Talk:Numerology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pre-2005

The above is an early draft of an article that is being considered for Nupedia. I have the author's permission to post it on Wikipedia. I have an unusual request: will you edit this article, as if you had to take responsibility for it (though granted you might not want to), so that it is fact-stating? Then I'll present the results to the author and read them myself and see if we can proceed! -- Larry Sanger

---

Done

---

This is a vast improvement--thanks! I think it could use another going-over or two, though. For example, the first sentence is still not right, I think--far too broad (it seems to me). Elaboration of accusations of pseudo-science, and the reaction to those accusations on the part of the pseudo-scientist, would be grand. -- Larry Sanger

---

OK - there's some more. Perhaps the author could develop it from here.

---

Does any one know if the numerologists believe in some significance of the dates 1999/11/19 and 2000/2/2? Nov 19, 1999 was the last day to have all odd digits in the date until 3111/1/1. On the opposite end, the date Feb 2, 2000 was the first day to have all even digit since 888/8/28.

---

An email is going around the internet on the numerology of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack around the number 9 and 11:

• date of attack: 9/11; 9 + 1 + 1 = 11
• 9/11 is the 254th day of the year: 2 + 5 + 4 = 11
• days remaining in the year after 9/11: 111 days
• Twin towers standing in New York skyline look like 11
• first plane to hit: flight 11
• State of New York: 11th state added to the union
• New York City: 11 letters
• Afghanistan: 11 letters
• The Pentagon: 11 letters
• Ramzi Yousef (convicted of attacking WTC in 1993): 11 letters
• 92 on board flight 11; 9+2 = 11
• number of crew members on flight 11: 11
• number of passengers on flight 93: 38; 3+8 = 11
• number of passengers on flight 175: 56; 5+6 = 11
• number of people on board flight 175: 65; 6+5 = 11
• number of floors in each TWC tower: 110; a multiple of 11
• number of floors in building 7: 47; 4+7=11
• flight 77: a multiple of 11

• number of passengers on flight 11: 81; 8+1 = 9
• number of crew members on flight 175: 9
• number of passengers on flight 93: 45; 4+5 = 9

Note for readers unfamiliar with the phone system in the US: 911 is the telephone number for emergency services nationwide.

---

The Meaning of All This? 09-11-01

God's intervening hand in history. The West used to be Christian and blew it. We are the world's leaders in decadence now. There is a God. And He leaves His signature. Here is another 9-11 for you:

Genesis 11:01-09 There are 09 verses in chapter 11 in book 01 of the Bible describing the 'fall of the Tower of Babel'. Read the story, many associations can be made. And another Biblical 9-11:

B'reshit (Hebrew) is the first Word of the Bible. In Gematria the word totals 913. But be-reshit is two words really: the preposition 'be' and the noun 'reshit'. 'Be' is 2, so reshit, which means beginning, totals 911. That is God's message: this is only the beginning! You are headed for the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord! Repent!

For the ones that deem these things mere coincidences. Here is another coincidence. Here in Holland a Dutch politician was shot, Pim Fortuyn, 911 days later, Theo van Gogh was shot. It is only the beginning (reshit), 911, dial 911. Alarm! Bert Otten, NL, 17th March 2006

---

I would like to interject my criticism to the views of those pointing to Biblical numeralogy and the 9/11 attack as well as Biblical points covered. I am not a degree holding Bible scholar, but even I know that the chapter and verse of the Bible were not added until the Middle Ages, thus it would seem somewhat unlikely that their would be such an occurence that the church officials who added chapter and verse would have had divine guidance to affix numbers associated with twenty-first century events to Biblical passages that can vaguely be interpreted as fulfillments of said passages. Furthermore, most Hebrew scholars regard certain prefixes to nouns, such as an initial Beth to noun as in bereshith, as part of the root word not as a separate preposition.

Also, the reference in the article on this page to a connection between the crosses of the British flag and the calling code of the United Kingdom also seems peculiar to me since the Union Jack of the United Kingdom has three crosses on it, not two. These are the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick, and they refer to the union of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland under one government. If the numeralogy of said reference is correct, then this would make the sum of the numbers 66 not 44 which is the calling code in the U.K.

---

Number of coincidences gullible minds will deem significant: infinity

-exactly, you can find those kinds of coincedence's anywhere if you look hard enough. Id you want to look at something with 9/11 this tells more than the number occurences: September 11, 1991 Bush Sr. "Out of these troubled times [The Gulf War], our fifth objective, the new world order, can emerge"...... September 12, 2001 Council on Foreign Relations"There is a chance that the President of the United States can use this disaster, to carry out what his father, a phrase his father used, I think, only once. And hasn't been used since. And that is a new world order.")

---

What does the classic mean in paragraph 2, 'classic numerology'? Numerology of classical Greece and Rome? It's not at all clear. --MichaelTinkler

---

A believer just hacked this page. It needs to be undone. How does one do that?

Also, just for completeness, there is a serious modern critique of Number, with people like John Zerzan and George Lakoff taking political and cognitive-linguistic angles on it respectively. Basically their position is that the Greek and Roman worlds elevated Number to a god, and trusted measurements and counting systems and external measurements made by a trusted hierarchy of priests or military or administrator types.... allowing them to develop strong physical infrastructure and military discipline, but totally losing the significance of differences between commodities, products, labor, and etc.

It's hard stuff to summarize, but I'll take a stab at it once the smoke clears. Now, how do I put the original back?

---

Vandalism now reverted.

---

I prefer the term "pre-cognitive behavior"  ;-)

---

OK, there is now an end section on the way that cognitive science of mathematics' claims seem to categorize many "scientific" uses of numbers as effectively variants on numerology.

I included the "primate argument", but not the "robot argument" ... since most people do not grant that robot action follows from a kind of cognition, but most people do grant that behavior of (other) primates does.

I gave Zerzan short shrift as he is very controversial - Lakoff is very not. In fact it's amazing how little negative reaction his thesis has had given how revolutionary it is - the main reason that I linked the reviews not the work.

I'll dig up the references on primate mathematics and counting - which should go in a separate section primate mathematics.

If the way that this material relates to numerology is not clear, I think I can fix it... at the expense of maybe insulting a few particle physicists and simulation modellers...

---

I'm sure someone believes the bit about vibration, but I don't know who. I'd like to see some attribution. I don't think it applies to most forms of Qabalah, and I know it doesn't apply to Discordian numerology. --Dan

---

The bit on the BMW 528i not selling well smacks of urban legend (specifically, it's nearly identical to the oft-repeated Chevy Nova legend). I'm removing it unless someone can prove otherwise. -- goatasaur

---

Yikes! What the heck is this Sun, Ketu, Bhraspati, etc... junk doing before the obligatory leading summary and why are they chapters (?!) and why do they have links *in the titles*? The author obviously didn't read the article guidelines where this is a no-no. A user called Hemant has apparently added those, and curiously enough they link to his home page. Advertising? I'll just delete them now. Jugalator 10:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's far too much apocryphal New Age nonsense treated as fact by this article. Does the person who wrote this truly believe that Lemuria existed? I reworded that particular blurb to make it a bit more objective. Sheesh. --Bumhoolery 22:43, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Norse - 13

Does anyone know anything about Loki being the 13th guest at a feast, then the feast having some connection with the death of Baldur, who Loki killed, thus causing 13 to be considered unlucky? I could have sworn I heard of that somewhere... 64.198.97.66 16:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, so have I, but I have no reliable reference. Anyway, could it be that the Norse people developed this idea after being influenced by Christian material?--Niels Ø 16:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Norse stuff came first, mostly because (I think) it was invented BC. 64.198.97.66 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be invented in 1st millennium, before exposure to Christianity, but no sources would be available to support invention in 1st millennium BC.--Niels Ø 10:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the Norse sagas, it is hard to date the exact time in which they were created; however, I believe it to be more likely that the Norse sagas were created somewhere around the fourth century C.E.. In regards to Loki as a thirteenth guest, I do not recall it in my mythological studies, but that does not mean it isn't there.

13

I fixed the grammatical boo-boo, but someone else is going to have to fill in the substance. What exactly is the deal with the Sacred Geometry (which I presume is Pythagorean?), the Tree of Life (wasn't that a Jewish Kabbala concept?), the creation pattern (whatever that is) and the the five Platonic solids. If the number truly "can't be discussed" without those concepts, then they sure as shootin' need to be explained. Cbdorsett 30 June 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Which tradition?

Before explaining the meaning of each number, the article states that 'numerologists believe'. But not all numerologists believe the same thing. The descriptions of the numbers needs to specify which tradition this is referring to, as Greek, Hebrew, Chinese etc, attribute different properties to the numbers. Ashmoo 01:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait... "one" is not the beginning...

Don't most numbering systems (not meaning numerological systems) begin with zero, or the notion of nothing as their starting point rather than one?

One is only measured against "not one", after all.

• Zero is actually quite a sophisticated concept... remember, there is no "zero" in Roman numerals. That doesn't mean the Romans ddn't understand the idea of nothing, it just means they didn't see it as a number. 172.216.101.50 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

nothing is not a beginning, its always been represented as nothing... In religious aspects of numerology it's also considerred everything. It is the beginning, but without definition. therefore 1 is the individual, or the beginning from NOTHING. So numerology does use 0, but 1 is the official beginning since 0 is without "true" definition(def. in the term of "physical" space or existence)Justin737 19:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• A number system cannot be generated from 0. For example, the classical definition of the natural numbers (postive whole numbers) does not include 0. To define them, we take an element called "1" and an operation called "addition" or "+". Take "1 + 1" and we have "2". "2 + 1" gives "3". Applying induction carries this on to generate the entire infinite set of natural numbers. "0" becomes important when we we wish to consider the natural numbers along with addition as a group or it we want to extend this notion to the integers (postive whole numbers, negative whole numbers, and 0). For the natural numbers, we need an additive identity. That is, an element 0 s.t. a + 0 = a for all a in N. For the integers, we want to retain closure of under addition. That is, the sum of any two integers is an integer. Hence, we must include 0, else "1 + (-1)" will fall out of the set.

The Hebrews?!

Nice omission of the people that are thought to have invented numerology, the Israelites/Hebrews. Where's the number 15? Where's the significance of each number?

-It's not an ommision, its the description of each number. If you actually read what I wrote you would see that there is a description to each. 15 in numerology is actually 6 defined by one and 5. Numerologists don't use an infinite amount of definitions because they don't need to. They use base definitions, defining the basic levels of manifestation which all levels are believed to possess.And by the way no one knows who started it, its actually attributed to GREEK/ROMAN since pythagoras was greek but studied in babylon, egypt and later lived in rome. Just because modern day religion centers itself around the hebrew religion doesn't mean everything originated there, including many of their own beliefs.

Your talking about gematria, post there. Justin737 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I bolded and discontinued allcaps to provide gematria linkThaddeus Slamp 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

In both Greek and Hebrew, letters of the alphabet double as numbers. This is most likely where the association between names and numbers first came from. For example, in Greek M = 40 MA = 41, MB = 42, etc... --69.18.22.175 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

-you are right, they double as numbers. Numerology though, defines numbers and then defines everything else through them. So you break down a name into numbers to give the numbers which the name consists of definition.

YOUR TALKING ABOUT GEMETRIA, READ MY COMMENT AT THE BOTTOM. Justin737 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I have never done this before, so I don't know if Im doing it in the right place. My question is: Is numerology meant to be based on base 10 since denury numbers are assigned to each letter? If so why isn't zero used, and what would happen if binary, or another base was used? Thanks Claudia

-0 IS USED! People keep transferring this to random meanings in gematria instead of numerology. thats why there was a zero with the definition of the all, everything and nothing... in other words the number 0. and actually according to early numerology it had 15 numbers to understand. 0-10 11 22 33 and 44.

In true numerology it is technically binary, but also of singular increase. It begins with 0 as a pure entity which can not coexist within itself, so one becomes the first definitive step, or the leader. then a duality is created through 2, or its opposing force. 2 is the negative aspect of 0 while 1 is the positive aspect of 0. They then repeat, evens are typically receptive while odds are agressive, but the further you go from the base, the more they stray from this directly. The larger the number, the more mixed the energies/definition within.Justin737 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

More 911

The article on 911 (number) claims there is a connection between the US attack and the attack in Spain because the latter took place 912 days (no, not 911 days) later. I added to that that that (*) is numerology (actually, I weakened it to some claim it is numerology). But that keeps on being reverted. Someone changed it to 'coincidence', but the point is there is no coincidence, there's nothing there. Also see the talk page. Better respond there, I suppose.

There's "no coincidence, there's nothing there." So that "nothing" is numerology. Why should anyone care about your POV that numerology is worthless? On the other hand, the 911 or 912 days between two horrifying, newsmaking terrorist attacks, whether planned by the terrorists or just a big coincidence (and in your value system, coincidences rank higher than numerology), is worth noting. Anton Mravcek 20:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

(*) Gee, what are the chances of getting 3 consecutive 'that's' in a sentence? And it's in the 2nd sentence, which is 1 off, so you get 3-2-1! That must be relevant! :) ). DirkvdM 08:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If you were a poet like Shakespeare, some people might actually care about counting your words and their positions. Anton Mravcek 20:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There was an episode of Family Guy in which a theater director says: "Let's remember our performance hierarchy. Legitimate theater, musical theater, stand-up, ventriloquism, magic, mime."

When it comes to numbers, the hierarchy is "legitimate math, recreational math, coincidences, dog poo, numerology." Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

All namecalling aside, is it numerology? How bad the attacks were or what I think of numerology is irrelevant. Actually, for the text it's not even relevant if it is numerology because it stated that others believe it's numerology. Apart from myself three others seem to think so too. DirkvdM 06:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal criticism

Hi everyone I'm new to Wikipedia. I think the reference to Eddington and Gilson under the heading 'Numerology' ought to be removed because it can be construed as personal abuse (what mathematical physicist would wish to be called a 'numerologist?). An encyclopaedia that anyone can edit should not feature criticisms of this kind because this simply encourages a spirit of vandalism. If criticism is to be made, it should be in the context of a larger appraisal of a person's work. Does anyone support me on this?

Lucretius 13:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lucretius, your reasoning doesn't sound too bad, but this edit, completely removing the section "Numerology in science", is too extreme. Eddington did dabble in numerology, and if this website is any indication, Gilson remains proud of his own work.

If anything, the section should be expanded to include, for example, Anaximander of Miletus, the Pythagoreans, Plato, Kepler, and Johann Bode. Heck, it might even deserve its own article. Anyway, I'm putting it back in. Melchoir 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Melchoir. According to my pocket Oxford dictionary, numerology is 'divination by numbers; study of occult meaning of numbers. Possibly the meaning has been stretched by some polemicists in scientific debate so as to include any mathematical physicists whose work might appear more mathematical than scientific, but this is an abuse of language and it is designed to condemn their work by association with astrologers and others of that kind. Numerology in science is a non sequitur and it is loaded with nasty innuendo. Eddington in particular has copped a lot of this abuse over the years and I hope Wikipedia will not reinforce prejudices of this kind. Please give the issue more consideration. Lucretius 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just edited this article to accommodate the fact that 'numerology' here has a colloquial significance for scientists, which is why Eddington might be called a numerologist without thereby lumping him with astrologers. I've replaced the FSC references with a reference to large numbers. This prevents the duplication of content. I've included Weyl and Dirac so that Eddington doesn't cop all the attention. Melchoir evidently thinks Gilson needs to be mentioned here and I've accommodated this by referring to his so-called 'Quantum theory of gravity', which I've found is related to Dirac's large number hypothesis. Hopefully this is a compromise that suits everyone. (By the way, the link to Gilson's site opens to a Yahoo default setting, but I don't know why. I'll leave it in just in case the default turns out to be temporary. Also I'm not sure Gilson belongs in this famous company, whether or not they are all guilty of numerological tendencies). Lucretius 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while I remain suspicious of your motivations (i.e. who deserves to cop the attention and who belongs in whose company), I have to admit that you've written a much better introduction to the subject of numerology in science. I'll drop by later to add in material on celestial mechanics. I tried to add internal links to Fine-structure constant, Eddington number, and Dirac large numbers hypothesis, but I hit an edit conflict, so either you can work those in, or I'll do that too. Melchoir 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's better written. As for my motivations, I've made it clear all along that I think the 'numerology' reference to Eddington damns him by innuendo. I've added the names of Weyl and Dirac just so the reader knows that Eddington is not the only physicist who has dabbled in 'numerological' tendencies. I've also added a good link that mentions all three in terms of numerology. I would prefer there was absolutely no reference to scientists in terms of numerology but I've chosen to opt for this compromise. As for Gilson, I can't find a link that refers explicitly to his numerology. He's virtually an unknown as far as I can tell and my personal opinion is that he should therefore be removed from this article. I left him in because you mentioned him further above.

I'm now just about out of ideas how to get my view across on the article page. I hope you do accept my changes and I look forward to seeing the additions you make.

I should add that I take pride in my ability to write from someone else's point of view (my training is mainly in literature). So even if I am unable to change the argument, I can at least improve the phrasing of someone else's work. E.g., I rewrote an article by Rbj on invariant scaling at the Planck units page, entirely consistent with his point of view. Unfortunately he rejected it (I don't think he actually read it, though he did read a previous rewrite, where I did try to change the argument). Here in the Numerology article I have added nuances to the argument to obtain what I think is a more objective outcome, but otherwise I have retained the main point of the argument. As I said, I would prefer delete this article altogether because I think the term 'numerology' is wrongly employed when it refers to physicists. In fact, it is mostly used as a polemical device, when one physicist tries to discredit someone else's work, mostly because it conflicts with his own assumptions. One of the papers Rbj cites in the discussion page for FSC is a good example - it condemns Eddington of numerology in order to condemn someone else by association with Eddington. Also the new link I've added (referring to Weyl, Dirac and Eddington) is to a paper whose author is trying to discredit the proponents of 'Intelligent Design'. I agree with his point of view but I don't think he had to evoke the bogey of numerology - that simply indicates that he is not confident of his other arguments. Cheers Lucretius 05:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced

I have no problem with reporting on established concepts in numerology, but I'm going to have to slap some unferencedsect tags here. It's getting ridiculous. Melchoir 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There are other numerologies!

The numerology meant in article is specific, one of many others. The article is ought to be more general. — Gil Groe 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Isn't Necromancy a rather off-beat and negative practice to arbitrarily compare Numerology to? That sounds a little biased. --Inhahe 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

whoever wrote the article READ ME!!!

I took out the necromancy reference, it is offensive to me and I’m sure any other numerologists who would’ve seen it. Technically the tense in which it was used was correct, but I could also group Catholicism with Satanism as both being religions.

I teach numerology and have studied the art for quite a few years, I don’t want to write your definition of numerology, but I would like for you to know how many places are so badly misguided/incorrect. I might however change it eventually if you haven’t so that it is in a median of explaining numerology as an art system and your understanding, so as not to have a biased account which misguides all who read this article.

Numerology doesn’t just describe physical things and actions, its been used as a device for understanding religion and humanity as long as it has been around, that’s kind of why it’s used in the occult, its not just a tool for playing with lives.

“Numbers 0 to 10 are used in present-day numerology to determine character analysis and predict upcoming trends. Other numbers are thought to carry vibrational influences which must also be taken into consideration, as must also the connection of astrology, numbers, and locational addresses, e.g. "Seven Star Road."”-------this ridiculous on a few levels…. One: all numbers are considered vibrations that describe separate manifestations of “energy”, or whatever you wish to call them, upon their level at their point of manifestation (such as, 1 becomes 2 in its dual aspect, or 2 accumulates into 3 upon a new step of manifestation) 22 is considered a manifestation with the base of 4 (this is the reason for breaking down a number, it shows its base influence) 23 is that of 5 (23/5) etc. the only reason you will hear more definitions for 0 through ten is because why teach people the definition of every number to infinity when you can teach the base numbers which are repeated throughout all numbers. Numbers are used to define everything, you don’t pick and choose which section defines what, they all define everything. Also, it is so rare that you will find a professional numerologist that uses things such as streets to define anything I don’t know where you would’ve gotten this except someone maybe sighting possibilities in numerology. Last in this section, astrology has its connections to numerology, but you don’t use astrology in numerology at all… or that would be an astrological reading, it’s a different subject altogether.

The numbering system here needs a huge change. To say that those are the meanings of numbers is going to confuse any person who doesn’t know anything about numerology (which is why people would be looking here in the first place), and it is so biased it is almost cruel to give one number system that isn’t even widely used and claim it to be numerology. First and foremost, numerologists don’t abide by certain rules or laws in the structure of numerology, which is why it is an art and will never be a science. But if you are going to go ahead and give a list of number definitions please at least inform people there are other explanations and belief systems. I will include the simple definitions I was first given: 0. Nothing and everything 1. Individuality 2. union 3. Communication/interaction 4. Creation 5. Action 6. Reaction/responsibility 7. Thought 8. Power 9. Completion 10. Rebirth From this follows Master numbers (starting with 11 and ending with 44) which are higher vibrations of lesser bases which are unstable in nature… meaning 11/2 could be viewed as 1 defining itself, until it can not hold its higher form and reduces to 2. Each number definition following would be an accumulation of its numbers defining each other through the properties in which they interact.

The birth time is never ever used, that’s astrology. The birth time has no relevance besides petty nonsense when it comes to numerology. Professional numerologists have all the information they need from the name and birth date.

How could numerology work to break down a name? an excerpt from my book (don’t use this specifically unless you have asked because I would only like to be quoted if I agree with your definition on this page, a paraphrase will be acceptable):

Psychology has proven that the surroundings at each stage of your life can easily dictate the condition of your psychological makeup. This includes physical surroundings, emotional interactions, speech patterns in those that you interact with, and/or any particular occurrence that may affect you in anyway whatsoever. Showing that a large part of your makeup as a human being is created not by you but by the events that affect you, the chain of events that is created by your reaction to each situation is what is known as your personality, or personality traits.

The obvious variable that is in contact with someone at the earliest stages and throughout most of life is that of the parents. So why is it so inconceivable that an accurate description of yourself can be described through the name given to you at birth by those who are surrounding you throughout most of your life? The name given to you was decided by your parents based on its properties of definition and sound. So therefore the definition of your name can easily show you how your parents hope to raise you. Even more so, the name given to you must have the correct sound, which means the vibrational tone must be something to which the namers subconscious mind must be pleased with, or give an accurate description of what they hope for you to become. Numerology breaks down these vibrational tones into separate meanings which joined create one meaning; the description of what is you. This description depicts the outside influences in which you deal with in everyday life.

Your birthday is the number which describes your core meaning, the person you are before and throughout the outside influences. This is the meaning which responds to the influences or attacks on your psyche. Depending on your vibrational core it reflects each environmental change with its new vibration, and each of these vibrations accumulates to create your actions or "psyche." All of your actions from day one are an accumulation of the influences that have attacked your core and the responses in which it has reacted with, each adding upon itself create your everyday life. There is no possibility of change without your core influences originally being designed for this change, any change that should happen would be an occurrence of the original vibration attempting to manipulate the attacking vibrations.

And finally, the days of the week? Are you serious? Numerology is about numbers, not planets! So why use astrology definitions in a numerology page.

I hope I've helped; see the "Purge" explanation below. Melchoir 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"but in my opinion it is Aquarius."

That needs changing ASAP.

Done, and more. Melchoir 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Purge

I am removing a great deal of original research and unverifiable material from the article, prompted by 70.190.212.246's comments above and the fact that the article has gone three months with cleanup tags and no improvement in sight. I do not wish to marginalize the actual practice of numerology; rather, parts of the article are laden with so much speculation and opinion that they misinform and give numerology a bad name. Melchoir 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Postmodern Critique

Who wrote this junk? Quotes out of context, lots of red to articles that haven't been created (because they aren't really encyclopedic,) mangled criticisms, ... Lakhoff and Nunez have made strong arguments within their (constrained) theses but I think even they would want to dissociate themselves from this kind of bad interpretation.

"The only mathematics that we know is the mathematics that our brain allows us to know." That's a vacuous tautology. Of course it's true. What's more interesting in the Lakhoff/ Nunez book is the recognition of the importance of metaphor, the critique of mathemetician's emphasis on the concept of closure, the critique of the principle of induction, ...

Unless anyone objects within a couple of days I'll trim this section down quite a bit. I'm not convinced that WMCF should be mentioned here but I think I can take out the bad. --M a s 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's more work to be done

"Numerological divination" is highly biased, and off base in many assumptions towards numerology. I would rewrite it, but being a numerologist I would probably accidentally end up biased in the other direction. Numerologists do disagree on some tools of numerology, but they agree on numerology. Scientists will disagree on different points, but that doesn't mean science is not a unified study.

Advanced numerologists (ones who actually study it, its like the difference between a scientist in high school and one in the profession) believe that numerology is the belief that existence is created in cycles of manifestation. These levels of manifestation are represented by numbers, much in the same way 1 can be represented by an apple. Not 3 different styles of belief, one belief in creative cycles that are bound to their cyclic laws. The same way science believes existence is bound to laws, numerologists believe it is. They just take this into a "metaphysical" step to bring these natures to define god and humans based off of accumulative vibrations of the creative cycles.

If you want to define something which isn't numerology, figure out what it is and post it... if we're talking about numerology, then figure out what you are talking about before you claim it to be something else. I'm the first to admit it isn't a science, and since it is an art, it isn't replicable in the scientific process... but it's mainly used today in the same fashion as psychiatry, which isn't a science either. Numerology is used as holistic metaphysical psychiatry and relationship counseling. So be careful how much you make it look bad in comparisson to how much you DEFINE WHAT IT IS.

I went ahead and removed all that I saw as opinionated rather than definitive, and all gematria definitions. Justin737 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

READ ME BEFORE EDITING

look people. This isn't a loose termed random thing here for anyone to hack out when they think they are right. This is a profeesion and religious study. Just because you've read about gemetria doesn't mean numerology is gemetria. As I said there is a difference.

By taking the base meanings out and adding a bunch of stupid shit you are destroying the name of numerology. Numerology isn't based around 4 fucking chapters in the bible, it isn't based around the number 15.

YOU ARE WRITING DEFINITIONS IN GEMATRIA... FUCKING STOP, would you describe the term christianity through the view of the roman catholics because thats the widest belief? If so then you wouldn't be describing christianity, you'd be describing catholicism a type of christianity... SO STOP DESCRIBING NUMEROLOGY THROUGH GEMETRIA.

LEARN WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE GIVING NUMEROLOGY A BULLSHIT DEFINITION. This is getting ridiculous, I not only gave my reasons but my credentials, I can list some fucking books you can read, but i doubt you read since you didn't evn read what I wrote.

Your personal beliefs aren't what define Numerology, so shut the fuck up if you don't know anything about numerology, and quit fucking up the page for people who come here and actually want to know the truth about the study and not your rendition of it. Quit giving it a bad name to people who don't know better. and go find out for yourself.

Or I tell you what, I make $75 dollars an hour, you pay me my usual fee for every time i have to come clear the name of my belief and I'll be glad when to check up on it during the week.

I'm sorry if my comments are viewed as attacks by anyone, but by giving my reputation in the field a bad name through horrible definition, you are attacking me. I've created an account with wikipedia because of this article, if you have anything to say to me then message me, I'm now user: Justin737 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The number 36

A request, could someone more qualified than I, please write something about the Numerological (and related fields perhaps) meaning and significance of the number 36. I have posted various information I have gathered about it on the talk page from a number of different sources. Number36 02:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In what context? With numerology it depends on the context... with gematria they can give you all kinds of little things that have the number 36.. but with num. I can give a generalized statement, but it's also effected by it's context... 36/9 is communication interacting with flux to create "completion"... it's basically completing something through interaction. If it's in context then it will change depending... such as 36/9 being the "inner personality" in the core traits of numerology readings, would be a person who's overall content on an innner level. He acheives this through finding the middle plain in his actions and becoming emotionally receptive to his environment. Justin737

My fadic number is 36 gives me power and strength! 9 numbers Mars

Disputed

I've added {{disputed}} to the article because of repeated claims that it does not give a correct account of numerology. Please, someone who is knowledgeable and has access to the literature, rewrite whatever you can and cite your sources. If necessary, any editor can delete unverified material at any time; you may want to exercise that right to get rid of the crap. Melchoir 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

removed

I have removed a lot of the introductory paragraphs, which include barely comprehensible commentary that (I think, anyway) was about the development and history of the base-10 number system. There's still a ton of head-scratching-ly bad writing in this article. - DavidWBrooks 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Numerology is brahma is the numbers are power.

like mine 2+8+1979=36=9 Mars. energy,drive and strength.

its the perfect science!

Removal Of Name Numerology Links

Hi David,

Why did you remove the link to my Names Numerology Page. So many people came there and said what a great tool it was, I think it's quite worthy of a link, being unique. My algorithms were extracted based on my readings of the Numerology page. - www.birthvillage.com/babyname.php

I would like this link re-analyzed for usefullness.

Certainly; any wikipedia edit can (and should be!) re-analyzed by others, and undone or changed if that's the feeling of those involved.

I removed several numerology calculators/explainers, mostly because they didn't agree with each other (if numerology provides objective insight, why do different calculators get different answers for the same word?). Worse, they didn't explain how they got their answers: It was just poof! magic answer.

By the way, "unique" isn't necessarily a good thing when applying practices that are 3000+ years old - a "unique" math calculator that got different answers than other calculators wouldn't be a good thing to have! - DavidWBrooks 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

May I relink?

May I relink the tool now?

Please sign your posts, so other editors can follow the conversation better! Use four tildes, so the time/date stamp is included; as you can see from reading above, it's very confusing otherwise.

Another reason to remove your calculator is that such calculators are quite numerous online: There are seven in the first 10 Google hits for "numerology calculator"; I didn't even go to the second page. External links should only be added if they are hard to find or extremely unusual; otherwise, articles quickly turn into "link farms". This isn't any comment on the value of your work, just on its suitability as a wikipedia external link. (I've got a great blog, for example, but darned if I can think of a good reason to make it an external link from a wiki article!)

As for removing the new age equivalences, this article had become a disorganized mess of factoids. In trying to organize it, I may have thrown out too much (I almost threw out the Chinese items, too). Perhaps it's time to create separate articles for all the various types of numerology, and link to them from here. - DavidWBrooks 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated Justin737's base definitions

(Yes, I know, I wrote "August" instead of "June.")

So, I put those definitions back in, rather than leaving the article lacking in that respect. I suppose some supervision is required, so as to make sure that the definitions don't become some weird mess of direction from people adding in their own definitions... (sometimes even contradicting or tangential, from what I was seeing).

Anyhow, it was much easier (to say the least) than having, say, five different definitions that are out of context of what you're trying to read. 68.71.29.38 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Caldean numerology

An anon IP has twice added a very long essay about Linda Goodman's Chaldean numerology. I have twice removed it, since it really overwhelms the article. If it's really important, it needs to be in a separate article. - DavidWBrooks 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Link Removal

I've restored Comparative Numerology removed by 86.61.39.27 on 1/23/07 for some unknown reason (originally an external link, later moved to "guides" now back to external links). --Aleph1 23:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. It looks like a good cross-comparison between several systems, and it contains its references. Too bad it is not more exhaustive, but that by itself is no reason to remove it from this article. It also looks to me to be a good start to an article we could have here, something called Comparative numerology? I'm just dropping that off as a tip for someone who has more time than I do. Aleph1, do you want to take up the challenge? Cbdorsett 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Cb. Good idea, I'd be glad to contribute ... --Aleph1 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

my take on the heat of this article

2 reccomendations I've not found on my quick scan of the talk pg.: 1) Divide numerology into esoteric/ exoteric. 2) article on comparative numerology in wikipedia Thaddeus Slamp 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced assertion in "Numerology" in science

I reverted an edit and restored a "citation needed" tag in the following paragraph:

"Scientific theories are sometimes labelled 'numerology' if their primary inspiration appears to be mathematical rather than scientific. This colloquial use of the word 'numerology' is quite common within the scientific community and it is mostly used to dismiss a theory as questionable science."

There are two assertions in this paragraph. They are both interesting and noteworthy. I would like to see them remain in Wikipedia rather than have them deleted for being unsupported. Editor Lucretius disagreed with my approach and left the following comments on my talk page (they belong here):

Hi Cbdorsett! Here is the reason why I consider the citation tag silly:

Firstly, what is in need of citation in that paragraph? Is it a) the fact that this particular use of the term 'numerology' is colloquial or b) the fact that some people use the term derogatively when commenting on a scientific theory? A citation tag is silly when it is unclear exactly what needs documentary support.

Secondly, both of the above scruples are silly. Eminent scientists like Eddington, Weyl and Dirac were not really numerologists and therefore it is self-evident that 'numerology' has a colloquial significance when used to describe their ideas. Secondly, it is self-evident that a scientific theory is being rubbished when it is described as numerology (only numerologists would not consider this to be self-evident!).

Thirdly, if the citation tag is not removed somebody eventually will delete the paragraph or whatever part of the paragraph he/she thinks the citation tag refers to. Any tag that is obscure and unnecessary is an invitation to mischief. Therefore someone will delete the tag eventually, either because he/she will consider it silly or because he/she will edit the paragraph to satisfy the tag's silly requirements.

I removed the tag for the above reasons. I supplied the OED quote as some kind of documentary support for the self-evident fact that 'numerology' in this article has colloquial significance. If however you think the citation tag is necessary then you should provide the documentary support you think is required. I am sure it will be something quite silly and unnecessary Lucretius 12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There must be some reference somewhere that makes the assertion that "charges of numerology" are sometimes directed at unpopular scientific theories. Considering that the derogative remarks appear in scientific publications, it should not be too hard to come up with at least one example. I think that would be sufficient to support both assertions in the paragraph, though it would be really nice if there were an explicit reference calling this usage colloquial or some equivalent of "non-scientific." Cbdorsett 06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is "some' reference "somewhere" - in fact you'll find it in the following paragraph (link to Stenger's argument). That is the paragraph where Eddington and the others are said to be guilty of numerology. That is where the citation is necessary and that is where the documentary support belongs. It is not necessary in the first paragraph for the reasons I have already given. Lucretius 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pi

Hi. Isn't the movie Pi about numerology? The protagonist's friend even mentions that his obsession with Pi is no longer mathematics, but numerology. Perhaps this should be added to the popular culture section. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned before now. Does anyone agree? Chrisdone 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

13

and an added note to those asking about thirteen, it was first considerred unlucky at the same time as Friday the thirteenth became unlucky. Friday the thirteenth was the day the Knights of Templar were broken up by the French King, and all the main leaders were rounded up and tortured for "confession." Or at least thats what I've read and have seen in documentaries. The Knights of Templar were believed to have spread out and began such occult societies as the scottish Freemasons after their "destruction." Which is interesting in the fact that Masonry and many other occults hold the number 13 as a rebirth or beginning number for Initiates (as was stated in the article) be cautious as to how much is actual ancient belief and how much is indoctrination which is spread through secret societies which don't always tell the truths of history. In the times of Pythagoras 10 was actually heald to mean rebirth not 13. Pythagoras studied in egypt and persia for babylonian, as well as having a greek philosopher as a teacher at an early age, so to take Pythagoras's belief structure would greatly show the current beliefs at his time, but not wholy.

Somebody needs to read the article about the Knights Templar in this very Wikipedia before posting this crap.

Thank you

Melchoir and other editors thank you very much. I've been busy and haven't had the time to rewrite it myself. I did change the number definitions though, I'm going to repost what I deleted after this. If I can think of a way to define Pythagoras' theorem (in numerology)on here then I will. But incase you were wondering my qualifications to change the number definitions: I'm published twice. I've been a numerologist for 7 years. I'm considerred one of the foremost leaders in the art. I'm the first person to come up with a new equation for cyclic natures in a persons life since pythagoras, I'm not going to post my equations since it would be a sales pitch to do so. I've been teaching numerology for 1 year. Thank you again, Melchoir. It's no longer offensive.

BTW, I know from working with editors that I am absolutely horrible in english structure, if anyone would like to make my additions grammatically corrct it would be much appreciated, thank you.

This is Gematria not numerology

There's a fine line between the two... one is used to define things such as the bible, words, and religion specifically, while the other defines all things. It's a fine line in esoteric arts. But incase someone else out there is a professional numerologist and has studied it vastly, but still somehow believes this has something to do with number definitions, here it is:

I'm sorry but i was forced to remove the original definitions. My request was that anyone WHO KNEW NUMEROLOGY could change it if they felt i was wrong, not someone who made assumptions about numerology.

I'm not some hack in the field. I've studied it and taught numerology for a total of seven years. I've been published twice, and have made improvements on equations. I've created the first equation since pythagoras describing life cycles in human beings. I'm not a fucking hack, so if YOU are, then think twice before destroying my work.

Just because you have heard other versions of numerology, doesn't mean there actually are other versions, your confusing this with gemetria. Post there, or join the Golden Dawn and become indoctrinated with your gemetria.

How the Name Numerology Calculator works

Hi David,

That's fair enough. Here is how my calculator works:

It takes the name and calculates it's digit summation by using the Pythagorean based numerical chart: A-I = 1-9 J-R = 1-9 S-Z = 1-8

The digit summation uses repeated simplification until a single number is evaluated. So 98 = 17 = 8

The meanings were bases on a combination of the New Age Descriptions, which I see have now been removed? As well as the following source: http://members.aol.com/AspireA1/index5.html

number 4?

I don't know if this is really relevant, but is it worth mentioning that all words written in the english language will relate back to the number 4? For example: Wikipedia has nine letters nine has four letters four has four letters Another example: Talkpage has eight letters eight has five letters five has four letters four has four letters

More review (or sthg) necessary? (disparity in definitions; possible "subclasses")

It seems perhaps some review may be necessary, as the number definitions seem to have a tendency to morph into something markedly different from time to time.

Actually, is it possible for there to be something to that effect? (I don't necessarily mean ensuring that the definitions don't change from what they were last year, but it's partly out of how they can vary so much -- even more so that, based purely on contents submitted in the article, there are no references to support what anyone can write to effectively replace any previous definitions (or adding to them, as the case may be).)

Note also potential differing ideas of numerology, such as (one) personality readings and things of that sort (Matthew Goodwin et al.), vs. (two) the stuff of noticing numbers in everyday life, among other things (digital clocks, for example).

(I can't comment on Underwood Dudley, Aleister Crowley, Pythagoras, etcetera -- not too familiar with them, but you probably get the idea.)

I'd hate to ask, especially like this, but, lastly, are there any standards of literature in this sort of thing (like Journeys Out of the Body or (say, in my opinion) Astral Dynamics is for astral projection, at least to pick two things from the late 20th-century onwards)? (The stuff-of-noticing-numbers page lists a few books on Amazon, and presumably comes from those books, but even then I can only glean very little without actually reading them.)

75.85.19.154 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC) -- (doesn't check the article or talk page very much)
Thoobsente 23:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC) -- (okay, maybe I do check it somewhat frequently)

TERN

Hello,, can someone please tell me what the word tern means in numerology???78.144.84.71 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Lesley

"tern" at dictionary.com suggests, in games, "A set of three, especially a combination of three numbers that wins a lottery." (specifically any set of three, or perhaps the prize that may result). 75.85.19.154 08:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links Removed

On 8/16 TheRingess removed all the external links to this article, citing WP:EL. I'd suggest that the link cited in prior talk discussions here Comparative Numerolgy be restored because of its relevance to the article -- it actually mentions the basis of numerology in ancient times -- the qualities of numbers -- and compares different systems with references. Or, when citing WP:EL, more specific mention of which of the 100 different reasons for removing an external link was specific to this link would be helpful. As would reading prior discussion. --Aleph1 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's about a week or so, I've gone ahead and added the external links back into the article (actually pretty identical to the ones that were removed).

Also, I had a bit of reservation over adding one of the 'expert needed' templates, if someone wanted to do that. 75.85.19.154 10:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The article does need help.--Aleph1 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Poop

This article is shocking... I came here wanting to find out more about the subject, but I'm left as ignorant as I started, having read through it. Someone with decent knowledge of the topic might want to consider a start-to-finish revamp. Seegoon (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what are they?

"Different methods of calculation exist, including Chaldean, Pythagorean, Hebraic, Helyn Hitchcock's method, Phonetic, Japanese and Indian." okaaaay.... what are they? brain (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears it's not something anyone's yet prepared to add, at least for the moment. (There partially exists the "anyone can write anything on the Internet" problem, wrt lack of citations.) Thoobsente (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Combined with the fact that this topic is so loosey-goosey that pinning down real definitions is quite hard - anybody in this self-publishing age can create their own definitions. It's not like there's an International Commission of Numerology to pin this stuff down. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

want to change my name

my date of birth is 16/04/1985 and name is niranjan kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.12.42 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Need facts to support claim of what "most modern scientists" believe.

This seems most likely to be a very POV statement by an individual. I am aware of no coherent statement by "most modern scientists" regarding numerology. If this claim cannot be substantiated it should be removed.

I note that a subsequent statement, "Today, numerology is often associated with the occult, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts," is similarly unsourced and appears to reflect an individual's POV. "Associated" by who? I would add qualitative verbiage such as "by some," "by critics," "by skeptics," or something similar.

Otherwise, a generally good article. Psychic Expert (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, but sometimes it's hard to source opinions that are so universal they are hardly ever stated - and science's view of numerology is a pretty good example. Nobody with any authority is going to waste time arguing against such obvious piffle, any more than they would publish a refutation of the Flat Earth Society or the existence of ancient Greek gods on Mount Olympus. This leaves us in a bit of a sourcing bind ... - DavidWBrooks 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I see no value or relevance to the subject sentence. I understand this to be an article about numerology, not an article about the beliefs of some set of people who are not numerologists or a written debate as to the validity of the topic (numerology). We agree that the sentence cannot be sourced or specifically substantiated. If, argumenti gratia, we accept that the statement is generally true, what is the value or relevance of inserting the sentence here? If I did a survey of Australian bushmen, or mathematicians for that matter, and they 100% agreed that numerology was invalid, should we include that, too? I'm not trying to be impertinent, but why do we raise "scientists" to a level of being arbiters of what is true and false, particularly on a topic that we have no evidence they have ever subjected to "the scientific method" or actually made a ruling upon as a group? Looking over the long history of science, I see no evidence that scientists as a group have any particular track record as to being right all of the time; in fact, quite the contrary. Why then insert an unsourceable sentence as to what they may or may not believe about numerology here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychic Expert (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Because numerology claims to have an effect on the physical world, or to reflect what is happening the material world. Science is the study of the physical world. So in this case, the opinion of scientists, if it can be determined, is relevant. The opinion of scientists is frequently not relevant - about topics like, say, the relative value of Monet vs. Manet. If numerology made no claims about the physical world, their opinion would not be relevant here either. But it does. - DavidWBrooks 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, we must Avoid Weasel Wording when using statements of what "most bla-bla-blahs believe" as "proof" of the argument. If the statement cannot stand indisputably (or at least with consensus affirmation) on its own without including the "what most believe" tagline, then it ought to be sourced, one way or another. -- T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 23:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC) / 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd second that. Further, the statement that "numerology claims to have an effect on the physical world" is not true to my knowledge. Numerology simply analyzes numbers already existing in the physical world and makes predictions upon those. This is similar to, say, meteorology, which does not create clouds or weather, but analyzes them and makes predictions based upon what exists. (I would also say [although from a purely POV perspective, and I don't expect you to take this into account in this discussion] in my long experience, numerological predictions are commonly much more accurate than what we get from meteorologists.)

I would more specifically agree with the poster above with regard to the implication in your post that because "science is the study of the physical world" then it somehow logically follows that all pronouncements by all scientists (which we don't even have here, as regards to numerology) are relevant to the topic at hand. I don't agree.

1) Again, this is an article about numerology, and it is not an article about the beliefs of unspecified groups of people, including scientists. If someone wants to write an article entitled "What Scientists Believe" that's fine, but this is not that article.

2) Whether "most modern scientists" believe in numerology or not, it must be admitted that most of them lack the qualifications to render any meaningful judgment on the matter. Chemists have no notable knowledge of numerology. Neither do archeologists. Neither do physicists. Neither do geographers, agronomists, seismologists, astronomers, botanists, cytologists, epidemiologists, ethologists, geneticists, geologists, microbiologists, paleontologists, biologists, or computer scientists. So why should their opinions matter, as they know nothing about the topic?

3) If we can be totally honest here, it seems to me that the only real reason for the inclusion of the disputed sentence is as an ad hominem slur, a put-down if you will. The implication is "scientists - who we think are the really smart people - don't believe in this, so neither should you, and you're a dummy if you do." If I'm wrong, I would love to hear an alternative point of view. But, frankly, this is how this comes across to me here (and in all of the other similarly-tainted occult related articles as well, I might add).

Psychic Expert (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is, it seems to me, an easy (and, admittedly, sloppy) way to let readers know that the claims of this field are not accepted by mainstream science, so they won't think that a wikipedia article implies that it has mainstream validity.

This statement is relevant not because scientists are "smart people" but because science - the knowledge accumulated over a couple centuries of work by millions and millions of people around the world of all races, religions and beliefs, building upon each other's work - has accumulated a record of explanation and prediction about the world that is unsurpassed. The opinion of people in this field (albeit badly expressed and unsourced here!) is relevant when it concerns another field which claims to do similar prediction and explanation - as numerology does, or else not even believers would care about it. - DavidWBrooks 01:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your continuing participation in this discussion. However, there are issues here which remain unaddressed, as well as a new one raised by your response.

• "...science - the knowledge accumulated over a couple centuries of work by millions and millions of people around the world of all races, religions and beliefs, building upon each other's work - has accumulated a record of explanation and prediction about the world that is unsurpassed."

The field of numerology has similarly been the subject of centuries (in fact, millenia) of work, with hundreds if not thousands of people building upon each other's work, etc. These people have similarly accumulated a record of explanation and prediction about the world that is unsurpassed.

I would argue that the word "unsurpassed" is pure opinion, and of no real consequence. Einstein, Hawking, and many others have reversed themselves at times, and I'm sure there may well have been numerologists who have done so, too. In fact, physicist John Hagelin posits that, because new science often disproves old science and/or its underlying assumptions, the great likelihood is that the "truths" we believe in so strongly today will be disproved tomorrow.

The underlying fallacy of this form of argument, though, is that it is an appeal to popular sentiment. Simply saying that a lot of people have done a lot of "work" doesn't support the claim of the subject sentence. Further . . .

• "The opinion of people in this field (albeit badly expressed and unsourced here!) is relevant when it concerns another field which claims to do similar prediction and explanation - as numerology does..."

This statement continues to ignore that we have in fact discovered no statement by "most modern scientists" to the effect cited. The sentence is thus factually false, and nothing has been presented here to the contrary. I assume that intentionally including statements known to be factually false is contrary to Wikipedia conventions. If for no other reason, this should be sufficient basis to remove the sentence.

Moreover, and as the previous anonymous poster alluded, we are using the word "scientist" here in a "weasel word" manner. As I mentioned in a previous post, "scientist" includes botanists, biologists, etc., and those sciences have nothing to do with the topic of the article (numerology). The scientists in those fields, then, would have no qualification or experience to make any statement regarding numerology. If there is a particular field of science that you believe may be specifically relevant to numerology, then we should narrow it down to that, and consider the use of some statement from scientists in that field.

Until then, there is another fallacy at work here . . .

• "...or else not even believers would care about it."

We care because this is a (fallacious) appeal to authority, i.e., "scientists," which seeks to shape opinion. Which brings us to the new issue here . . .

• "The statement is ... an easy ... way to let readers know that the claims of this field are not accepted by mainstream science, so they won't think that a wikipedia article implies that it has mainstream validity."

I'll take this as an admission that the real point of the sentence is to dissuade people from the study of numerology by means of an ad hominem attack.

Where in the Wikipedia rules is it said that editors have a duty to determine the validity of a particular topic and to attempt to warn readers off from topics that the editors have decided are not valid? Which editors get to take these powers on to themselves and make these decisions? And - more importantly to me - why is this policy applied only to occult topics and not to other belief-based topics, like specific religions?

People who work in metaphysical fields like myself feel singled out because we are singled out, and this "policy" is not applied equally. While I understand that you personally may not subscribe to a belief in numerology, I hope that you could understand how I (as a practicing numerologist and a teacher of numerology) might feel the victim of prejudice and bigotry here.

That being said, I personally would have no issue with there being a "Criticism" section further down in the body of the article, where sourced opinions to the contrary might be set forth. I further believe that such a section could satisfy the desire to avoid creating any apparent Wikipedia imprimatur that the topic was entirely acceptable to the mainstream. My efforts here are fueled by the fact that the offending sentence is right up there in the summary, clearly intentionally so as to create a prejudicial mindset in the reader, and technically wrongly so, by Wikipedia standards, as there is no subsequent citation to "scientific" rebuttals. Psychic Expert (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that someone has anonymously removed my "citation needed" insert and added footnotes leading to message boards. The message boards are not in English (and, in any case, could not constitute the citation required). This is all contrary to Wikipedia policies. It does not appear to be made in good faith. It should all be removed. Psychic Expert (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I'm incorrect. The citation was done incorrectly, and improperly linked, and apparently is not intended to refer to one of the non-English message boards. Clicking on the [1] takes one directly to a webpage entitled "FEMINIST NUMEROLOGY" by one "Prof John Webb," who is described as "of the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics is a key role player in the International Mathematics olympiad as well as the Pan African Maths Olympiad."

Continuing into the body of his article, we find that he is not in fact critiquing numerology, but rather a single article in an unidentified "woman's magazine" from December 2000 which apparently purported to present some form of numerology. We don't know, because the magazine is unidentified. "Prof Webb" states that "Numerology is a bogus and essentially worthless subject, even more so than astrology. ... Numerology is the field of cranks and charlatans. It is quite possible that the article was published in the full knowledge of the author and the editor of this magazine that it is all hokum, but fun. Never mind, they say, it will be read avidly by our more gullible readers and boost the magazine's sales."

Good so far, right? But then he goes on to conclude: "But there is a more serious question. Is there a connection between the tendency of women's magazines to promote pseudoscientific rubbish and the fact that the professions based on mathematics and the hard sciences are dominated by men?" Uh-oh.

It seems that the sole "scientist" with an opinion on the matter is a blatant sexist. Bye-bye credibility, unless we want to condemn women as a gender. Is that the best we can do? Psychic Expert (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I noted in the edit field when I placed it (not with the proper "ref" setup), it's not much of a citation - but as I said in the discussion above, the problem is that nobody serious bothers to refute something so obviously incorrect as numerology, which makes sourcing difficult. - DavidWBrooks 11:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by this reply.

I understand that you do not believe in numerology. It is also apparent that your perspective does not allow for the possibility that well-intentioned and reasonable people might support numerology, and that you are either unable or unwilling to edit the article from a NPOV. Your lack of belief in numerology ("something so obviously incorrect") colors your approach to the topic. To my way of thinking, this would render someone particularly unfit to be an editor of this article. Having people who oppose numerology edit the numerology article is like having anti-Christians edit the article on Christianity.

I see no point in getting into an editing war. If you will not step aside, but will continue to insist upon imposing your personal views on the article, then to what authority may we appeal for a resolution of this dispute?Psychic Expert (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Please advise if this should be submitted for a third party opinion. As a reminder, I am fine with a "Criticism" section lower in the body of the article which includes links to whatever substantiated critical statements you may propose. I'm not trying to eliminate any criticism, I just want the unsubstantiated statement re "Most modern scientists" removed from the summary. I also want to add the verbiage "by some," "by critics," "by skeptics," or something similar to the statement, "Today, numerology is often associated with the occult, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts," which is similarly unsourced. I think there needs to be a qualifier there. That's all. Psychic Expert (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be good to get more people involved in the discussion. - DavidWBrooks 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's listed. Psychic Expert (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will say that Flat Earth has done a much better job of this than this article! - DavidWBrooks 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a comparison. Whether or not an object is flat or round is something that can be, and in the case of the Earth, has been, subjected to objective testing. Whether or not numerology is "correct" or not is clearly a subjective issue, given the millions who either believe in it or the millions who do not, and the fact that neither can conclusively prove the other wrong. IMHO. Psychic Expert (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant in the way that article presented the issue and summarized the fact that mainstream science rejects it, with sourcing. - DavidWBrooks 14:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion: wp:PARITY states that some areas will not have academic journals covering the topic because they are not considered academic topics. I don't see any problem with saying that numerology is not used in modern math or science, and that the absence of numerology articles in peer reviewed journals is much more telling. Underwood Dudley's Numerology; or, What Pythagoras Wrought (1997) may be of some help. The article needs some extensive clean-up. NJGW (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also do not see any problem with saying that numerology is not used in modern math or science. DavidWBrooks, would a statement to that effect satisfy you? Psychic Expert (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up question

NJGW, could you specify the sections of the article that you believe need "extensive cleanup"? Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter. Psychic Expert (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I already removed some things that plainly didn't belong. The discussion here is mostly about one or two specific types of numerology. The lead doesn't even mention Chinese numerology or Kabbalah, and the "in other fields" section further exposes this bias. This is meant to be a very general article with easy navigation to other related subjects. A thorough rewrite may actually be in order. I would suggest the two editors engaged in the present discussion take the initiative to work together in a sandbox on a new lead, and expand the article using the lead as an outline. NJGW (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your assistance. I am uninformed as to the interest of DavidWBrooks in collaborating on a new lead, but I agree that one should be done that better reflects the article content. I'm not confident that I can give the time for an entire article rewrite, but I can provide further content and references for some of the sections, including Chinese numerology. I can also add a section for "Criticism" to include the new link found by DavidWBrooks. If DavidWBrooks finds additional criticisms these can then be added to this section, and properly referenced in the lead. I can put a draft of the proposed lead and other changes in a sandbox, as you suggest, so that they might be reviewed before making any formal page edits. Psychic Expert (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More detailed nonsense

OK it's all crap but the notion that numerology extends beyond the Hebrew and Arabic languages is even more ridiculous. In Hebrew and Arabic each letter has an intrinsic numeric value and words are constructed using that as a basis. Odd and even numbered words convey the gender and suchlike. This is not the case with other languages and so any numerological sense is missing. This is a fairly basic fact and is mentioned nowhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.19.6 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, Pythagoras, who created the basis of the numerology most commonly used in the Western world today, was Greek. So I see no basis for your first statement. You may be correct that there is a correlation between Hebrew and Arabic letters and numbers, but it seems to me that that is probably going to a level of detail not intended by this general article. Psychic Expert (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding reference to Dr. Silver

When I added Dr. Silver's name to the psychics page, it was not met with much enthusiasm, and I'd like to explain why I think it contributes to the section: (Digit summary) before it's deleted. The sources in this article are limited, and it was a true prediction using the method, from a doctor in metaphysical philosophy. I think it lends to the piece.Spring12 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a place for a general explanation of the concept, not for examples of people who claim to be numerologists. If every example of a numerologist was presented here, the article would be useless. Thus, giving an example of one person who does this one technique gives wp:UNDUE weight to this person and this technique. This is especially true when the person and technique are presented in absolute terms, rather than in neutral language. If this is a proponent digit summer, then they may be mentioned at the digit summing article, not here. Also, please don't remove the general information about the technique. [1] NJGW (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The digit summing article doesn't exist, otherwise I would.Spring12 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Will do.Spring12 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistake on my part, it seems like this person does the numerology mentioned as "other," which was unsourced in the article. I mentioned no names, but merely provided the link to the numerology session with ABC GMA Now as a source for the type of numerology. Is that alright?Spring12 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence?

In it the author illustrates that the number five and related Quincunx pattern throughout art, nature and mysticism.

..illustrates that the number 5 what? Someone should fix this. 64.253.166.252 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology required?

In the current edit, I have released news of original research--though verifiable (excepting explicitly labeled claims) and balanced--at the end of the history section. As a new user, perhaps I should apologize, but at present this is how I feel the research should be released, so though I do apologize I am not reversing my own effort, as Mr. Brooks did once. To see what this reference is to, in the event of another edit, see history under "History" for Julzes on May 23, and get more detail at a prior edit with an IPO an hour or two earlier. Beyond that, I will add that my own particular involvement is quite extraordinary in finding more detail including a kind of mediation or channeling with a certain calculator and a certain reference source. I stipulate that the use of our sense of smell, perhaps, for subliminal communication with an engineered part of our brains is a plausible means to a kind of semi-programmed existence. Factual details--along with my opinions--will appear later this year in print, assuming all is well, and details may (are intended to) make it to this and other articles. I realize that this is not "standard" numerology, but it is numerology. It brings all sorts of claims from a skeptical angle themselves under a reasonably skeptical gaze. All claims must be investigated scientifically, if truth is to be ascertained, and reasonable causation can be simply and scientifically posited by noting: 1) We were not first, and 2) They do not think the way we might guess. Then time and the limits of technology point here somehow and for some reason. A possible one is that it was a challenge and an interesting one. Beyond that, my guess is no better than the next person's.Julzes (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but as you can read here [[2]], original research isn't allowed in wikipedia. No offense, but that's the way it works. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I will consider contesting your interpretation of the exception for "Original Research" under the subheading "Routine Calculations" for 24 hours before I resubmit. If you read this, I am the exception that proves the rule that we are more alike than we are different. Where scientific news is made is contingent upon the choice of the "researcher" of where to publicize. You are fighting an uphill battle. I will be backed by other support from within in within a week, regardless of what you do now, assuming I do re-submit and you re-contest.Julzes (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position in the last two hours. Since my addition to the text is longish and slightly off-topic, and in light of DavidWBrooks's reasonable claim against the use of original research, and in addition my reading of the intents of this site regarding original MATERIAL--not research--I am composing a very brief and "verifiable-to-a-moron" couple of sentences. I will be leaving any uncommon interpretation out and referring the reader to the history of this dispute. Should my contribution again be discarded, I will be back to square one and the warning of sorts in the last entry here. I refer any editor to the same place Mr. Brooks did in choosing whether or not or how to edit. I suggest that my brief addition is going to be just fine/perfectly appropriate.Julzes (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal isn't a comment on the value of your work or how easy it is/isn't to verify - it's a comment on the fact that this isn't the place for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research journal. Use other places to publicize and discuss it; get it accepted by lots of other people, then perhaps it will be a topic to be included here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should drop the idea that the basic results are research per se and call them observations or data. The more extensive stuff is being held back for now anyway. This is where I choose to publish my observational data (and encourage mathematical literacy of a kind).Julzes (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You can call them whatever you want, but it still doesn't belong here. Thousands of people have worked on wikipedia for almost a decade and have arrived at a general consensus that this is not the place for people to put their independent observations or research or newly discovered data. Sorry, but you can't "choose to publish" here.

If you give it a moment's thought, you'll see why: - can you imagine what a mess wikipedia could be if anybody with an Internet connection could add whatever they thought they had discovered about anything? Holy Toledo! So I'm going to remove it again, for the same reason: this is an encyclopedia, not a research journal. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am genuinely making a good faith effort at following the right side of the line on "Routine Calculations" as a type of considerable exception of this consensus you refer to under "Original Research". As I pointed out elsewhere, a picture of a black swan should be allowed if it is sourced to prove it is not photo-shopped. I have taken pains in the below section to establish verifiability. I should remark that "...whatever they thought they had discovered..." is an offensive extrapolation from my specific case. Also, I will take the time to explain the difficulty of bringing the full research beyond the simple data/equations in line with a proper sourcing. First of all, maybe if you were me you would have a need to get the information out in an expedient manner while also remaining anonymous. Second, the research is a work in progress. Third, it is intimately connected to me in a strange way. Fourth, what type of journal do you recommend? Mathematics, religion, parapsychology, ... , geology for God's sake? You should get the picture, and I would suggest that perhaps you should read the below to consider whether the results are not simply verifiable and on the way to becoming common knowledge precisely because of this dispute. Then also, when is news a part of history is a very tricky question, and I would say that if it is inevitable to become history, then it already is. There is simply no disputing the equations, and, though a statistical analysis would satisfy those looking for rigor, I will claim here that such in a case partially involving esthetics is nigh on impossible. Well, that is enough. If you have the consensus you speak of, then surely someone agreeing with you can make the next edit.Julzes (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He isn't the lone critic, if he hadn't reverted you - I would have. What you are attempting to include here is clearly original research. Please don't re-add it(in any form) to the article. --Versageek 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sticking to my guns regarding the "Routine Calculation" exception. It is simple and was found through happenstance, not research. See the reason I am not going to put this in the article again any time soon below.Julzes (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"maybe if you were me you would have a need to [...]". Wikipedia is not about what you need, and Wikipedia is not a publisher. It merely reports on what is published elsewhere.

And no, what you are adding to the article does not qualify as "routine calculation". You are not just providing equalities - you are ascribing them significance as well, and making grandiose claims about science and reality. Ilkali (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"It merely reports on..." is flatly dishonest or lazy analysis, Ilkali.Julzes (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not concede to Ilkali on this, but Versageek is satisfactory. I will request someone else--with expert qualifications--to restore my addition. It is not research, but rather data inciting research.Julzes (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider the term "procrustean" as possibly describing the nature of your gang-edit, folks.Julzes (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Gang edits" (lovely term) that are "procrustean" (adhering to a standard established by the community, which may seem arbitrary to others) is the whole point of wikipedia! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to use "lovely terms" in this debate, and I personally do not believe you are adhering to standard established. However, I am a lone voice (right now) and I will grant that a reservation that I placed myself in this debate--that news which is certain to be history already is history--is pretty shaky, and it is possible that I (and, by extension, all humans) am apart of a big practical joke by something akin to God, and this will not "certainly" be history. My definition of "procrustean" is nuanced slightly differently than yours (see American Heritage) and is somewhat pejorative in connotation. It involves failing to recognize differences between individuals. For example, in my own case, the discoveries of what I have been calling "data" of late were due to circumstance that is in one of my posts. Observations due to happenstance may be made a part of a research argument, but are not research themselves. Back to my black swan analogy, would the first person to have seen and publicised the existence of them have been doing research? Absolutely not. Nor is my finding of a birthday coincidence involving my three closest relatives and the coincidental finding from a probabilistic question that there are seven 7s in the representation of (365+1/4)^4 properly a research item, at least because I was looking in a different direction. This whole debate is a bit of quibbling, in any case. I answered my own question about whether the item belongs under "History", so if it finds its way back there it will be after some reasonable justification and not "news that is certain to become...".Julzes (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)