Talk:11:11 (numerology)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 11:11 (numerology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Information Posted to the 11:11 Article

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

01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

20:18, 25 March 2007

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

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

Musicians and sources

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

That would make a great addition to this stub.

TheRingess 07:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

2009 Movie

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

websites and notability

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

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

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

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

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

TheRingess 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Media Coverage

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

Uri Geller Unsourced

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

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

Reliable Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of material that anonymous user continues to post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Request for 3rd Opinion

Please read sections above to understand history of the discussion.

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

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

Comment by Smee

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

Redirect of "11:11 Phenomenon"

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

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

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

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

and what discussion?

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

Information Deleted to the 11:11 Article

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

removed references

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

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

Melton and Rose described the Oneness Minute Campaign as

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

. Solara stated that:

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

. According to the article:

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

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

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