Talk:11:11 (numerology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Information Posted to the 11:11 Article

As requested, I have produced a reliable source for the edit so that it is now referenced (Gregg Braden). However, I STRONGLY object to the information posted about George Mathieu Barnard describing it as a message from angels in his book "Search for 11:11: A Journey into the Spirit World. His book is SELF-PUBLISHED material, meaning he could not find anyone out there who would pay enough attention or believe his theory to make it worthy of publishing. This is analagous to me printing out my ideas on paper, stitching together 100 booklets, and referencing myself as published material. Yes, it is published by your standards, but it's self-published. If self-published material is deemed "verifiable, third-party and a basis for credintials" then, I have no problem coming up with 10 different theories, self-publishing, setting up a website for 12.99 a month (Yahoo Web-hosting), and referencing myself as a "reliable" source. Hence, I STRONGLY object to the reference attributed to his name and work since it is self-published, biased, partisan, and only posted to the 11:11 article as a means to driving viewers to his site where he sells his self-published material and bans anyone from the forum and site who disputes his ideas.

01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

However, this is an article that attempts to document beleifs, it does not document an observable phenomenon. If it did, we would need reliable sources published in a reputable journal, for example an article published in "Nature". If you know of any articles published in scientific journals that document experiments intended to show (or disprove) that there are links between the number 11:11 and events in the world, please include them. Mathieus book is not presented here as actual fact, but as an example of what people believe, and hence belongs, even though as you point out, it is self published. When reverting material it is customary to state in the edit summary that you are reverting.TheRingess (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you basically saying that instead of using the word "theory" I should use "belief"? Instead of starting the phrase with a "predominant increasing theory" I should use "a predominant increasing belief or hypothesis"? I have no problem with that at all. Other than that, I do not see a difference between his beliefs presented in his self-published book, or what I have presented in the article which is also a set of beliefs but published by a reliable publisher instead. Is this the case?

What I'm saying is you should not use the words "11:11 synchronicity" since you seem to be referring to something you believe to be an actual observed physical phenomenon. If this were synchronicity was something observed, documented and studied in journals, then you could use the word theory. The word theory only belongs to something that has been observed. For example, think about an article about Black cats. The article might talk about beliefs people have about black cats, but it wouldn't present them as actual facts. In the same way, this article is meant to present published beliefs people have about the time 11:11, nothing else. It is not meant to present those beliefs as actual fact.TheRingess (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what the hell is going on now? Are you somehow affiliated with George Barnard and HIS theory??? I reposted removing the word "synchronicity" and "theory" as indicated by YOU and the post was still removed. I included a very famous author who has written at least 5 books on the matter and IS NOT self-published as the author that you keep naming. Unless you have a darn good reason for removing my latest post, I will report you for being totally biased and arbitrary.

20:18, 25 March 2007

Unless the 11:11 phenomenon has been written about in a reliable journal as an actual physical phenomenon, that has been studied and researched, then you are still posting original research. You continue to revert and aren't honest about what you are doing. Please feel free to report me, so we can bring this to mediation.TheRingess (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you illiterate? Not all phenomenon is "physical" and has to be studied and researched, as you claim. Webster's dictionary says this under one of its meanings: 3 a : a rare or significant fact or event b plural phenomenons : an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence. First you said not to use the word "theory", stating that "the 11:11" was not something that was studied by scientists. You did not actually say not to use it but I asked if that was the problem and you said that the edit should speak about "beliefs". I did not dispute this but I knew you were wrong. "Theories" do not have to be proven in any way. I'm an English teacher with a PHD but I will refer you again to Webster's good all dictionary. They say: 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION; 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : I removed the word "theory" and then you claimed that the problem was the using of the word "synchronization", even though the entry already included this. So, I removed it. Now you are saying that the problem is using the word "phenomenon" when unless you can prove right here and now that Webster's dictionary is wrong and you know more than the most published English language dictionary on the planet, you are dead wrong. Now how do I get my entry to look right in your eyes? I tell you, you have made three mistakes already: The definition of the word "theory". The use of the word "synchronization". And the meaning of the word "phenomenon". Believe me, it would be highly embarrasing for you to have this go to mediation.

Musicians and sources

Can anyone supply statements from specific musicians relating their beliefs to their songs. I.e. are there any musicians who have publicly stated that their songs deal with their specific beliefs regarding this time.

That would make a great addition to this stub.

TheRingess 07:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to verify that songs and albums and movies named "11:11" are related to what is talked about in this article? For example, In the article about the number 1138, there is an ample list of references to that number in movies not produced by George Lucas and yet not one of them include a reference that states explicitly that the number was included in the movie as an "injoke". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1138_%28number%29#Other_references I mean it could just be a coincidence that the number 1138 tends to end up in movies, but it's a stretch to assume as much so we include the list in there without any references. Are we to assume it is just as big a coincidence that people name things "11:11"? I don't see it a problem to include that information in this article. (of course it would make it difficult to justify having 11:11 as a seperate article at that point, but surely that's not your motivation for deleting the info from this page, right?) -- GIR 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we provide a reference? Are they so hard to find? Why should this article not conform to the same standards that all other articles should conform to? See WP:V and WP:CITE. The disambiguation article exists for people who wish to read more about songs/movies/articles that relate to 11:11 in any manner whatsoever. but this page is specifically about beliefs. On this page, we should list the movies and/or songs that specifically reference the beliefs discussed. If it's a song, we need to provide a link to the song's lyrics or a link to a statement from the musician that the song was about their beliefs. If it's a movie, we should provide a link that summarizes the plot and makes it clear how the movie relates to the beliefs we are writing about. Why wouldn't we?TheRingess 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the other article could be called something like "11:11 (time)". To make it clear that it is a generic article about the time and not specifically about a certain set of beliefs.TheRingess 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2009 Movie

I removed a blurb about a move scheduled for release in 2009. There is an imdb entry, but the imdb entry did not include plot details. If we can find another source (perhaps the movie has a webpage?) that gives us plot details and establishes a link to this topic, then we can include it. Until then I think we should leave it out, in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy of WP:V. TheRingess 07:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

websites and notability

I removed the websites that were listed for the groups. They don't fit WP:WEB in that there doesn't seem to be any writeups in reliable sources about the websites. Several of the websites were commercial, which violates WP:EL. the only group that seems to have received any press is Solara's (on Noory's program), but I'm not sure that implies they pass WP:EL. Someone else might be able to establish that. If reputable sources exist that discuss the groups and what they believe, those discussions would make a good addition to the article. Since it is easily verifiable that they did create their websites (with a simple google search) the statement is accurate.TheRingess 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed link to Geller's website, the website is self published and commercial so does not fit WP:EL. Thankfully it is verifiable that he has expressed his beliefs. Anyone interested in reading it can find the link through google, one more reason not to include it here.

Sorry, removed link to Great dreams website for pretty much the same reason.

Another good forum for discussion of this phenomenon, is the 11-11tv forums, http://www.11-11.streamlinetrial.co.uk/phpbb2/index.php—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.193.234 (talk • contribs).

However forums are not considered reliable sources so really don't belong in the body of the article. Please read Wikipedia's content policies.

TheRingess 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is totally idiotic to be allowed to say "there are forums which discuss different beliefs" but not to be able to list an "example" of a forum. The idea that it isn't "reliable" source is nothing but a lame excuse to justify prejudice. The example site used to the forum reference is the reliable source to the entry. In other words, one may ask, what kind of reliable source do you have to prove that there are forums on the web relating to this subject? The web site listed is the source, reliable because it exists, and truthful because it relates to the subject. Unless the Ringness has anything more intelligent to say and can stop coming up with lame excuses, he should just drop it. Furthermore, it is more than obvious at this point that The Ringness has caused enough animosity and disbelief among many member posting and following this article and in this whole system of choosing what's right or wrong, that he should recuse himself from any further judging and let someone more senior be the judge. This is the only way of bringing belief and a sense of transparency into the system. At this point, there have been several accusations regarding The Ringness fairness and integrity regarding this subject. It is for this reason that it is advisable that he excuse himself from any further opinioning on this.

19:41, 28 March (UTC)

Media Coverage

I removed the material about songs and movies. Since this article is about 11:11 as it relates to numerology, then we should include only songs and movies that reference this topic. The 11:11 disambiguation page already lists these songs.TheRingess 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Uri Geller Unsourced

The only unsourced statement left is Uri Geller —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puddytang (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed the statement until someone can provide a reliable source. TheRingess 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I urge everyone who wants to add material to this article to read the content policies linked above in the infobox. Material without any source, or without a reliable source will be immediately removed. If you wish help in finding reliable sources for the material, please discuss it on the talk page.

TheRingess (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the people you mention are not reliable sources as to what 11:11 means to anyone, but those sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

They are reliable sources about their own beliefs, hence are appropriate for this article, which is an article about beliefs. The article has a primarysources template stuck on it, because it really needs to have 3rd party sources. Please clarify what you mean by the phrase "11:11 means to anyone...". 11:11 is a time of day. What could a time of day mean to someone?TheRingess (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

right- 11:11 is a time of day. you just defined it yourself. i am going to report this.

you know what? i shouldn't let somebody like you bother me so much...do what you want. this isn't worth it.

but i will say this...i honestly believe there are people who work to make 11:11 seem like the whimsy of foolish people. good job!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

btw...who says 11:11 is paranormal?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

Nobody, 11:11 (am or pm) is a time of day. The adjective, paranormal, has no meaning when applied to it. People might have beliefs about that number (or that time) and the word paranormal might be appropriate to describe their beliefs. Hence the reason why this article, which attempts to document beliefs that people have about this number, is listed in the Paranormal project. For example, Loch Ness is not a "paranormal lake". However some people believe that a creature lives in the lake. These beliefs might be said to be paranormal in nature.TheRingess (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

,

11:11 (am or pm) is standard notation for a particular time of day. I cannot think of what context you mean it in.TheRingess (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

tell me what it has to do with numerology? george or solara aren't really numerologists. how does what you presented about 11:11, fit with numerology?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

People's beliefs about numbers fall into a broad category called numerology. This article, has the phrase numerology attached to distinguish it from other articles that might contain 11:11. This makes it clear to readers that the article is not about the time of day, or about songs that contain the number, or about movies with this in the title, but it is an attempt to document certain beliefs that people share about this particular time of day (as opposed to beliefs people may have about 11:12, 11:13, 11:14, etc).TheRingess (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

but your article has nothing to do with numerology. this isn't about documenting beliefs, but in furthering them. that said, this article still has nothing at all to do with numerology. Jesuslawyer 20:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Numerology is a broad category that includes many beliefs about many numbers. As I mentioned before, the word is used in the title to distinguish this article from other related articles. It seemed appropriate to use that word since the article documents beliefs about a certain number. Perhaps there might be another more appropriate word for the title.TheRingess (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, this is a phenomenon experienced by many, not numerology. Numerology is the study of the occult meanings of numbers and their influence on human life. There is no occult meanings, because there are no occults associated with this specific number. There are just individuals with different ideas.....it exists soley on the basis that it is just there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.49.220.3 (talk • contribs).

From Wikipedia's definition of numerology "Numerology refers to any of many systems, traditions or beliefs in a mystical or esoteric relationship between numbers and physical objects or living things". This is a much broader definition than you mentioned. So we have to agree to disagree. Can you be more specific about what exists solely? What are these different beliefs? Who holds them? Where/when did they originate? How widespread are they? For a good example of an article about people's beliefs, see Black cat.TheRingess (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of material that anonymous user continues to post

1. The link to the mayan web page makes no mention of anything to do with the time of day 11:11
2. The link to the NASA website is a link to a FAQ with a question about the alignment of the stars on December 21, 2012. According to the answer "The positions of the planets on 21 December 2012 are not remarkable". Nor does the link mention the time 11:11
3. A quick look at the Gregg Braden book on amazon, does not mention the time 11:11. Nor does the anonymous editor cite a page number.
4. The material mentions a "phenomeon". The material makes no attempt to describe what the phenomenon is, nor does the material mention any reputable science journal purporting to study a physical phenomeon relating to the time 11:11.
5. No reference is supplied for the following sentence, "The ancient Maya recognized this event as the Sacred Tree and the beginning of a new Golden Era on the planet Earth". A quick search of the wikipedia entry for mayan civilization makes no reference to this belief. The sentence is at best, poorly sourced original material.
6. The material states that "the next Winter solstice occurs in 2012". Solstices occur twice a year, once in winter and once in summer. The sentence is inaccurate and misleading.

The anonymous editor continues to place this material in the article, and does not use an edit summary. All attempts to talk to them result in the conversations documented above.

TheRingess (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ringness Has a Conflict of Interest with the 11:11 Article, please help report

Are you illiterate? Not all phenomenon is "physical" and has to be studied and researched, as you claim. Webster's dictionary says this under one of its meanings: 3 a : a rare or significant fact or event b plural phenomenons : an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence. First you said not to use the word "theory", stating that "the 11:11" was not something that was studied by scientists. You did not actually say not to use it but I asked if that was the problem and you said that the edit should speak about "beliefs". I did not dispute this but I knew you were wrong. "Theories" do not have to be proven in any way. I'm an English teacher with a PHD but I will refer you again to Webster's good all dictionary. They say: 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION; 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : I removed the word "theory" and then you claimed that the problem was the using of the word "synchronization", even though the entry already included this. So, I removed it. Now you are saying that the problem is using the word "phenomenon" when unless you can prove right here and now that Webster's dictionary is wrong and you know more than the most published English language dictionary on the planet, you are dead wrong. Now how do I get my entry to look right in your eyes? I tell you, you have made three mistakes already: The definition of the word "theory". The use of the word "synchronization". And the meaning of the word "phenomenon". Believe me, it would be highly regretful for you to have this go to mediation. I currently have at least 5 people who are willing to contact your higher-ups and let them know about your obvious conflict of interest. It is more than obvious that you are either George himself/Geoff or one of his uneducated followers.

Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on original research. Phenomenon has to be studied and researched to meet Wikipedia criteria of inclusion. I would be more than happy to have a 3rd party mediate this discussion. Please see my discussion on your material below.TheRingess (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So, by removing the word "phenomenon", everything will be okay?

09:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not for me it wouldn't, please see the above six points I outlined in regards to your material. Please read WP:OR.TheRingess (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess you would have to read the whole book (The God Code) to know about it and not just a 3 sentence review on it. The same applies to the Mayan culture. It is a futile attempt on your part to try to see if the reference applies by doing a quick search on the net and trying to see if any mention is giving to the 11:11 occurrence. The position of the planets is not remarkable, it is of the Earth, the Sun and the Milky Way. This time I kept it simple with my latest edit. Let's see what you find wrong with it since there are no argueable points there.

Request for 3rd Opinion

Please read sections above to understand history of the discussion.

Here's a link to a diff showing the material added diff

TheRingess (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Smee

• If the user you are referring to is anon ip: 24.121.161.74 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), the last bunch of edits just look like vandalism. You may want to report this to WP:AIV, instead of WP:THIRD... Smee 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Oh, I did not realize it was actually 67.81.252.247 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) referenced, but in this case, this clearly looks like violations of WP:OR, which, if continued, should probably also go to WP:AIV. Smee 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Redirect of "11:11 Phenomenon"

I have removed the redirect of the "11:11 Phenomenon" because it does not involve numerology. I hope there are no objections to this. Numerology is not a phenomenon. Any change of this should be discussed. To redirect it to a defintion that does fit, goes against the rules of wikipedia, unless somebody can explain how numerology is a phenomenon.

--Jesuslawyer 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)jesuslawyer

The redirect was created as a result of an AFD, the link is provided at the top of this page. You are contravening the rules of Wikipedia, by ignoring the result of a discussion and imposing your own view. The wikipedia community values polite discussion. I suggest instead of reverting, you seek to build consensus. There are many ways to do this. Please see WP:RFC or WP:3O before simply blanking a page.TheRingess (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

whatever geoff. i give up. you should be ashamed of yourself. what you wrote above is like talking in the mirror. shame on you.

and what discussion?

Please see User talk:Jesuslawyer. A Train^{take the} 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Information Deleted to the 11:11 Article

A web link (www.11-11.tv) that discusses beliefs about the 11:11 occurrence was removed by someone. Can you provide a detailed explanation on the removal, as well as the IP address of the remover.

removed references

solara is about making money and is not an expert, and coast to coast is a commercial venture. the number 23 has nothing to do with 11:11. the oneness campaign is not about numerology.

following removed for having nothing to do with 11:11 or numerology

Melton and Rose described the Oneness Minute Campaign as

   "..an experiment set to begin on 11/11/06 that seeks to add positive energy to the planet."

. Solara stated that:

   "Whenever you see 11:11 it is really a positive thing"

. According to the article:

   "She believes that seeing this number combination is a "pre-encoded trigger" that is meant to activate you when you reach a certain level of awakening"

John Gilmore, a general manager of Knology's Knoxville office made the news when he was fired for stating that the world would end on November 11, 2005.[3]

two refer to dates and the other is a person's point of view. this has nothing to do with 11:11 or numerology.

update- also removed the plug for george barnard, who does not promote 11:11 as numerology and profits from the phenomenon.

i ask that you do not edit, as this has nothing to do with numerology and is advertising. thanks. --Jesuslawyer 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)jesuslawyer

Actually the material does belong. This article is an attempt to document the beliefs that people might have about the time "11:11". And as such, even though they are vague and self-published, do document somewhat, beliefs people have regarding this time of day. I also cleaned up the new sentence to be more encyclopedic in tone. For example, "bad luck" has nothing to do with a "black cat" per se. However an article about black cats does exist on Wikipedia and does document that people have held beliefs that bad luck and black cats are intrinsically related. It does not present those beliefs as actual fact.TheRingess (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

bull...you are blatantly wrong- this is supposed to be about 11:11 NUMEROLOGY. you put it in the title, not me. and where is my media reference? why did you take it out? how is that fair- i have been on the radio a few times talking about 11:11. is this about proof? i can get it for you. so where is my entry? --Jesuslawyer 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained this previously and will do so again. The word numerology is placed in the title to disambiguate this page. In other words, it's there to distinguish this article from for example, an article about a movie with 11:11 in the title, or a song with 11:11 in the title. The title actually came out of a discussion on this page. "11:11 (beliefs)" was also suggested as a title, as well as a couple of other possibilities. TheRingess (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

you can't remove my quote. i said that on the radio. i say it all the time. what's with the bias? i am an expert on the subject, as much as solara. leave it in- thanks.

Your quote needs to be recorded in a reliable source or it doesn't belong here. --Onorem 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

so a radio show is not a reliable source for me, but it is for solara? is it because the radio show i was on originated from canada? take off, eh :)

ok...i will get you my quotes, from a book that was NOT self-published. i will play by your rules. time to dust off the book :) --Jesuslawyer 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

11:11 should be removed

as it is ambiguous and open to many interpretations, much of which aren't allowed here because of theringer. i think a campaign is needed to remove this completely. why does theringess think it needs to be in wikipedia and how does that relate to the spirit of 11:11 for them?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

As has been stated before, the article exists because it survived an WP:AFD, this means that a group of editors discussed whether or not it should exist and did not decide that it shouldn't.TheRingess (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

why weren't other 11ers notified and what can they do now? --Jesuslawyer 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Who knows. What you can do is begin to read the numerous links both myself and another user have posted here and on your talk page. One of the underlying principle of Wikipedia is to assume good faith on the part of all editors (please click on the page for further explanation). Your recent behavior is stretching my ability to assume good faith on your part to it's limit. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's content guidelines and behavioral policy. Then we can have a discussion that does not devolve into a simple "Yes it is", "No it isn't" argument. We can discuss things in the context of Wikipedia's goals and policies.TheRingess (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Link Removed to the 11:11 Article

Can the Ringness explain why the hell the link to a site that discusses beliefs about 11:11 and which has hundreds upon hundreds of members keeps being removed??? Anyone else having problems with the Ringness and his conflict of interest, please contact Vishal Patel, Wikimedia, 1-727-231-0101. He's presently looking into irregularities into the handling of this article.

It is totally idiotic to be allowed to say "there are forums which discuss different beliefs" but not to be able to list an "example" of a forum. The idea that it isn't "reliable" source is nothing but a lame excuse to justify prejudice. The example site used to the forum reference is the reliable source to the entry. In other words, one may ask, what kind of reliable source do you have to prove that there are forums on the web relating to this subject? The web site listed is the source, reliable because it exists, and truthful because it relates to the subject. Unless the Ringness has anything more intelligent to say and can stop coming up with lame excuses, he should just drop it. Furthermore, it is more than obvious at this point that The Ringness has caused enough animosity and disbelief among many member posting and following this article and in this whole system of choosing what's right or wrong, that he should recuse himself from any further judging and let someone more senior be the judge. This is the only way of bringing belief and a sense of transparency into the system. At this point, there have been several accusations regarding The Ringness fairness and integrity regarding this subject. It is for this reason that it is advisable that he excuse himself from any further opinioning on this.

19:41, 28 March (UTC) 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEB#Criteria, we can discuss inclusion based on that criteria.TheRingess (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact I read it before I posted the link. There is nothing on it that says that a website cannot be used as an example of a certain type of website with a forum referenced as such. One can say "there are many rivers in the world, one being the Nile". As such, one can say "there are many forums on the web or websites which discuss this subject, one being www.11-11.tv". The article you site says that "web-specific content" may not be used as a reliable source unless the site itself is verified by others. I am not using "web-specific content" in any way, shape or form. The simple reference to a sample site which discusses beliefs does not fall under the category of web-specific content. If your argument were valid, one cannot talk about NASA and name their official website unless others have given awards to that website or the other criteria is met. As such, one cannot speak of Britney Spears and say this is her official site, according to your criteria. If you can point to any rule on Wik that says "sample sites cannot be used as examples of a certain content being discussed on certain sites" then the article which you referenced has no merit. As I said before, it would bring more credibility to this whole process if you got someone else to make the calls.

24:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Now we are discussing things in the context of Wikipedia's policies. In that case, why not list all of the many forums? TheRingess (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Either you think you are incredibly smart and others are incredibly stupid, or you just don't see that people can see through your stupid deception. Is this the only valid argument you have left? "Why not list all of the many forums?" If others choose to add to the list, which is not long at all, maybe just a handful, then that is their business. You have not shown any valid basis why the site shouldn't be sited. Secondly, your ridiculous comment is like saying "Why list George Barnard's book and not list all of the many other books or articles written on the subject?" You provided an example, so did I. Now you backtracked yourself, you said it was okay to say that there were forums on the web but now you even removed that. I have already made contact via phone with someone on Wik. Your comment "why not list all others?" is really not going to help your ludicrous case. I will have you removed forever. I promise.

24:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I misphrased my question, as written it sounds rhetorical and it really wasn't. I meant to ask why you did not include any other website. However in retrospect, both a rhetorical question and a non rhetorical one are irrelevant, as a quick internet search on google, turned up several other examples. I struck out this comment as counterproductive and not relevant to current discussion.TheRingess (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So now the problem is that I only sited one source? Just like you sited only one author? How is this a problem? People are getting tired of your ridiculous arguments. They lack...how should I say this?...intelligence, perhaps?

24:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC

Let me just say, that I have no real wish to engage in any discussion not directly related to the material. Hence questions of who is smarter/dumber/ridiculous can be construed as personal attacks. See WP:ATTACK. Just to be clear, I am making no accusation here, just expressing a desire on my own part not to engage in a discussion where I run the risk of violating one of Wikipedia's core policies, namely civility and respect. As long as the discussion remains on topic and revolves around the material and not personalities, then I am more than happy to engage in polite discussion. I heartily agree that this article needs more example of what specific beliefs people hold regarding this time of day (or alternatively bible verse). With that said, I have no time or inclination to go out and find a whole lot. Simply responding to questions regarding this article has consumed way too much of my time already.TheRingess (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment was actually to check if you were human or a machine (AI, to be precise). It is good to know that you are a human, hopefully from this planet. I believe what was done was very fair, in terms of creating a sub-structure (internet coverage) and posting links to sites. I do find it somewhat disturbing, however, that things that seem to be okay today, are not tomorrow. Having said all of this, can I also get back to my normal life (as I'm sure you are wishing you could) knowing that the sub-section (internet coverage) won't disappear tomorrow? One more thing I just noticed, can we change "this time of day" as you entered for "this particular number"? You see, all people who experience this number do not only experience it by looking at clocks. It also turns up as a combination or pattern of numbers on bills, birthdates, addresses, phone numbers, etc. This you can have a concensus on and everyone will agree. It doesn't just appear on clocks, but everywhere.

01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I too am glad that the discussion is getting back on track. I never meant to represent myself as an authority on every policy wikipedia has. But it is my opinion (or belief) that unless discussions about content remain centered upon whether or not the material fits with policies; since those policies in general have been arrived at through consensus and polite discussion. When they aren't, the discussion can easily devolve into a simple "yes it is" or "no it isn't" argument that leads nowhere. I see your point regarding examples. I can only speak for myself having arrived at a compromise after a long discussion, I have no further intent to remove any material currently included. Note, I am not saying I won't necessarily condone all further added material (that practically goes without saying). Nor can I speak for anyone else. Just as a suggestion, should you disagree with another editor's deletions/additions in the future use 1) an edit summary if you reinstate/remove material 2) if that does not suffice, point them to these discussions 3) if you ever need help finding relevant guidelines, I would be willing to help, time permitting of course. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet coverage

I've stuck a request for expansion on this new section. I think this section could be expanded to include a broader range of forums and websites related to this topic.TheRingess (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I went ahead and added a few more websites, though I did not make any attempt to establish their notability regarding this topic, see above discussion. They are only added as examples of websites where people express their beliefs. Nor did I determine whether or not they meet WP:WEB.TheRingess (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It would be very hard for me to summarize the ongoing discussion, as I find it hard to remain objective. Most relevant discussions begin several sections above. Most of the discussion seems centered around reliable sources. I just felt that it was time to bring in a neutral 3rd party.TheRingess (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why were these discussions archived?

Why were these discussions archived? The page wasn't that long and discussion threads had been added to well within a week of you archiving everything, TheRingess. Reading over them I see plenty of discussions I would like to contribute to, and I will, regardless of it being archived. This article has been made worthless. There is a concept in this world regarding 11:11, even if it's a silly superstition, and wikipedia should have a good article about that concept, but it doesn't and as far as I can tell, TheRingess is determined that there shouldn't be a good article about it. -- GIR 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia seems O.K. with accepting on faith that, everytime you see in a movie the number "1138", it is a reference to George Lucas's film THX 1138. The article certainly doesn't present any evidence that it *is* a reference. Most of the things on the list are missing a reference. Is it because it would be a greater leap of faith to believe it's just a big coincidence? You seem determined to pretend that all these movies and songs and albums named "11:11" is just a big coincidence. I can't see how it is, I mean, there's no 11:12 article, or 11:13. I don't see why we need to segregate the information. It would be as absurd as seperating the THX 1138 article and making a separate article with a list of 1138 references, but without acknowledging the probably origin of the reference in the first place. -- GIR 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a great number of us folks out there that see 11:11 and other time prompts. We don't all agree on the reasons why this occurs, but it does seem to me that Wiki should not be deciding that we don't have a point of view. I thought an encyclopedia was valuable by virtue of being comprehensive, and following this approach we have seen here over the last period, I would actually expect Wiki to standardise on one religion too. I have no idea why there is this determination to wipe out any suggestion that 11:11 may well be a lot more than numerology, just as it is a lot more than syncronicity. 59.167.13.210 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Geoff 23 July 2007

See also

• 11:11 (Regina Spektor album)
• 11:11 (Maria Taylor album)
• Armistice with Germany (Compiègne) on 11.11.11

These have been removed from the article, I think they should be returned. They are three examples of songs using the "11:11" numerology in their name, and of course the granddaddy of 11.11, the WWI reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The two albums have that title, yes. Neither of them have (in either their articles or this one) any references supporting the claim that they're so titled because of this belief. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• They don't have to be, the article is about 11:11 in all its forms in numerology. The motive of the creator for using 11:11 is no more relevant than any information on any disambiguation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. We already have a disambiguation page for 11:11. This page isn't. If we can establish that a song/movie is based on a popular belief held about 11:11, then it belongs. As an analogy, in an article that describes the various beliefs people have about midnight, we would not include a link to The Midnight Special simply because it also contains the word midnight in the title. BTW, I'm not sure why 11.11.11 follows the link on the Armistice, I assumed that it meant a date, but the article itself lists the armistice as occurring on 11.11.18.TheRingess (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But at 11am on that date, so you can slice it to have three 11s if you want. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I just read the article. It wasn't clear to me that 11.11.11 represented 11 am on November 11th. I guess I've lead a sheltered life.TheRingess (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad, I had to read the article myself to get that meaning out of it. Clearly it's a blind spot in the ol' memory. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Film references

• The 2004 horror film 11:11: The Gate involves a woman investigating the meaning of 11:11 as related to a murder and an upcoming prophecy. [1]
• The upcoming 2009 film 11:11 involves youths making a wish each time the clock reads 11:11. [2]

Do we want a "Film references" section in this article? Note the similar 23_(numerology) article already has a "Film references" section, where it would be nice if these pages were consistently formatted.

These movies might be better listed on the generic 11:11 disambiguation page. However it seems like they're better here because they're specifically about numerological aspects of 11:11. (There are other films with "11:11" in the title that have nothing to do with numerology or spirituality, which are not included here. [3]) The film list, in addition to providing information, would be mainstream published (although fictional) references to / examples of commonly believed or popular culture aspects of 11:11, e.g. in suggesting that it may be an omen, or that one can make a wish when the time is 11:11.

Another issue is these movies might not be notable enough, where neither has its own page yet. I see them as reasonably notable, where even if they don't deserve their own page, they're should at least be interesting enough for inclusion within an existing page, i.e. are certainly notable in the context of 11:11. 11:11: The Gate has been nominated for and won Leo awards. [4] Note The Barber, one of Michael Bafaro's other films which already has its own page, has won Leo awards too and has those awards prominently listed. The other film is by Rocky Costanzo, where some of his other movies already have their own pages. Thanks, Cruiser1 02:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree regarding the first one, if we could expand its description to be a little more accurate as to how specifically it relates to the various beliefs described. The second one hasn't been released, so there is probably very little information available about it's plot and we have no guarantee that the information available now will be accurate/true at the time of its release. At the time of its release if it is still relevant then we can make a decision. My issue with movies that don't already have an article here is that including them in this article is bordering on promotion/spam. Why not write the article about the 2004 movie and gain consensus about its notability as a movie then see if it fits here? TheRingess (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate its inclusion

Keep: I am a person who sees 11:11 often. I typed it into google and came to this page. I appreciate the footnotes which give me addition material to search out.

There's no WP:RFD going on now, but I wanted to also say, as one who is also interested in the numerological aspects of 11:11, that I appreciate this article and think it should be kept. :) Thanks, Cruiser1 05:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke, or are there actually people out there who are so appalling stupid? --70.17.209.163 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a Joke. I am one of those people. And I consider myself fairly intelligent. And I have to say this is the first time Wiki has disappointed me. It usually takes a lot of looking to see the bias in Wiki, but this time it is obvious. LD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.204.211 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Solara

I notice the article says: "Uri Geller has stated: For many years the numbers 11:11 have been mysteriously appearing to people all over the world. Often appearing on digital clocks, the sightings of 11:11 tend to occur during times of heightened awareness, having a most powerful effect on the people involved." Uri Geller didn't say that. Solara said that in her book "11:11: Inside the Doorway", where Uri Geller is quoting it. See article reference #5 where the same quote is given next to Solara's book. See [http://www.amazon.com/11-Inside-Doorway-Solara/dp/1878246054 that book's listing on Amazon] for more evidence, where the quote appears in the Editorial Reviews / From the Author.

Solara's work seems a bit more notable than average, and not just because it's become a primary source used by people such as Uri. :) In the article's list of references, the other 11:11 books and interviews are all from the 2000's, while Solara's book is from 1992, and is the oldest published reference I've found. I've seen "11:11: Inside the Doorway" in bookstores and flipped through it, where it contains a list of 11:11 anecdotes mailed in from people around the world, so it's kind of an informal study. Her books are by "Star-Borne Unlimited", which she may have started, technichally making them self-published, however they seem a bit more than one person's garage operation, especially since they've been translated into a number of languages. Solara's 11:11 Activation event seems as notable as Jose Arguelles's Harmonic Convergence event. Her activities with 11:11 have received international media attention, and continue to involve people around the world. Of course, this may be more suitable in an article about Solara, as opposed to affecting this one. Thanks, Cruiser1 05:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It now seems silly to include a quote of Geller quoting another author. I removed the quote. Especially since the quote is attributed verbatim to Solara in the footnotes section.TheRingess (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of information

Considering the amount of citations this article has, there is barely any real information here. What else can be said about this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.129.238 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing this right; I'll try and fix if I'm posting this in the wrong place. I really think this page should stay. I actually specifically searched for it and was gratified to find that a page existed. There are a lot of superstitions about the number 11:11, and I think it would be interesting to list some of the more common ones here.

This could also go into a larger article depending on whether there's enough material to warrant making it more than just a stub.

Zephyrjs (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clock & numbers similar

This is my own experience i have my self... I don´t care if some one here believe or not...85% in wikipedia are skeptics. It has heights when i put my eye in my clock to see the hours (pc clock, radio, etc), and what happens with me, every single day, 4 or 5 times wich day, is to see numbers equal, type this, 13:13, 23h23, 16:16, does not matter that number is… However, it has cases, where I see 11:13 or 09:11 and this are not coincidence, in my view... Lightwarrior2 (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Special" numbers occur at least once every hour, so it's not very unlikely to spot one, and when you take notice of them you remember them more strongly since you recognized them rather than seeing them as random numbers. That's what I believe anyway. P.S. I seem to think that 13:37 on clocks occurs pretty often but that's probably because I react more when I see it. (And nerds might point it out so more people will notice it.)

All this shit is fucked up when you have your clock has more than a 1 minute error. Don't get me started on the possibilities if 60-base or 100-base time keeping schemes were in use.--Anthonzi (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://books.google.com/?id=SmI8mmW3i6IC&pg=PA191&dq=%2211:11%faus22+numerology
  • In 11:11 (numerology) on 2011-05-23 02:16:25, 404 Not Found
  • In 11:11 (numerology) on 2011-06-01 02:52:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What is going on here? I wrote 2 fully sourced additions to this article today and yesterday, and in both instances they completely disappeared soon after, not even an entry in the history. Am I offending someone who has weird powers or something? Ramseyman (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's odd...did you perchance write any conspiracy theories about how the numerological power of 11:11:11 can be used to control Wikipedia? Caduon (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This page has this note: Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (July 2011)

Because of that I added three books by George Barnard that are on the subject, but these have been removed by TheRingess. If I had more confidence in how to appease wiki editors, I would have expanded the topic, and I will now try to do that, if that is the only way that MORE secondary sources can be added. Geoff C8 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Still not seeing the need for this addition, it doesn't really expand on the topic itself, mostly about the authors and their own processes.TheRingess (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki, but have experienced this sort of stuff before, and I am just about to give up. I can't be bothered. You win. Enjoy. Geoff C8 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to answer that somewhat snarky comment with a snarky response, but decided I would be a bigger person than that.TheRingess (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

... Ringness, Geoff's comment was not snarky, though your response was. Wikipedians, eh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.98.50 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

400 years?

From the article: "11-11-11 is a date which reoccurs every 100 years (every 400 years for it to fall on a Friday)"

Since one out of every seven days is a Friday, wouldn't that be every 700 years rather than every 400 years? If it weren't for leap years, it would be exactly once every 700 years, but even with leap years it should happen on an average of once every 700 years, right? HMishkoff (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm removing that fragment about 400 years.TheRingess (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)