Talk:11 (numerology)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This discussion is for the improvement, and upgrade, aka updating of the 11 (numerology)article. if anyone has any ideas on how to improve this article (make it into a good featured article) - please add your commments here, and i would get back to you with my reply - or, just talk to me about it on my talk page. thanks people. --Lord X 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]


I have rewrittten this article in 11 (numerology)[edit]

I have rewritten this article - originally. I wonder if you people want it back or not? This page should be called 11 (numerology). Tell me what you think...? Could this page be the redirect from 11 (NUMEROLOGY)? --Lord X 19:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]

Greetings! I want to help here.. I have an interest in numerology and came to it via the question of its neutrality. Here are some suggested improvements i would like to see:
1. Creating a References section at the bottom and list several numerological scholars who have written specifically about the Number 11. (Added 17th June 2006)
2. Adding to the WTC Facts subheading so that it reads WTC Numerological Facts. In my mind, this specifies what worts WTC facts we are talking about. The commentary about the points at the end of the list is based on opinion, and while the coincidences may be true, the summary is highly contentious and complex to explain. Explaining how the Illuminati plan, organise, and execute such a grand and co-ordinated attack would take much documentation and research. It is a good example of a conspiracy theory identified using numberological intuitive techniques. My point is that the two sentence summary NEEDS a verification anchor, due to the highly contentious content and implications of the WTC proposed conspiracy. Maybe more website references? A book or two WTC attacks and numerology?
3. I believe that the information on architecture and satanism listed under 7. in the Synchronicity subsection could again use references. What scholar, source, researcher identified and suggested that the street designs, the buildings of Washington, etc.. are Satanic and Masonic Symbols? And in particular... how is the Number 11 represented in the Architecture of the Twin Towers? It just appears that the Master number 11 is associated with Satanism and Masonic Lore, and corresponds to the Illuminati conspiracy suggested in WTC Facts. This should be stated explicitly if it is the case.
4. The line: "The Architecture of the Twin Towers [ 11 ] of the World Trade Center -- Satanists love to express their beliefs and their goals in architecture." Which Satanists believe this? Is there a source for this idea? Put it in the references section. Maybe change it to "Some Satanists love to..."
5. The line: "Thus, many of the buildings of Washington, D.C., were created originally with occult symbols on them, and in them. This fact..." Maybe; Name a specific building in Washington, cite the architect and a reference work/source to his/her Satanic or Masonic sympathies? It is not a fact until we can verify it.
6. The lines: "...is the reason why the street designs are created in such a way as to form Satanic symbols. The streets north of the White House form an inverted Pentagram, the Goatshead of Mendes, while the streets joining the White House to the Capitol form one side of a Masonic Compass, while other streets form the Masonic Square and Rule." Who or what organisation proposed this theory of architectural inverted symbolism about the White House and its environs? References would help, and create further interest in the esoteric codes available in the Number 11? I suppose, yes, the Twin Towers once looked like the number [11] on the horizon of the Manhattan skyline. But from there to Satanism? or Masonic purpose?
7. There just seems to be a conspiracy theory bias in those two examples cited under the Popular Culture section. Can there be another example of the Master Number 11 cited? possibly to another event? or another perspective? Maybe something from Numberology used in Natural Health or something... Basically it just seems that the article could be linked to the conspiracy theory wiki-section for the tone of the article almost exclusively refers to WTC attacks.?
Hope all this provides food for thought. I have made a few small changes (spelling of Synchronicty) added a references section... Take care.. Please advise.Drakonicon 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again:: I have significantly ammended the intro. Basically i have to further clarify the introduction to word because it appears to me that it needs to quickly communicate to the reader the complexity and depth of a Master Number.if they dont improve the readability of the intro, then revert.Drakonicon 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like the new intro, but I have also written a couple other articles to do with numerology, they are 22 (numerology), 33 (numerology), also see the Master Numbers articles. --Lord X 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
I'm going to add the above links you have written to the See also section of this article. Hopefully all 4 articles will begin to cohere, and be verifiable when thoguht of in terms of parascience, occultism... and other such links... the neumerology link itself has quite diverse links to explain. It seems to struggling to justify itself as a legitimate contribtuion to knowledge. However, it is regarded as knowledge by ??? Pythagoreans ? Is there some reference to the number 11 being used by Italian Renaissance architects and artists. I know some of them were highly influenced by classical Greek thinkers such as Vitruvius One Architecture. Marsilio Ficino's Christian Platonism? The Kabbala's Tree of Life uses numerology I think?Just brainstorming. Help someone.Drakonicon 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I would suggest making a list to highlight the number 11 as used by Numerologists. Maybe this text could be cited? The Life You Were Born to Live: A Guide to Finding Your Life Purpose by Dan Millman. Or someone else?Drakonicon 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest saying this sort of thing in the article and providing references to reliable sources (this excludes most websites). Please also keep in mind WP:OR and WP:V (neither of which the article currently fulfils). —xyzzyn 12:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Yes the September 11 examples that have been removed can be seen as over-the-top, pseudo-scientific, self-fulfilling prophecy, fantasy, biased... However, I am willing to explore its brief use in the article as an example of the number 11 (numerologically). One of the basic tenets of the Mickelson reference is to show that numerological signifiers (such as 11, in relation to the September 11 attacks) are actually subject to laws of randomness. There is a satirical and denounciatory tone in the reference: "It is but human nature to search for patterns even where none exist. We attempt to impose a gestalt on randomness because chaos is difficult to comprehend, hence our fascination with recurrent themes. We feel something of great import is going on if a particular number comes up time and again, and we are unsettled by it.
And yet, it's all randomness. That is not to say that at times any number plucked from the air will not appear more often than is the norm because such clumpings are only an expected part of the process of random distribution.".. So in the 11 (numerology) wiki-article itself, the concluding words "...typically in a trivial or non-factual way," indicate a skeptical viewpoint on the validity of numerology altogether. And I believe the point of this article should be balanced so as to present both its use to believers, and the perception of non-believers in numerology. Jung's seminal essay 'Synchronicity: An A-causal connecting principle' is one example of a Psychologist who explored meaningful patterns in an individuals experience with great seriousness, much to Freud's chagrin (idea cited in Jung & Jaffe, 1962, Memories, Dreams, Reflections; autobiography by Jung). A very basic explanation is: that Jung believed in the meaningful content of synchronous events; Freud did not.
So the example of a numerological basis for the Sept 11 attacks is, of course, difficult to verify. Because to someone who uses numerology to explain life experience, such experience is certainly not "... trivial or non-factual..." but holds significance. However, i suspect i am drawing a connection between numerology and synchronicity that needs to be explained briefly, if at all, in the article in relation to the Septemeber 11 example.
Maybe another numerological scenario, or example of its significance to a numerologist would be more useful here?Drakonicon 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I did not formulate that bit well. I’ve removed it. However, I do think that snopes.com does provide a fair summary, including a literal quotation (and another quotation for a different number), with its commentary; given that some of those ‘facts’ are outright lies, without any space for interpretation or POV, and the rest does not show any consistency in the methodology, I disagree that this particular subject requires another view. (Besides, snopes.com is way more reputable than what was there before.)
As for ‘[using] numerology to explain life experience’, my view is that, numerology being a pseudoscience consisting of arbitrarily chosen arithmetical calculations and everything being decuctible from a false premise, this is trivial again. If, however, there’s some serious writing out there that does, in fact, connect the number to the event in this context, feel free to reference it and to include a brief summary (as long as you don’t present things that are not facts as facts).
Regarding the more general concepts of numerology and synchronicity, I think that, if any connection has been discussed in the appropriate fora (i. e. the Jungian literature and whatever the analogon for numerology is), it should be referenced in those articles, not this one. —xyzzyn 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work xyzzy! Yes I agree that that the connection between 11 (numerologically) and Sept 11 is highly flammatory and easily opened to debunking, for it does not appear to have any sound scientific method... I dont read snoop.com; it is new to me. So its reputation is new to me also. Interesting trying to verify using weblinks. Once scholars would only source published materials by a reputable publishing company. Sine media ownership and media bias is debateable... I suppose there is always going to be readers and writers unsatisfied with the 'reputation' of online reference points.. The net-world is a BIG place... My question is then: how do we actually write about any kind of 'method' to explain the 'significance' of the number 11 to someone exploring numerology? Because there are certainly people who take Master Numbers seriously.
In my experience, (my interest in using numerology for pattern recognition) is best explained in terms of Synchronistic events and signifiers. But this is only one perception. I suppose in that sense my perception is 'Original Research' until I verify it with a reliable source. Its a very New Age concept, and might be better handled by a writer from any number of New Age communities. The source of the concept of Master Numbers must come from somewhere Madame Blavatsky? Rudolph Steiner?, Pythagoreanism??... Just looking for some way to get a handle on the origins of this. I dont believe it should be a short article that just indicates 'NONSENSE'. All the wiki-links i have placed here are simply to get people thinking and researching in places maybe i didnt think to look.Drakonicon 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding snopes.com, see its article. As for sources, once again, see WP:RS; it’s generally a fair guideline. As for ‘get[ting] people thinking and researching’, that’s not the purpose of an article. —xyzzyn 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wasnt very clear. When I said "get[ting] people thinking and researching"; instead of the word 'people' i should have said 'editors'; and instead of 'thinking and researching' i should have said "writing an interesting, factual, and mentally stimulating article about a difficult topic." Hope that clears my intentions up a bit.Drakonicon 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not present different views of the number 11 in different sections of this article? I mean, people with different ideas may look at one certain section of this article, without feeling biased or retaliated against. I figure instead we could show DIFFERENT POV from different disciplines on how to look at the same subject. So, how about I suggest we revert back the September 11 synchronocities, or coincidences. I think it is rather important for people to know that - I am sure the intelligence sources knows about the 9/11 issue much more than we do. I am not saying we should represent this idea as, "fact," but as a, "good to know," basis. That way, we could even keep the not so numerological people happy as well. Hey, by the way - I am not the only person who writes this article, so if you can add something, just ask, if I think or the majority of edittors think that idea is good, then we'll have it. Just remember - we need to keep a NPOV as possible, but it does not mean, at least personally - we eliminate or delete an ENTIRE section from this article for the sake of NPVO - it all depends on how you define, "NPOV," and how far, "NPOV" should go...--Lord X 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
Well I am all for trying to rework the Sept 11 example. So there needs to be two sections to do this. I do this tentatively in order to create a neutral viewpoint and we definitely need xyzzy's perspective to create a balance. I going to put two tentative titles into the article to stimulate thought about numerological examples. At least to create the two points of view. What concerns me is the conspiracy theory reference. I'm aware of the the 9/11 conspiracy theory. To justify such an elaborate plan is as controversial as the Grassy Knoll theory on the JFK assassination. And the continuing battle between the Catholic Church and Protestant cultures ie: the Gunpowder Plot was at least verifiable. But i feel it is getting far off track. The article is not about a conspiracy; its about and interpretation of the deeper meaning of the Number 11. Sure the numerolgical significance of the purported 9/11 conspiracy may have a synchronistic and hidden character; then we should outline those characteristics that show HOW to understand the process of discovery; not go into detail about how the Illuminati organised and used the number 11 to create a nationwide mystical and horrific event. Synchronicity is a subconscious form of intelligence, and further use of it in theis article needs strong reference points in the Jungain literature, as xyzzy suggested earlier. The example of the 9/11 attack that was intially cited had a pattern recogntion character to it also.
Two sides to the argument? should the 9/11 example be reintroduced? or simply used to create a way to describe the method of understanding 11 numerologically?Drakonicon 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting a view depends on the view’s notability and verifiability. It is not the same as presenting a view as facts, nor does it necessitate that a very marginal view be presented in full, and as it it were reputable. Snopes.com does contain some of the claims, and they’re not particularly notable outside the conspiracy theorising community. Why include them here?
NPOV is defined exactly as in WP:NPOV and is policy. Thus it affects every article totally. Xinyu, please don’t try to ‘be a rebel’ again.
In conclusion, I don’t see why the 9/11 stuff belongs here. It’s obviously false, it’s a fringe view and, except for the skeptics, you won’t ever find a reliable reference for it. —xyzzyn 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i added two lines to your intro, xyzzy, about the alleged connection between the number 11 and 9/11. I am far from happy with it. Does it need to be referenced? In my mind, it is a clarification of the data from an original source (your Notes link to snoop.com). Somone reword it, if you can. Its the best i can do for now.Drakonicon 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything needs to be referenced. As for your addition there, I don’t even understand what it says. —xyzzyn 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know - but even NPOV is debateable - as the NPOV manual insisted - it depends what the article is, and how neutral you can go. Afterall, since neutral is big grey zone, it depends on where you define the, "perfect neutral/grey" area to be. That is the case with the 9/11 section. I'll look up some references to 9/11 and 11. I read something about Rockefeller wanting to build the twin towers in that specific area of Manhattan. Cool then? We might as well just represent EVERY SINGLE PERSPECTIVE on the 11 matter, and from there, see how far we can go - and all sections must be written in NPOV status. --Lord X 19:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
I’m unaware of an ‘NPOV manual’, nor would I accept it over the actual policy, which is ‘non-negotiable’. If you have references (real references, not a website saying ‘things are thus’), adding what they state, with due choice of tone and detail, is ‘cool’. However, if I may make a suggestion, you might want to find references for the things already in the article first. That will make it much less likely that it ends up on AFD. —xyzzyn 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I lost my reply in the discussion and it didnt update correctly, I'll keep it short... 1. This is one source i suggest to help balance the skeptical viewpoint in snoop.com... 2. Lets abandon the 9/11 example of 11 numerologically, for now, and work on a second 11 numerology example at least. 3. Maybe the focus should be Master Numbers to help define terms for all articles on Master Numbers.Drakonicon 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a source, it’s an anti-Zionist (anti-Semitic?) conspiracy theory website. Regarding ‘master numbers’, that article needs a lot of work, too. (I, for one, having read it, still have absolutely no idea what they are.) —xyzzyn 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found something worthy of a "reputable" source of 11 numerology and the coincidences that are in modern times;
"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle.The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced:for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and therewaspeace." from verse 9.11 in the Quran.
should I add this a verifiable source? And also - I don't think that the source that I claimed were about 9/11 and numerology were true -although at the time, I didn't really cite the sources. --Lord X 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
Please read Surah 9 for yourself to see that there is no such verse at that place (although it is just as peace-liking and tolerant towards the beliefs and lack thereof of others as e. g. the Bible). See also another page on snopes.com, which says the verse does not appear anywhere in the Quran.
Oh, and, once again, please do provide sources for what’s already in the article, i. e. the first two paragraphs. —xyzzyn 10:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Synchronocity Evidence/ please evaluate for yourself[edit]

Edittors, please check out the following evidence for why I added the 9/11 significance of 11 numerology. I find that it is very important, but when I do find more 11 rekated information, I would get back to you. Thank you. --Lord X 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]


1. The first 11 is formed by the day on which this tragedy occurred, September 11.

2. The second 11 is formed by adding the 9th month, September, and the date, [9 + 1 + 1], forming another 11.

3. The third 11 is formed by the airplane number that first crashed into the World Trade Tower. That plane was American Airlines Flight #11.

4. The fourth 11 is formed by the airplane number that crashed into the Pentagon. That plane was United Airlines Flight #77 [11 x 7].

5. The fifth 11 is formed by the North Twin Tower of the World Trade Center was 110 stories tall [11 x 10]

6. The sixth 11 is formed by South Twin Tower, the World Trade Center was 110 stories tall [11 x 10]

7. The Architecture of the Twin Towers [ 11 ] of the World Trade Center -- Satanists love to express their beliefs and their goals in architecture. Thus, many of the buildings of Washington, D.C., were created originally with occult symbols on them, and in them. This fact is the reason why the street designs are created in such a way as to form Satanic symbols. The streets north of the White House form an inverted Pentagram, the Goatshead of Mendes, while the streets joining the White House to the Capitol form one side of a Masonic Compass, while other streets form the Masonic Square and Rule.

8. The eighth '11' is formed by one of the doomed flights, where the crew totaled '11'.

9. The ninth '11' is formed by the fact that September 11 is the 254th day of the year. When you add 2 + 5 + 4 you get '11'

10. The tenth '11' is formed because, after September 11, there are 111 days left in the year.

11. The eleventh '11' is formed by the historic fact that New York State was the 11th state to join the Union in preparation to create the 13-state confederation that would declare independence from England.

Forbidden Knowledge September 11 Remembrance

Please, dear edittors, if we do not CONSIDER the veriafiability of these sources, we would never really reach even a stable NPOV. I don't mean to sound, "offensive," or, "rebellious," but the truth - whether it be negative or positive, always hurts. Truth, personally is not a NPOV matter. What I am saying is that the NUMBERS on September 11 add up too closely, and that there is a conspiracy theory link - that is the significance of 11 in modern culture. However, I feel that there are other major significances as well. I am going to add them once these information can be further verified by other readers, edittors, and administrators. Truth hurts, and truth, apparently does not discern itself with anything called a Neutral Point of View - it is up to us - the writers to make it sound as neutral a point of view as possible. I am gonna look up other sources that confirms my suspicions - meanwhile, everyone else - try to find a way to express the most controversial facts/ aka fictious, pseudoscientfic, pseudohistoric self-fulfilling prophecy, biases in such a way as not to offend other readers...who are unfamiliar or take on another perspective on the same matter. This is, based on my readings, and philosphy, an ambiguous case. Bias does NOT necassarily imply lack of NPOV, it could just mean that it is not very easy to describe it PERFECTLY in NPOV. I hope this long report isn't hurting anyone's feelings, but does TRUTH, in the case of September 11, 2001 follow NPOV? Does the world for itself even treasure NPOV? I hope it does, but that is just my opinion.
Also, check the 9/11 commission report on Sacred Texts for more information on the number of victims on 9/11, flight numbers, number of crews in each plane, passengers, World Trade Center victims, and other data that I cannot simply in a paragraph, never mind an essay of this current length. Once again, please consider my evidence, do your own research, and I AM NOT THE ONLY AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE. Thank you. --Lord X 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
Enterprise Mission - This is good site for all you skeptics, and those who know little about the masonic lodge, Freemasonry, and other pseudohistorical, "facts," that you were NEVER taught at school --Lord X 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
I'm beginning to slowly get an idea on how to explain the relevance of 9/11 in explaining the significance of all the '11's' in the event... numerologically. I found a book that i bought years ago written by a man named Cheiro (Count Louis Hamon) (1866-1936) who wrote books on both nuemrology and palmistry. In the numerology book of Cheiro's that I own of his, he explains the 'law of periodicity in numbers'. The one extended example he uses is the 14th day of the month (over centuries) in relation to life events of the Kings of France. There is also a comparison between the St. Louis and King Louis the XVIth. So i can see how the 'logic' of numerology can be cited in this article. I do remember an example of uncanny parallels between the life events of Abraham Lincoln and JFK. Still... the article is about explaining 11 (numerologically). Sept 11 cited in this article on 11 (numerology) looks like its going to take too long to explain in terms of reliable sources, and verifiability as an adequate modern example. I believe the brief the Synchronicity of events may make more sense in the context of this article if there was another example given 'numerologically'. I'll give the Chiero (St.Louis : Louis XVIth) example, to compare with the Sept 11 idea. It is equally bizarre. I can see it is going to take time to arrive at a resolution to this use/misuse of the Sept 11 example of 11 (numerology).Drakonicon 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s about 11 and meets the usual norms, go ahead. If it’s about 14 (as you seem to indicate), shouldn’t it be in a page on that number, instead? —xyzzyn 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i agree, the 14 example is kind of pointless in the article.. I'm just using it here in talk to explain how numerology books i have read narrate 'how to' think and observe patterns in nature by using numbers. Cheiro even says, "... symbols are the Language of Nature" (pg 79 of the book i cited in the article itself related to Cheiro), echoing Galileo's "mathemtaics is the language of nature...". I suppose its Cheiro's way of trying to justify his numerology as science.Drakonicon 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xinyu, please go read the Snopes page on the 9-11 stuff, OK? I’d copy it and paste it here for your convenience, but that would be a copyvio. As for that other website… Well, it’s just the same stuff that can be found in a certain book, only less entertaining. —xyzzyn 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... help write Cheiro... i found him at the numerology wikipedia site, trying to look for some historical depth to draw from. Drakonicon 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes 9-11 very useful information indeed. But I wasn't really concerned with bin Laden - I am concerned with the cold hard fact of the number 11 in the 9/11 "fiasco," another historical context (in the Mid-East), Freemasonry, human bone structures, and the secret society called the Skull and Bones. THIS TIME - I AIN'T NO REBEL! YEAH! :) --Lord X 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
I meant this page and I think you knew that. By the way, if you’re concerned with facts of any kind, you’re not really showing it. —xyzzyn 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind me - sometimes I just summarize things that I will deal with in the future. Besides, I don't have time to say every single fact that I know. Just a summary...--Lord X 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
  • 26 June 2006 05:35 Ste4k wrote: Objectively speaking the following is offered for consideration:
  • The date of the attack: 9/11 - 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.
Numerologically speaking the equation is incomplete. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11 = 1 + 1 = 2
  • Each building had 110 stories.
The pentagon had 5 complete walls, later only 4. 5 + 4 = 9
  • After September 11th there are 111 days left to the end of the year.
This occurs every year, even in years without issues. In any case, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and 111 has no 9.
  • September 11th is the 254th day of the year: 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
Sept 20th is the 263th day: 2 + 6 + 3 = 11
  • 119 is the area code for Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11, 911 - 119 are opposites - enemies?
The terrorists were based in Afghanistan.
  • 11 11 polarity.
Numerology?
  • Twin Towers - standing side by side, looks like the number 11.
Not from the top looking down.

On the other hand, the question was raised about why have a page for 11 at all? I think it would have enough notability if before getting too deep with it, all of the other natural numbers could have a page, too.

The explanation you have given above is basically the argument citing the idiocy and randomness of creating/finding symbolic meaning in the events of Sept 11 that xyzzy pointed out; particularly the snopes article on 9/11. I agree, the snopes article, and the above summary makes numerological assessments look ridiculous. We are not getting anywhere with the 9/11 example. The few numerology books I have read have suggested that "Master Numbers" (11, 22, 33) are significant. I suppose much like Tarot Cards, or Jung's use of mandalas to create significant cathartic meaning in people's lives, depends on the individual seeking such meanings, and is relative. So maybe subsume all the Master Numbers (11 (numerology), 22 (numerology), 33 (numerology)) under the article Master Numbers (Numerology)... However, before we do.. I suggest we take a look at the style and content of two articles... 23 (number)... and 23 (numerology).... One last question here: can 23 be considered a Master Number? User Talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 18:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can, because Master Numbers (Numerology) does not actually say which numbers are master numbers (and what’s so special about them). Obviously, this is one of the reasons why that article is going to end up on WP:AFD, unless I’m missing something major. —xyzzyn 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously... unless a numerologist, or someone with some expertise, offers a more extensive insight... User talk:Drakonicon

Please keep in mind that I am totally neutral on this topic. Either way, is fine with me. But I am surprised not to see a mention of Chapter 11 of Revelations which speaks about two candlesticks (allegory) which are destroyed (twin towers). That seems just as reasonable as "polarity", imho. Ste4k 12:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of Quran scripture[edit]

I apologize...sometimes its necassary to be a skeptic, aint it? --Lord X 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]

Mathematicians and Numerology[edit]

Are there any academic mathematicians of note who have explored Master Numbers? Any mathematicians who have explored or been 'converted' to the usefulness of numerology? Could help with the article being seen as useful to people interested in numbers and mysteries. I'm sure such mathematicians may be seen as heretics among their peers. Maybe search the Vatican archives under heretics? Its almost becoming a folklore or mythology article?

Does the fact that 11 is a prime number have any basis in numerological literature? I'm going to add this 'fact' into the article.~~

The fact that 11 is prime is covered in 11 (number). I’ve assumed that this is sufficient and removed it from here. —xyzzyn 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does there need to be a distinction made between 11 (number) and 11 (numerology)? Drakonicon 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current tone of this article, yes, definitely, please. —xyzzyn 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... going to try in the intro ... to define difference between two terms.Drakonicon 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a history of numerology of any use?[edit]

Well I found a book about a Numerologist Cheiro operating in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries, around the time of the New Age writers, Theosophists Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine, 1888, and The Order of the Golden Dawn. It is possible, I beleive, that Chiero could be construed as a rogue in the sense that harry Houdini was considered a rogue and a travelling entertainer/magician. Regardless, someone like Chieor again needs to be defined for his use in defining a history of Numerology in relation to 11 numerology. I actually found Cheiro in the numerology wiki-article and found it had no biographical link. So i have sought to redress this. At the moment, the article looks like a satirical Uncyclopedia article and needs a lot of work. Any further suggestions would be wonderful.User talk:DrakoniconDrakonicon 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... I come across this reference in Wikipedia while looking into the Synchronicity reference... 23 (numerology).. CHeck the section entitled... 'True'... listed as enigmas... some are very similar the 9/11 references. If we can find another '11' example... the 23 (numerology) article might assist us in orgainising and fleshing out a better article?User talk:DrakoniconDrakonicon 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Rather, that article needs fixing, too. —xyzzyn 17:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerology, 11, and Coincidence[edit]

I thought you might say that about the fixing of both articles. Just has a different narrative and introduction about what 23 (numerology is. The narrative seems to be in terms of enigma and mystery,,, and yes,, it may be poorly written; however... I'll try this approach... I read the Coincidence article and contributed a section in the talk there Talk:Coincidence about the need for a 'coincidence' example... (The synchronicity page at least cites one example). I am going to add the 'coincidence' link to the 11 (numerology page) for it is relevant to the use of the number 11 for symbolic purposes (symbolic in the artistic sense, not strictly mathematical symbols).Drakonicon 18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC) User talk:Drakonicon[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:11_(numerology)&oldid=1195348807"