Talk:The Kolbrin

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon ufology.svg

This Ufology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

AUGH MY EYES[edit]

There's a purported bootleg PDF here, if you're feeling lucky and your antivirus is up to date - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WorldCat[edit]

"Worldcat contains listings with copyright dates of 1994[6] and 1998,[7] though the date these entries were added to Worldcat is not noted."

Bibliography time! (out of sheer curiosity...) The Worldcat listings show one copy of each in Penn State's library; it's part of their special collection of utopian literature, which makes a degree of sense. The only other holdings seem to be in NZ, with one of each at the National Library (legal deposit?) and a few in various public libraries.

OCLC numbers are assigned sequentially, so it's possible to sample a few from around there and see what the dates look like. 58527423 is adjacent to a couple of records published in 2004, and 57558054 likewise - the odds are these items were initially entered onto WorldCat circa 2004, which fits with a hypothesis dating these as "actually 2005". Note, interestingly, that both use the same ISBN, 0958331332.

LoC has an authority (= identity) record for the "Culdian Celestial Age Trust" - no2005017725 - which leads us to another few books, nominally from 1993 but with the same 575... range OCLCNs. Shimgray (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted! - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Checking the OCLC records themselves, it seems they have a creation date - record 58527423 was created 17/03/2005, 57558054 on 03/02/2005. This does not prove that the items don't actually date from the 1990s - many libraries have several-year-long cataloguing backlogs, especially for low-interest items like this, and it would be no surprise if the NZ NL let them gather dust for years - but it's consistent with the other dates floating around. Shimgray (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The "the" in the title[edit]

Were the adding the definite article to the article title and the persistent italicizing of the name in the text a cunning move to subtly establish it as a work of fiction, or just a symptom of OCD?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

An apparent combination of OCD and being wrong. It's got various names, not necessarily "The Kolbrin Bible". "The Kolbrin" is marginally less wrong as a title than "Kolbrin Bible" was, though. Perhaps someone could move it to just "Kolbrin" next. Or perhaps to "The" - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone summarised the contents?[edit]

The article is bronzed, but is still missing a summary of the contents. I downloaded the PDF in the course of assembling the original version of the article, but buggered if I'm dredging through that pile of guff myself. Has anyone elsewhere bothered doing so? - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

BoN is unhappy[edit]

HEY IRRATIONAL WIKI DORKS. DO YOUR RESEARCH A HARD COPY DOES EXIST. RETARDS! IF YOU SPENT TIME RESEARCHING RATHER THAN EATING HOT POCKETS IN YOUR MOTHERS BASEMENT, YOU'D KNOW THIS. IDIOTS! — Unsigned, by: 98.159.210.45 / talk / contribs 23:19, 31 January 2017‎ (UTC)

So, where's the original? What's its provenance? Who authenticated it?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)