Schizombie 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently a copy of the 1st edition has been found within the JFK Collection. Because of Kerry Thornley's connection with Lee Harvey Oswald (they both served together) they questioned Kerry, and either he or someone who had a copy gave it to the investigations committe or some such, and recently it was found, scanned and made available over on the 23 Apples Of Eris website. [1] granted this is before (K) All Rites Reserved became a part of the Principia Discordia, and while it was part of a public archive the actual copyrights are probably with the Authors Estates... full details of the finding and copyright status etc, can be found here [2] hope this 'illumnates' everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.71.69 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean (K) All Rites Reversed? B.Mearns^*, KSC 11:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If anyone knows where an online (or who has a copy they could get online) copy of the Second Edition, its the missing link you could say as the 1st and 3rd, 4&5th, have been found, a 2nd edition copy if found and pointed to would be amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.71.69 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be cool. The third edition scans aren't very readable though, so I'd love to see a better version of that one. I'm also curious to compare quotes from the earlier editions with Illuminatus! because some of the PD quotes in it differ or aren't in the 4th PD. I should scan my Rip Off Press 4th ed sometime since it has better resolution than the printings I think. Шизомби 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the Rev.DrJon, responsible for putting up the 1st Edition. I've love to find a copy of the 2nd Edition, and I'm working on recovering the text from the 3rd. I'd love also to get my hands on a copy of the Rip Off Press 4th Edition. Please note that the PD quotes from Illuminatus have been included in my Apocrypha Discordia.Drjon 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yin Yang

I can't say I've read this rubbish, but can anyone verify the Yin Yang being a symbol in the book (as mentioned in the opnening paragraph of the article)? I certainly hope no-one's confusing this with the "hodge-poodge" of Discordianism with the apple of discord and the pentagon. If anyone has further information on this matter, please posta follow up here, and remove the reference in the article as neccessary. Bmearns 16:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're referring to the article or the PD as rubbish, which in either case is a strange thing for a Pastafarian such as yourself to be doing, my fellow Trojan. The thing you describe with the apple inside the pentagon is not in the PD unless I'm overlooking it. A version of the Yin Yang appears on pages 3 and 50; another version appears on page 44; and in the SJG edition the first version is also on pages 91 and 103; I'll change the article to note how it is different. Thanks for adding the Hamell on Trial entry BTW. Schizombie 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, that was meant to be the Apple and the pentagon, not in, referring to the SC. Bmearns 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Yin Yang most emphatically does not appear on page 00003 or 00050. The Hodge Podge does. The thing on 00044 I'm not too sure about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Egads! I'm sorry! However page 49 does say "The SACRED CHAO [...] is sometimes called the YIN-YANG. The Sacred Chao is not the Yin-Yang of the Taoists." Schizombie 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the thing on 00044 was Hung Mung's ur-chao - it naturally couldn't refer to the apple since it predated the Greeks, so it used different symbols for order and chaos. DenisMoskowitz 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's all damnable rubbish, I can't be leave we are spending so much time on this cockapoo. Idle hands are the play things of the Purple Oyster (of Doom). Crap, I need another link. Bmearns 21:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which I want to adopt as my personal motto more: "Idle hands are the playthings of the Purple Oyster of Doom" or "Crap, I need another link". ;) 23skidoo 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Edition/Fifth Edition

The Fourth Edition is called the most popular here, but isn't it the fifth? I think the only printings of the 4th were Rip Off Press and Revisionist Press, and all the others were the 5th. Perhaps Loompanics did a 4th prior to their 5th but I haven't seen one. Esquizombi 23:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The 5th edition consists of a single page - it's a Western Union form full of Ms. The majority of the Principias out there are Fourth Edition with various amounts of commentary and other auxilliary material appended. DenisMoskowitz 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought of the fifth edition as being any that contains that Western Union M. Esquizombi 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The 5th edition is just the telegram with the "M"s(It's in code.). The next eddition to be printed will be the 6th edition. -Kode 00:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, the sixth edition is already out; it's a carbon copy (literally) of the fifth edition. The seventh edition was skipped right over, for obvious reasons, and the eigth edition was sadly printed on camel skin, which we all know is horribly combustible--not a single copy survived the ware-house fire. The ninth edition is scheduled to be released on the web sometime in 2007, though the Dealy Lama is rumoured to already be sending sneak previews to random minds across the country. B.Mearns^*, KSC 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The original 5th Edition (Malaclypse's) was the Western Union MMMMMM version. The Loompaniacs Edition included both a reprint of the 4th Edition (with modified text -- the 1st Sacred Chao picture, POEE Disorganizational matrix appear to have been reprinted from reduced photocopies of the originals), the Gypsie Skrypto interview, the 1st printing of the 5th Edition, and the Wilson introduction. Note that while the 4th Edition, interview and 5th Edition were all SPECIFICALLY Kopylefted in the text, the Wilson intro was not. By the laws of the time, this might indicate that it IS under copyright, though I believe he intended it not to be.

The 2nd 5th Edition (Omar's) was printed by IllumiNet Press, and included everything in the Loompaniacs edition, plus the introduction by Omar, copies of which can be found on the web. As I have not examined any copies of this myself, I don't know if the Omar introduction is Kopylefted or not.

The hardcover Revisionist Press edition appears to be not a separate edition, but 200 copies of the original 4th Edition print run that were cut down the fold after the staples were removed and bound into book form. An examination of my copy (I got LUCKY...) shows that what would be the front and back covers of the original edition are of card stock, and the aforementioned pages from the Loomaniacs edition are larger and more detailed. Some of the photocopying is, however, of less detail than the offset Loompaniacs version.

I am putting this information on this page as these are observations from my own research, and I can't cite a source at the moment.

These 4 paragraphs (K)opyleft by ME -- reprint where and what of it thou wilt, just put a credit to me and link to my web site -- Icarus 23

Hi, Mark! Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been making an impact the last few days. I've been meaning to get back in touch with you--I'm working on a new project at present. I will have a look at your comments when I have a chance, but I thought I should point out that by submitting your work here, it shifts from Kopyleft to a GNU license, which does not allow for a "credit and link me" provision. But there's nothing to stop you linking your site up on your user page! Cheers, Drjon 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must share the bad news with you that the Revisionist Press edition isn't a hard-bound copy of the original Rip Off Press 4th Edition: I have both (I got lucky too) and the original 4th Edition's pages are smaller than the Rev Press edition. Drjon 12:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(My 1st try at indents...) Hey, nothing bad about that news to me -- that's the thing about research. Learning more about things.

Thanks for the pointer about licenses here -- I'm still learning, and jumped in without reading EVERYTHING -- which I would still be doing. And my web site (and others I'm involved with) do link from my user page. I was surprised as heck earlier this year to find my full name in the ILLUMINATUS! article, and that kind of started me to here.

You ARE the reason I got my hardback -- I found a discussion group where you'd mentioned it. At the time it was no lopnger listed with the reciever, but I droped an email to them, and tehy had ONE copy left. So it was luck AND perserverance... Icarus 23 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (Yay, the indent formatting worked -- I'm such a neophile sometimes!)

I can second Drjon; the Rip Off Press 4th edition has much better resolution than the Revisionist Press edition (in fact better than any other edition I've seen). I'd be curious where Icarus 23 (hello!) heard there were only 200 copies of Revisionist's. Incidentally, I recall back in 1991 or so that Books in Print listed Revisionist's price for a "library edition" at $50. Or was it $100 or $200? Whatever it was, it was a lot, especially for such a crummy printing and hardcover! Incidentally, I'd love if someone could expand the article for those two companies. Шизомби (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discordia - Hail the Goddess of Chaos and Confusion

I wonder if anybody's had a chance to read this book yet? I just bought it; it seems to have some content from the PD but reformatted and mixed up with a lot of new content. Шизомби 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a review here: http://www.poee.co.uk/boards/viewtopic.php?p=9187#8846 It's not very generous. Further comments further down the page. Also, the person responsible seems to have copyrighted as much of their version as possible - completely out of keeping with the ethos of the thing. Drjon 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, are we getting out of touch with the ethos? Somebody needs to read up on their history. Greg Hill said the reasons he didn't copyright Principia Discordia were two: one, because it was an underground work; and two, the big reason, because it contained material that was almost certainly copyrighted. That's why he didn't use his real name--he was afraid of getting his ass sued off for ripping people off.

Now people have turned this "Kopyleft" thing into something holy. "Oh my, you copyrighted a Discordian work? Goddess will get you for that, naughty naughty."

Well, that's BS. The most famous Discordian work for years was The Illuminatus! Trilogy, which is copyrighted. If it hadn't been for the trilogy, none of us would have ever heard of Discordianism. Then they put together a play based on it, which was copyrighted, and even a comic book, which was copyrighted. Most Discordian works professionally published from 1965 to 1993 were copyrighted, my friends--check your history. Actually, probably most until about 2002.

Discordians think they're so different from other traditionalist. Well guess what, most ain't. Go back and read the Principia, which says that members of Orders are just as likely to carry a flag of the counter-establishment as they are of the establishment, as long as it's a flag. I think it's time to have a little good, old-fashioned flag burning. IamthatIam 06:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See my commments below under 'Ronin Publishing' Darkpoet (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Myth of Ichabod (aka Myth of Starbuck)

Someone (but not me - conflict of interest, sorry, I can't do it) might like to change the external link to the Myth of Starbuck - it's currently pointing to Rev.Loveshade's reposted copy of my page, but the original page at http://appendix.23ae.com/pd1/13.html is the source. Of course, you guys may prefer to point the wikipedia at the (very fine and worthy) Rev.Loveshade's copy instead, in which case it's none of my business. Cheers! Drjon 07:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's because it already links to the first edition on your site which has the myth. But that's not clear from the article. I'll change it to show that. We know you deserve credit! Gerina 01:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how linking to a copy of the source is relevent, or adds to this wikipedia article, beyond promoting Rev.Loveshade's site (no offense). How would you substantiate it? I have a conflict of interest, as I said. But I'm sure it will sort itself out. Drjon 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Gerina fixed it so it links to your site as having the First Edition of Principia Discordia and "The Myth of Starbuck" or "The Myth of Ichabod." If it linked to your site twice for the same thing I think it would be redundant. Binky The WonderSkull 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can we say petty? DrJon says he won't get involved on which link to the myth is used, and says he won't get involved, and did he mention he won't get involved? Give me a break--that's getting involved. And supporters of Rev. Loveshade keep changing the link when there's no good reason to bother changing it.

Look, Rev. DrJon Swabey didn't write The Myth of Starbuck and neither did Reverend Loveshade. It was written by someone who's dead now. The work doesn't belong to anyone who's involved in this whole silly conflict. You can now find it on the Internet which is great. Who cares where?

And I'm sorry, but this business of linking where it first appeared online is hogwash. Does the article on Britney Spears link to the first site she ever appeared on? Or the one on Michael Jackson? What difference does it make?

Ok, I'll give credit where credit is due. Rev. Loveshade promoted the idea of Apocrypha Discordia and making a sequel when Steve Jackson dropped it. Fine. Then Rev. DrJon Swabey compiled the work and collected a lot of great stuff from all over. Fine. Loveshade can brag that he met with Greg Hill and Kerry Thornley before they died, boast that Greg Hill praised his work and tell how Thornley ranted about some conspiracy involving a warehouse and everyone born in a certain year dying by fire. Fine. DrJon talked with the Hill family and friends and was one of the people--not the only one, mind you--who helped get The Myth of Starbuck and the First Edition on the Internet after it was buried somewhere in the John F. Kennedy archives. Fine.

That's all great. But what does that have to do with this article?

Somebody will probably change it back, but I just eliminated the whole controversy. There's a link to DrJon's site, there's a link to Loveshade's site. Now will that make everyone happy? IamthatIam 06:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it back. I just recounted--there's one link to Rev. Loveshade's site, and three to DrJon's. Before I cut them, there was two to Loveshade's--did we really need two links to one site? And there was four links to DrJon's site--do we really need four? There's still two or three to DrJon's. Seems a big excessive to me. IamthatIam 06:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ronin Publishing

Why is Ronin Publishing's edition "questionable"? Petronivs 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since no one's chimed in about this, I'm taking out the "questionable" part. Petronivs 13:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I DO own a copy of this edition. I owned several copies of the Steve Jackson Games edition (all permanently 'borrowed' by 'friends' - haha) and while in Korea, it seemed I couldn't order that edition anymore, but I did manage to order this one. As soon as it arrived, I covered it in a plastic cover to protect it... when I opened it up, I felt ripped-off and angry. There are numerous edits, changes, and (seemingly) deliberate typos... and a copyright notice that warns me if I distribute copies of it, I risk the curse of greyface or some nonsense. Entire pieces of the mythos have been removed and most of the original artwork was replaced by MS Word clip art and images probably not even from the public domain anyway, including a picture of Thornley. One of these days I hope to scan it and post it on the Internet for more public derision but the thing is just of such disappointing quality that I don't know if I can be bothered... seriously, so many typos and changes... none of them for the better. Darkpoet (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Discordianism as parody

Petronivs removed my edit stating Discordiansim is a parody religion (that is, a religion created as a parody of other religions), and requested supporting references. OK. Note that the term parody implies the use of ironic truth to poke fun at serious religions. The the hacker technique of recursion is employed to illuminate them as with the infinite regress of parallel facing mirrors.

• H2G2: "the world's first and finest parody religion"
• Witchvox.com: "The explosion of the American counter-culture and the revival of surrealism met Discordianism (1960's and 70's) and the result was a Neo-Pagan parody religion of mirth and laughter."
• Fnord.org: "Many enjoy parody religions such as Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius."
• Everything2.com: "1958: Thornley, along with Greg Hill, founds the parody religion Discordianism."
• Reference.com: "Several religions that are classified as parody religions have a number of relatively serious followers. The most notable of these "ha ha, only serious" religions may be Discordianism." but "With Discordianism, however, it may be hard to tell if even these "serious" followers are not just taking part in an even bigger joke." This last point is also made in the introduction to Wikipedia's own article on Discordianism. --Blainster 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I put in a link to parody religion.

Petronivs 18:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an older comment, but to just to point out for future note, there are a number of problems with these references;

1. H2G2, like wikipedia anyone can add to it. Therefore it is not a reliable, authoritative, source.

2. Witchvox. If you read the complete article and judge it's use of the term in context it is clearly not using 'parody religion' in the sense you intend, as it is describing a belief system, not a parody of a belief system. Indeed it points out just a couple of lines later that; Discordian thought runs a full spectrum from believers in a literal Goddess Eris to those who hold a healthy agnosticism towards all gods.

3. You've neglected to include the apostrophes around the word 'parody', which completely alters the meaning.

4. Everything2. Same problem as H2G2, relies on user contributions and isn't an authoritative source. There are also a number of descriptions of it there which do not describe it a parody religion.

5. The Reference.com entry is copied directly from wikipedia's article on Parody religions, which basically means you're using wikipedia as a reference for wikipedia, and in addition, that article is currently tagged as This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Making assertions about whether followers of Discordianism are earnest in there claims, is clearly OR, unless some sort of mind reading machine has been invented that I am unaware of, and it's more than a little presumptuous on top of that.

I could, I imagine, find a number of sources that could 'show' that the banana is a fruit, and the tomato is a vegetable, neither would in fact be correct though. That is why only a certain type of reference source is acceptable on wikipedia, however there is no authoritative source capable of definitively stating that beliefs are not genuinely held, by those that claim to genuinely hold them. So in the interests of maintaining neutrality, as is required by wikipedia policy, all that can be done is note the division in opinion as it exists.Number36 (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FNORD

Since we can say silly things here, I will put the thing I GREATLY resised the temptation to add after the Foreign Translation page: I, Icarus 23, HC, KSC, Episkopos of the MSDD, have declared that upon the translations of the PD attaining 5 languages total (we're almost there if the Polish one grows beyond a page) that there will be a special ceremony of the DDDD held to open up the higher levels of IT. Posessors of HARDCOVER copies of the Principia and authors of thie own Discordian texts are also strongly encouraged to participate. Further discussion here not encouraged, please email me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus 23 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pentabarf

Pentabarf is a redirect to this page but there is mention of the term here. If the terms are synonymous, it should be noted in the page. Perhaps it would be good to know where the (very usual) term "Pentabarf" comes from in the text of this article. —mako (talk•contribs) 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed this. Cheers, Drjon 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Parody again

It IS a parody religion. And if it's not, it's certainly NOT a true religion with a true sacred text. Religions are socially organized and involve serious followers. Some people may claim discordianism is a real religion, but it's mostly a counter culture "hippie" based movement, which is as religious as taking drugs like LSD, for that matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.211.149.108 (talk • contribs) 14:25, March 22, 2007 (UTC)).

Huh. I'm a Discordian, and it's just as "real" as anybody else's belief system. I wouldn't call it a "church", on account of the lack of social organization, but insofar as it is sufficient to inform someone's view of spiritual/metaphysical questions, it's definitely a religion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why must religions be serious? I think it's extremely hilarious why people are so averse to calling anything with humor in it "real". Voretus 16:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

errr. Stop taking discordianism srsly. Stop taking yourself srsly. Stop taking, srsly. Jpipkin42000 08:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's such a quintessential Grayface comment that I suspect you of being an Erisian plant. -Toptomcat 13:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

April Fool! Or was it?

This article (and a few other related, mutually cross-referencing articles) was created as an experiment and has been used to demonstrate various facets of reliability of internet sources. The original idea was principally rooted in humour. However, as it has evolved it has become a useful source and reference of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.108.108 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of the Principia?

I had uploaded the basic Principia to Scribd and was recently notified that it was taken down. When I asked why, as the core content is explicitly kopylefted, I was told: "This content is marked as copyrighted in Scribd's BookID database by the Robert Anton Wilson Estate". Does the Robert Anton Wilson Estate indeed hold the copyright to the entirety of the Principia? 70.62.26.165 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)This post deliberately left unsigned.

Wilson as far as I know had nothing to with the writing or publication of the Principia so any claim by his estate would be invalid. You can reply to the copyright breach notification on Scribd and request for a review as it is often an automated process and catches public domain works, I've done it in past and received an apology from them. Czarnibog (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson DID provide the introduction to one version of the book (which has been repeated in many later editions), but I'm don't think that is copyrighted either. As Czarnibog said, Scribd often believe public-domain works to be copyrighted (it once made that claim on a Tolstoy book I uploaded, which was not only published in the 1900's, but was never copyrighted to begin with) so I wouldn't take their claims as a serious source on it's own. --Painocus (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Principia Discordia (1970). Veverve (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It was first published before 1977 without a valid copyright notice, during a period when including a notice was a requirement for a work to be copyrighted. This is similar to the situation that allows us to take stills from Hollywood trailers made during the same period when Hollywood also did not include notice in said trailers. Skyerise (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Principia Discordia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/bloodstar84/pd_metaphysics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 2 April 2016 (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)