Talk:23 Enigma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
1 |
Contents |
[edit] citation?
apparently this article needs a citation for the Illuminatus book. is this sufficient? [1] thought i should ask here first, being new to this lark, as it seems this code uses a template which apparently need to be approved before adding?
- ^ Wilson, Robert Henry; Shea, Robert (1988). The illuminatus! trilogy. New York: Dell Pub. Co. ISBN 0-440-53981-1.
illitrate 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why permission is needed to use a cite template, but it seems fine to me. I'd remove the empty sections and wikilink the names, however, leaving this:
- Wilson, Robert Anton; Shea, Robert (1988). The Illuminatus! Trilogy. New York: Dell Pub. Co. ISBN 0-440-53981-1.
- - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Pyro3k Michael R. Pierotti 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If this article is supposed to reference the 23 Enigma, should a few samples of the anomaly be referenced?
For Example: Add the numbers 1 - 22 together in a spreadsheet and you get the number 253 or 2(5=2+3)3
[edit] Why
Why is the 23 Enigma on the same page as 23 in Numerology? This is like putting Intelligent Design and Evolution on the same page. Does anyone intend to fix this? 71.89.8.194 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean further? Numerology is often used as a shorthand term for assigning a significance to a number and looking for occurrences of it, which is exactly what the 23 enigma does. If by your analogy you are implying that one of them is scientific, and the other (at best) pseudo-scientific then I think most people would disagree (and suggest both were pseudo-science/pseudo-mathematics). --Neo 09:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I was under the impression that the 23 Enigma is a specific mutation of numerology that only applies to 23 - but not concerned with the number's significance or meaning (typical association of the term "numerology") so much as its perceived prevalence. So, it could be mentioned, but probably should have a separate page so it doesn't clog a more general "in numerology" one.4.238.21.144 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is being edited to death
A lot of Greyface's agents have been editing this once valuable piece of information and deleted about 23 * 3 / 2 useful references. Why would anybody who's intentions are other than suffocating human culture mark content in an article about the mighty number 23 as "irrelevant" or "original research"? Is it "original research" that 2 + 3 = 5? Do I need a professor to write it down first? And is it irrelevant if one regards the overwhelming importance of the first three primes and their meaning in connection to the secret societies? If almost everybody agrees, I will get all the important information that has been deleted in the past 12 months or so back into the article. It is a lot of work, but I obeisantly volunteer to get it done. Kalisti! Herbert heart 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Erm - No. Even if I believed that the '23 enigma' were a 'real' phenomena, it is not the place of this article to report all the coincidences which lead to it - just as an article on Nitrogen should not list all the nitrogen chemical compounds, an article on prime numbers should not list all prime numbers, and indeed President of the United States does not list every president.
- And it *is* original research if I notice that, for instance my birthday is 25/01/1984; 25-1 = 24, 1+9+8+4 = 22 and the average of 22 and 24 is 23, and amend this for the article (even if it is not my birthday, but for instance the date of a major world catastrophe). If someone writing in a sufficiently reputable format (for instance a major news paper, not most blogs) notes it and writes it down with a concious reference to the fact then it isn't original research (but still doesn't belong in the article).
- As to 'the overwhelming importance of the first three primes and their meaning in connection to the secret societies?' can you provide evidence for this statement? If so then *that* belongs in the article a lot more than some random trivia that by a convoluted series of mathematical operations one can make the date I last ate Pizza equal 23. --Neo 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- If your birthday is "25/01/1984; 25-1 = 24, 1+9+8+4 = 22", then that makes me suspicious because you are probably from another planet. Besides, your statement indicates that you desire only proven facts in an article about the number "23", which sounds like one-hand clapping to me. Better to remove the article altogether, then. People that clean articles like this one are a myth to me, if at least they would collect all the valuable hints on a separate page be it within or without Wikipedia. As it is, I have to scan the history completely, pick up all the good stuff and compile it again. I will have to write a program for that. I can understand that it is undesirable to have irrelevant data or original research in about any article but who is seriously going to say "this is relevant" and "this not relevant" in an article about the 23 enigma??? Herbert heart 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not into the whole 23 craze but i have to agree with the birthday guy that statistical information and rash opinions should not be put on the page. Maybe a link to another website with that information would be acceptable however if it was added to the page here it might ruin the integrity of the site. Lets try and be as non-biased as possible.--Shortpride33 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- If your birthday is "25/01/1984; 25-1 = 24, 1+9+8+4 = 22", then that makes me suspicious because you are probably from another planet. Besides, your statement indicates that you desire only proven facts in an article about the number "23", which sounds like one-hand clapping to me. Better to remove the article altogether, then. People that clean articles like this one are a myth to me, if at least they would collect all the valuable hints on a separate page be it within or without Wikipedia. As it is, I have to scan the history completely, pick up all the good stuff and compile it again. I will have to write a program for that. I can understand that it is undesirable to have irrelevant data or original research in about any article but who is seriously going to say "this is relevant" and "this not relevant" in an article about the 23 enigma??? Herbert heart 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why no mention of Burroughs and Captain Clark?
I noticed that there was no mention of the story of William S Burroughs encounter with Captain Clark which is cited on the Burroughs page as the origins of the 23 enigma. 209.248.160.82 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biorhythms
I moved the following paragraph to its own section, under the heading "biorhythms," but have now removed it altogether, and bring it here for discussion:
- A 23 day 'physical cycle' or biorhythym was postulated by Wilhelm Fliess, along with a 28 day 'emotional cycle'. By taking these numbers in combination Fliess was able to create the length of other cycles, for instance the length of a year.
First of all, this is unreferenced (and I found no reference for it in the Fliess article, either), it seems rather silly, and I am not sure it is truly relevant to the topic. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)