Talk:Publius Enigma

The Return of Publius?

Apparently the messageboard which was once at PubliusEnigma.com was getting visits from a member named PubliusEnigma who, according to at least one source, left a very clear prediction (and a sign of validity) in the form of the following message sometime around 2004/2005:

July 2nd, 2005
Hyde Park London
Approximately 11:11
Flashing white lights
Think Outside the Wall [1]

July 2nd, of course, was the date of the Live 8 performance in which Pink Floyd reunited as a four-man band. The forum was apparently hacked very soon afterwards and this message seems to have been lost. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

11:11

The whole "11:11" section of the article is pretty superfluous, to say the least. A movie trailer for a film called 11:11 that uses the 11th song from an album. Definitely a weird coincidence, not a marketing plot. --afromme (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just one in a handful of coincidental instances of the number 11. At this point is seems not only possible but also plausible that 11:11 is one of the major themes of the enigma. Still, the section in question is nothing but fact and remains free of speculation. I do wish it were possible to tie it all together even further, but that may not happen for some time. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Table Tennis" point is irrelevant, as games were to 21 points up until 2001 (long after the album and puzzle debuted), when the ITTF changed the rules to 11 point games. --ScrObot (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Removed. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wind up?

Is there any possibility that this whole thing is a massive wind-up engineered by Gilmour, Mason and co. in response to all the Dark Side of the Rainbow etc nonsense?...Martyn Smith (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

from interview with David Gilmour: http://www.pinkfloydz.com/david_gilmour_webchat_jan_.htm

" Lynne from Floydian_Hemptress asks: Would you agree that the instrumental, Let's get Metaphysical, on your About Face cd, was a precurser to the later alledged phenomenon, known as Pink Floyd's Publius Enigma?

David: no it had nothing to do with it, there was no connection. The second thing was some silly record company thing that they thought up to puzzle people with. "

I suggest add this commentary in the main article.

Connection with The Stone

There used to be an internet riddle game called The Stone, developed by Rod Bruinooge. The game included a number of visual riddles, and was "strongly influenced" by Publius Enigma. In 2004 Bruinooge released a film about the game's players called Stoners. Pink Floyd gave permission to use "several tracks from the Division Bell in the film's soundtrack." These facts can all be found in the wiki for Bruinooge. BTW, in 2006 he was elected to the Canadian Parliament. Given all this, I think this guy should be connected to the Publius Enigma article as a suspect. Maybe with a link to his wiki page.Ooze2b (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• There are a couple of internet type riddle out there. The British conceptual artist Geoff Bunn uses a form of riddles for a lot of his earlier work for example. Other than that, as far as I have recently read, the Pink Floyd Publius Enigma is supposed to be genuine. But what and where I've no idea. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted 11:11 stuff as original research

See WP:NOR. We can't make our own arguments - without sources linking the 'Publius enigma' to 11:11 policy says we shouldn't have such a section. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please do me the courtesy of proposing changes rather than implementing them. I've put a lot of work into this page and since I can no longer maintain the website, I'd appreciate the opportunity to improve the article rather than trash large portions of its content. Chinagreenelvis (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm clearly not the only editor not happy with this article. I'm sorry but anyone can edit any article, and what I deleted I deleted for policy reasons. If you disagree, you can raise the issue of my deletions at WP:NORN and argue that they aren't original research according to WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to discuss when it comes to clear cases of original research. It needs to go. Everything that was there is still accessible in the revision history if you want to try and re-introduce all of it, or parts of it, with proper verifiable sources. Keep in mind that a Google Groups discussion link is not a proper source. --SubSeven (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoax

Recent edits claim Publius Enigma is a hoax. That's fine, if some source can be shown to state this. The editor who is currently making these changes has not supplied a source, and continues to insert fallacious statements into the article not supported by the sources used for the claims. Particularly, "despite the band denies involvement" in front of "The Pop Life" published by the NYT, which makes no such claim. Further, stating that Penet remailer was an "illegal" service is opinion and POV. Mindmatrix 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That is untrue. The source from the anonymous remailer service is sufficient. This is not an official release of the band. Referring to the article in "Pop Life", the article clearly states "There is no apparent reason for the recent addition of these words to the packaging". Therefore, your edits are not based on a proper evaluation of this article. Why are you so insistent that the Enigma was not a hoax ? Where is your evidence that it was not a hoax ? You haven't supplied any. Your edits are based on conspiracy theory, which I understand is not constructive for the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanickborg (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I never stated that this is not a hoax. I said that the NYT piece does not support the claim "despite the band denies involvement", and it doesn't. The text you quoted above from the article does not support this claim. I support neither side of the argument, only the proper use of sources, at which you have failed miserably. A link showing that a Usenet posting was made through Penet remailer doesn't invalidate the article, and it doesn't show that the remailer is illegal. Mindmatrix 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, I am stating that until the band makes it clear one way or the other, this is neither "a hoax" nor "not a hoax". Stating either without a reference is POV. Mindmatrix 01:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, that this is the only wiki page you have ever edited, I suggest that you have much to learn. Conspiracy theories and hallucinations are not the substance of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanickborg (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's laughable. You can't even conduct two seconds worth of research to find that I've made over 117,000 edits on tens of thousands of articles? Here are two I've written just this weekend: "A Criminal Mind" and Canadian Journey Series. Your POV is clear. Claiming that other editors are suffering from hallucinations because they ask you to support your claims with a reference is absurd. Mindmatrix 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Referring again to the Pop Life article Gilmour says, "I like puzzling people." When asked whether certain songs were about the group's former leader, Roger Waters, he answered with an elusive smile: "Are they? You'll just have to work it out for yourself." If you take this to be incontrovertible evidence that the Publius Enigma is a legitimate band offering, then I question your concept of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanickborg (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't stated that the article supports the claim that PE is not a hoax. The above quote in no way supports your assertion that "the band denies involvement" in PE. An elusive smile is not a denial. Mindmatrix 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

An elusive smile is not confirmation either. Thus, all that remains is an anonymous posting which was not, nor has ever been shown or claimed by the band to be an official band release. (Yanickborg (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC))

I may request deletion of this article. It has multiple issues which have not been resolved for a long time, and editors appear to be using it as a testing ground for conspiracy theory masquerading as history masquerading as conspiracy theory. This isn't acceptable behavior for an encyclopedia. (Yanickborg (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC))

Why would you go from wanting to revise the article to wishing it into nonexistence entirely? The information in it had been quite objective until you attempted to wedge in the unsubstantiated conclusion that the word "hoax" is an accurate description of the enigma phenomenon without providing any new sources of information that would support such an opinion. Yours isn't acceptable behavior for an editor, Y, and this effort of yours feels very much like a personal vendetta against the subject, which is, I shouldn't have to remind you, something you yourself put a lot of time and effort into attempting to "solve". Chinagreenelvis (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming that other editors are suffering from hallucinations " Mindmatrix, I did not say you had any conspiracy theories or hallucinations, I merely stated they weren't the appropriate substance of an encyclopedia. Saying that, your insistence on using non-official band material as any benchmark in this article is of concern. (Yanickborg (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC))

Mentions of The Mensa Society

The page is reaching a satisfactory compromise. Just one outstanding issue as far as I can see. The Mensa Society did not issue this 'enigma' as puzzle, nor offer any prizes to the effect. Yet, this has been removed from the page. Why ? This is the kind of misinformation that concerns me with this page. Please do not tarnish the integrity of The Mensa Society with this currently libellous page and reprehensible hoaxer 'uncle custard'. It needs to be mentioned that there is no evidence or record of mensa having issued any such puzzle or corresponding prize for membership or of 'uncle custard' even being a member. The rules for mensa membership have been spelled out from the beginning. If one has what it takes, they should apply to take the formal IQ test, and avoid silly falsehoods. (Yanickborg (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC))

The only mention of Mensa is from a quote. The quote itself is accurate; whether or not the information in the quote itself has any merit is irrelevant. Unless you can provide a source of information that directly addresses the subject of Mensa's cooperation or involvement, it's not something that needs to be addressed in this article. It's already stated that the authority on which the person responsible for the quote had to make it is unclear. I think that's more than enough. You can personally conclude that there's no way they'd give membership to the prize winner, but unless you have a link to a source of information that specifically states such, it doesn't belong here. Chinagreenelvis (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources?

I'm unaware of any sections or statements that need citations or sources. Is this still necessary? I'd like to work on fixing that if indeed it's still a problem.Chinagreenelvis (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)