Talk:Theomatics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 POV Edit War 2 Original research 3 From 216.239.167.214 4 Sparse, inconclusive, and unrelated?

[edit] POV Edit War

I have nominated this article to be reviewed for violations of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy of Wikipedia, based on the following observations:

1. There is an ongoing edit war between a single anonymous user and several registered Wikipedians.
2. The anonymous user apparently never reads the discussion page. Attempts by User:Audacity to communicate with him/her through notes in the text have failed.
3. The anonymous user repeatedly replaces balanced criticism of "theomatics" with unsourced and unencyclopedic claims about an unnamed "highly qualified German statistician". As a highly qualified professional mathematical statistician myself, with 35 years in the field, I find these statistical claims frankly laughable.

— Aetheling 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Yet, Russell Glasser's attempt at falsifying theomatics fails because the numerical structures within any text, including the David Rhodes letter, put through his demonstrative program (Perl-based) on his website defalcate and have no meaning - certainly incomparable and of no parallel to the impecable structures and numerical meanings within scripture.

I've removed the above from the article because it appears to be original research, a Wikipedia editor attempting to directly refute an argument instead of citing third-party sources that refute the argument. Uncle G 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is Russell Glasser. The article still includes the quote: "Glasser's criticism mentioned below is sparse, inconclusive, and unrelated to theomatics as well." As far as I can tell, this is an unsupported argumentation and still does not conform with NPOV standards, or am I wrong? I'm not editing it myself because I am biased and don't know if there are ethical issues; however, the above comment doesn't appear to be supported by detailed argument either on or off site. In any case, I don't necessarily think that my web page should be included in the main body of the article at all. Somebody might want to add an "External links" section, with only a short phrase as a blurb, and perhaps the link to theomatics.com should be there as well. Any rebuttals to these links could be placed there and appropriately labeled as well. Kazim27 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Russell, for being cautious. The anonymous editor(s) who keeps adding the biased stuff is definitely violating WP:NPOV. I will keep on reverting him if he keeps on doing it.

As for your page, I think it's fine to keep it in the main page, although I did remove some of the description so as not to make it seem overly prominent. Λυδαcιτγ 01:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous poster who last logged in from 216.239.166.44:

Please come here and discuss your desired changes before switching them back again. I don't think it's out of the question that some of your additions should be put in the article, but many of the actions you have taken flat out don't make sense. For instance, you keep removing the "Reference" section while leaving the footnotes in, which means there are notes which point to nowhere. If you don't believe the web sites should be linked at all, please provide an explanation as to why they should not be included. Kazim27 12:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From 216.239.167.214

216.239.167.214 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) added the following comment to the article:

Whoever is editing this page, Wikipedia is not a platform for debate and people presenting biased views on a subject. It is intended to provide resource information. If someone wants to use this encyclopedia to present a negative view of theomatics, we will continue to replace their edits with the positive side of the coin. We propose the following brief changes and will accept nothing less.

I've notified this user that I've moved the comment here, where it belongs, so it can be discussed further, since such discussion doesn't belong in the article. -Quintote 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user: PLEASE look at the comment above and let's discuss the changes you wish to make. "Debate and biased views" is precisely what you are putting in the article when you add unsupported argumentation such as "is sparse, inconclusive, and unrelated to theomatics as well". There is plenty of precedent for linking to criticism within an article. To pick a random example, look at the section on "Astrology and science" in the Astrology article.

Also as I said before, you are making nonsensical edits like deleting all footnotes without deleting the references to the footnotes, which even includes deleting the link to theomatics.net. Why? Kazim27 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Respose to the anon: Wikipedia intends to provide a balanced view of a subject. However, if nearly all analysis of the subject is negative, most of the criticism discussed in the Wikipedia article will be negative. To attempt to make an article artificially balanced, in terms of equal coverage for positive and negative angles when such coverage is not generally found, would be itself biased. For example, the article on Geocentric model cannot be expected to be equally positive and negative.

Of course, this does not mean that this article should necessarily have a negative tone. However, there is a lot of criticism of theomatics out their. Rather than trying to ridicule this criticism, I suggest finding stronger defenses of the validity of theomatics. Λυδαcιτγ 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT, 4 December, 2006. When I found this page recently, it had been edited by someone using Wikipedia to present a distorted view AGAINST theomatics to the reader. Now that we are talking about a German statistician who has positive evidence IN FAVOR of theomatics, someone out there (who obviously does not want the public to have this information) has continuously replaced the positive edit with their own biased negative comments and puffing the ABLeever analysis which is 100% opposed to theomatics, and editing out the statement about the German study refuting ABLeever. As long as they continue to present this biased view, I will continue to replace their negative and biased comments with some positive ones that directly refute ABLeever. The above comment, that "nearly all analysis of the subject is negative," is patently false. Any Google search (there are over 12,000 pages that mention theomatics) will show that there are vastly more pages with positive/neutral comments about theomatics -- Nowehere is there justification for the Wikipedia discussion to be primarily negative. The Wikipedia encyclopedia is intended to be a resource for information, not a platform for debate. SO I NOW PROPOSE ELIMINATING ALL EDITORIAL COMMENTS and simply present the subject in the most brief fashion, simply listing the sources for readers to check WITHOUT COMMENT. I can live with that. But again, if someone wants to keep degrading theomatics and eliminating the German stat analysis statement, I will have no choice but to continue to replace their edits. Also, it must remain to mention the number of books sold on the subject, the titles of the books and who publishes them. Those are simply foundational facts relative to this subject (and whoever is editing this paragraph out, does not like to see those facts presented to the public either). Yet they will remain.

• Hi Anonymous, I appreciate you showing up on the talk page and discussing this matter. By the way, you can sign and date your post by adding four tildes to the end (~~~~). I was actually thinking that this article needs to be expanded significantly. Currently it does not even describe the methods used to calculate gematria numbers. Here's what I'd like to suggest:

1. The top of the article should contain only the first three paragraphs, ending with the paragraph that talks about the books and their popularity.
2. This should be followed by a header titled "Methodology". This section will give an overview of how the numbers are calculated and why they are considered significant.
3. Then there will be a third header titled "Criticisms". This will link to the two pages, by Ableever and Russell Glasser. The section will include brief descriptions of what each article contains, followed by the pages which claim to refute them, followed by an equally brief description of the responses. This will all be put in neutral language, such as "So-and-so claims that..."

By the way, I'd like to add that reverting some of your edits was probably not the result of anyone trying to suppress the "German mathematician" web page, but trying instead to deal with the repeated edits that included deletion of footnotes and addition of more editorial commentary, which did not appear to be correctly sourced due to the absence of the footnotes. Now that we are talking, I hope we can resolve this issue to your satisfaction. I don't see any reason why all the sites both pro and con should not remain. What do you think of the proposed changes?

Kazim27 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is a good beginning. There is nothing that should discourage you from including positive or confirmatory information in this or any Wikipedia article -- but all editors must adhere to some long-established guidelines. When a topic such as Theomatics is controversial, then our best advice is to report the controversy. That usually means creating a separate section within the article entitled "Controversy", and including within it fully referenced claims from both sides of the debate. Writing about "a highly qualified German statistician" does not qualify. You should name the statisician and give one or more references, preferably in peer-reviewed statistical literature, to his claims. If some book on Theomatics makes this claim, give a reference that includes the page number in the book. With respect to Google searches, it is completely immaterial whether there are "vastly more pages" that are positive or neutral. A Google search of this kind is not a scientific study, and is subject to enormous sources of bias. It cannot be used to make any reliable claim whatsoever. Finally, all of your comments and opinions will carry a lot more weight with other Wikipedians if you register and provide a "talk" page so that we can have a useful and intelligent conversation. Click my name as it follows here to see an example. — Aetheling 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ANONYMOUS RESPONSE: Thank you for the comments, but I am not all that interested in expanding the Wikipedia report (I don't know why anybody would really care that much unless they have some ax to grind -- the person who originally edited this certainly had no warm fuzzy feelings in favor of the subject and OBVIOUSLY wanted people to get a negative impression). If an individual wants to know more about this, there is the theomatics website and other pages give the complete description, both pro and con. In any event, if somebody wants to expand this I will make darn sure it is neutral and unbiased. It is not necessary here to debate the subject or say anything negative about theomatics, or to puff it either. Leave it brief and as it is, please.

SECOND ANONYMOUS RESPONSE: I just looked at it again (5:00 P.M. EST), and it looks O.K and acceptable. No further editing is necessary unless something new or unexpected comes up. There is no need for further discussion.

• Thanks, but I still plan to rejigger it a bit and add a Methodology section later. I'm sure you'll keep me posted on whether I'm representing it accurately. Kazim27 23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• THIRD ANONYMOUS COMMENT: Why would any person care to do a methodology section on theomatics???, unless they either wanted to (1) promote the subject, or (2) tear it down. Nobody would do anything like this without some motivation bias. Anything you may put up that has a negative bias will be deleted and countered equally. Wikipedia is not a platform for debate but simply a definition of what something is and a resource guide (it cannot persuade a person's thinking one way or another). If you have anything to say about theomatic methodology positively or negatively, then do it on your own web page. Please.

• "Why would any person care to do a methodology section on theomatics???"

Because... it's an encyclopedia article? And encyclopedia articles are supposed to describe things? Why wouldn't an article about theomatics explain how theomatics works? You haven't even seen what I am proposing to write yet, why assume that describing it would amount to an attack? If I get something wrong, you are free to fix it. Kazim27 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• The goal of our encyclopedia, which has almost no limitations in terms of space, is to provide comprehensive and balanced coverage of all subjects. The more info, the better. As a supporter of theomatics, I would think you would welcome the chance to describe your methodology. Λυδαcιτγ 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FOURTH ANONYMOUS RESPONSE: Just describing it is O.K. The theomatics site does that already. As long as it is 100% neutral and just says what theomatics says it is, that should be fine.

FIFTH RESPONSE: I have just about had it with you, whoever you are!!! You keep playing around with this and after everything was set, just today, you eliminated the paragraph about the books sales and book titles. And then you talk about "rejiggering" more descriptions later. You act like Wikipedia is your sand box to play in. I am just about to the point of wiping everything out and writing my own description of theomatics that is to my liking, and I will keep replacing it ten times a day if necessary and we will have an all out non stop POV edit war. If you don't want that to happen, QUIT MESSING WITH THIS AND LEAVE IT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. If you don't like theomatics go and write your own web page. But leave Wikipedia alone.

I believe you are talking to me, User:Audacity (though you also seem to be referring to User:Kazim27, who made the comment about "rejiggering"). I took the part about the specific books out of the lead, since it did not seem to be a crucial part of the article. According to Wikipedia:Lead section, "A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead". But the information is not "eliminated" from the article - it's in bullet form in the references, complete with ISBN numbers.

I did delete the book sales claim, since it sounded like a blatant promotion. But perhaps it could serve to show the importance of a topic. However, you need a citation for it.

If you know enough to know what an edit war is, you should also know that IPs can be blocked. Don't try to use edit-warring as a threat. Λυδαcιτγ 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

SIXTH RESPONSE: We have tried to resolve any disputes, and had (what I thought) was an agreement, and this has failed because changes keep being made. Somebody evidently has a vendetta against theomatics because whoever you are, you are so vehemently concerned about this issue and trying to present it to the public as watered down and negatively as possible. We will make every attempt, legal or otherwise, to keep our IP address from being blocked (if you appeal to have me blocked I will appeal to have you blocked likewise). However there is now nothing, apparently, to be gained from further communication with the parties involved in this discussion. If somebody from Wikipedia wants to arbitrate this in a neutral manner, we would welcome that with open arms. There is provision for arbitration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration), and if it comes down to that, I will request arbitration.

We haven't even gotten to "Informal mediation" - I don't think arbitration is necessary. I don't want you blocked - I appreciate your efforts to better the article - but I'm telling you that you can't win a revert war by brute force. If you don't see any continued purpose in discussing, why don't you contact the Mediation Cabal or similar. Λυδαcιτγ 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FROM BIBLEPROOF: I am a registered user and am favourable towards the author of theomatics. You have no right to block me, and if so, I have as much right to block you. I have no problem with the description as I have edited it. I am in full agreement with the Wikipedia principle that the article should be informational and neutral -- Wikipedia is not a forum for debate. Facts about the books written and copies sold is pertinent information, yet that information keeps getting deleted. If you don't like the pro German statistician statement, that can be taken out and only the sources listed without comment, either negative or positive. Other than that, we will appeal to mediation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation), or arbitration and eventually probation if necessary. Your edit and your opinions are not superior to ours in any sense and we only want the information to be conveyed objectively. If you (or anybody else) wants to give out information implying that theomatics is false, then we have the right to make counter arguments in favor of the subject. Whoever created the original edit had only one obvious purpose and that was to degrade theomatics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&oldid=25202444). That sort of blatant bias cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia.

• I have been off Wikipedia for a few days and we seem to have regressed a bit. It appears that Bibleproof, aka 216.239.165.83 and all the other IP addresses, has actually deleted large portions of the article that he agreed to earlier. If you would like to pursue the mediation route, I think that is a splendid idea. Rather than simply reverting your edits once again, I'd like to ask you to please explain what are your SPECIFIC objections to each of the following changes that you have chosen to eliminate:

1. Keeping the NPOV tag? Despite your belief that the article is fine, the neutrality IS in fact disputed at this point, and it will be until we can reach an agreement.
2. Using subject headings to make the article more readable?
3. Putting all the books in the "Further Reading" section rather than the main body?
4. Putting categories on the end of the article, as nearly ALL wikipedia articles have?
5. Having footnotes in the article?
6. Including a brief description of how Theomatics works, as Audacity added?

I don't want to keep reverting your edits, but unless you can provide some kind of sensible rational for getting rid of many of these features, I can't see why we shouldn't restore them. Please, if mediation is what you want, go for it. Kazim27 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

REPLY FROM BIBLEPROOF: I don't care what is really done here as long as it gives the inquirer the pertinent facts about theomatics and is ABSOLUTELY NEUTRAL. Please put up your edit for my further examination and we shall discuss it.

Russell, I appreciate your patience, but I'm not comfortable with not reverting such bad edits as Bibleproof keeps making, including deleting all the Further Reading and References. Keep in mind that Wikipedia, although it is a work in progress, is being used constantly. I don't think it's a good idea to leave the article in what I see as a degraded and biased state, so I'm reverting.

Bibleproof, I suggest you look at the changes you are making and notice that some of them are obviously destructive. You will get farther by addressing Kazim's individual points above than by reverting en masse. You should also notice that I'm not deleting the information about the book sales; I moved it into the references. But you need a citation for it.

By the way, I didn't really add the description of how theomatics works; Bibleproof did. Thanks to him for that.

Bibleproof, I think mediation is a good idea - feel free to start the process. Note that along with the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is available as a less formal option. Λυδαcιτγ 19:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

REPLY FROM BIBLEPROOF: I looked over the page and it basically looks O.K. Thanks for working through these problems. I will study it some more and provide future suggestions if necessary, but my preliminary approval is hereby granted (at least this time there is a sensible degree of neutral sanity). The only thing I added were the words "along with an independent scientific analysis" under the controversy section. The rebuttal to aBleever is MORE than just that, but also an independent analysis. Also, that analysis was NOT posted at the theomatics site, but at www.theomatics.net which is an exclusive domain. The theomatics site is www.theomatics.com. Finally, please remove the "neutrality is disputed" flag. Hopefully, no one else will tamper with this. As a proponent of theomatics, I will defend it as is for now. FURTHER COMMENT: I don't like the idea that Wikipedia allows just anybody to wipe out all previous edit consensus and create a mess based upon their own bias (forcing everybody to have to start all over again). I wish that after consensus is reached among numerous editors, the article could be frozen, until, if necessary, the new edit proposals can be hammered out and agreed upon and not just put up unilaterally. Do you know if Wikipedia can freeze an article in this manner?

I removed the POV tag. Regarding your question, see Wikipedia:Stable versions. Λυδαcιτγ 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sparse, inconclusive, and unrelated?

I'm interested in revisiting the now deleted subject stating that "Glasser's criticism mentioned below is sparse, inconclusive, and unrelated to theomatics as well." Bibleproof, I'd be interested in a brief discussion of what you see as the particular shortcomings of my essay and the associated web application. Not for the article, but to satisfy my own curiosity.

I do want to point out that the pro-Theomatics page about "Putting critics to bed" was written BEFORE I wrote my criticism, and does not seem to have changed in reaction to my commentary in the intervening six years. On this page, the author claims that critics believe that doing gematria analysis does not work at all, whereas my claim (which the program demonstrates) is that gematria analysis works on nearly EVERY text. The page asserts, without support, that "The phenomenon only works in the Bible and nowhere else", whereas my program illustrates that even a fairly short text can trivially be mined for seemingly "significant" phrases by the standards of Theomatics.

Can you explain what I am missing here? Kazim27 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• BIBLEPROOF RESPONSE: First, who removed the phrase about the availability of the Fettelschoss response to the A.B. Leever response? That is pertinent information that is available to investigators. LEAVE THAT IN, PLEASE. Second, in reply to Kazim 27, we are not going to debate with anybody on Wikipedia, or press arguments here. It has been agreed upon by all editors, that this page will give only the most pertinent information and be only a resource of sources. If Kazim27 wants proof, they can examine the Fettelschooss investigation that completely refutes the assertion that "fairly short text can trivially be mined for seemingly "significant" phrases." The theomatics analysis is EXTENSIVE and goes way beyond that. Even A.B. Leever admitted that the odds were better than a million to one (but they follow a different statistical method of evaluation and definition).

• First of all, BP, I'm right here talking to you. You don't need to refer to me in the third person.

Second of all, nobody is stopping you from discussing the subject on the talk page, and I'm interested in hearing your views.

Upon cursory reading, the A.B. Leever site doesn't seem to say anything about the odds really being "a million to one"; in fact he says exactly the opposite: "The author claims mathematical odds of millions to one, but we demonstrate that significant subjectivity in his phrase construction techniques invalidates his claim." Elsewhere, he states that the author's "personal ignorance of the inherent mathematical principles is painfully evident."

I've read some of the Fettelschoss papers, and he doesn't seem to address my point at all. He has filled many pages with mathematical hand-waving, but didn't actually analyze any text other than the Bible to check whether it's actually "impossible" to get significant results. As I noted on my site, I got extremely significant-sounding results out of a short spam email, and later I mined some very interesting financial terms using the number 111 in English. ("business", "financial planners", "an investment", and "beat the market"). How was my method different from those of you folks peddling Theomatics? Or is the word "business" somehow imbued with divine power as well?

Regarding the recent bit of text that Audacity removed, solicitations for email are probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. If there is a response to ABL, then maybe you should post it and then link it. Promising a rebuttal that doesn't yet exist smacks of potential false advertising. Kazim27 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bibleproof, I suggest you explore the history function. It shows the explanations that people make for their edits. I would also encourage you to make such explanations. For this page the history is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&action=history.

You'll notice that my explanation for deleting the info about Fettelschoss was "rv: this is original research." It is also not a good idea to post email addresses on Wikipedia. Λυδαcιτγ 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

BIBLEPROOF: I understand the policy on "original research," but Fettelschoss's reply is not in that context. It will be posted, but we are making some major revisions to a new website and will get to it eventually. Yet it is available for those who want to analyze it. --- Audacity, we are not interested in debating or dicussing this issue with you. If you don't like theomatics you are perfectly welcome to throw it out the window (as you already have). When people are pre-disposed to believe a certain thing and are determined to prove their position, it is impossible to reason with them. Thanks but no thanks.

Bibleproof, get it through your head that there are two people talking to you. I'm Audacity. He's Kazim. He expressed interest in debating/discussing the issue with you. I didn't. I happen to think a discussion would be productive in exposing which side is in the right, but you were referring to Kazim. Λυδαcιτγ 21:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)