Talk:Numerology

Incessant removal of external links

Recent removal of the following external links was insistent. I restored them:

1. The Theology of Arithmetic
2. Comparative Numerology: The Numbers One to Ten: Fundamental Powers psyche.com
3. The Resurrection Numbers: Eschatological symbolism in Judaism and early Christianity
4. alphanumeric analysis of the structure of every verse of the Holy Bible

Of yet I need form no opinion and no defense for their presence or their style. I only disagree with the edit summary reason "they don't provide more value than a google search would". It is enough for me to point out that the removed ELs 1-3 were previously discussed, successfully defended, and finally accepted (during the previous and similar incident) at What happened?

Ironically, an untouched EL that remained is what I reason fails the "tasteful" test at EL#What_to_link. I deleted it:

• 2006 article about juror being removed from trial after using numerology

I read it. Among the not-tasteful relative to numerology and to common taste, I had to find:

• "numerology is nowhere in the jury instructions"
• "frustrated fellow jurors"
• The visage of
  • "killing 14-year-old Jahkema 'Princess' Hansen... [who] died in harrowing fashion [because she was] "shot Hansen in the back of head... [because] she was a witness to [another] killing"
  • "Hansen was killed after seeing Ward kill a drug dealer"
• that the "kicked-off" numerologist
  • was "there to force a mistrial"
  • "could not say anything because of 'the judge's order'"
  • was "One of the jurors... insulting and argumentative [and with] hidden agenda"
  • was "always straying"
  • associates "horoscopes" with numerology
• that numerology is "unexpected"

I do not condone numerology in our courts, but I think I defend policy. There is no cabal. — CpiralCpiral 07:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think something is distasteful is irrelevant to its relevance to the article. That article is one of the few times that numerology has appeared in standard news coverage, as something other than people peddling their pet ideas. I have returned it - as the only (IMHO) external link of any extra value to the reader. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blowing Princess Jahkema's head off from the back for witnessing a drug dealer get murdered is not distasteful? The depiction of a numerologist as foolish, criminal, and rejected by sound judgement, is not distasteful in an encyclopedia article on numerology?
• If the subject of numerology on WP needed the title, because, as you say, it was in a notable newspaper, then the article would seem to benefit from the added notability factor. I don't think numerology suffers from a question of notability.
• Even if there was no policy against distasteful links, because you are a newspaper man who finds the newspaper event noteworthy, would this bias you to argue the taste factor at WP:EL? What about WP:COI? I'd like other opinions, thank you.
• Let's consider that the content of the external link adds "value to the reader". What is the educational value towards an understanding of numerology while slogging through that tabloid newspaper article about the death of princesses and disgracefulness of numerologists? Why else read an encyclopedia about numerology except to avoid such material about numerology? If I want to read "testifying while high on marijuana to a juror finding herself followed home by a key figure in the case" I'll read the tabloids, no thank you.
• You worry about "people peddling their pet ideas", and you claim it is a reason to keep the external link in question. As far as I can tell, having only found evidence to the contrary in past discussions, and you having provided no evidence, you may be operating on a false premises.

For other articles on WP, the taste factor of "death" may be appropriate. I'm sorry, but not here. Personally I think this external link is very likely to disgust its target audience, and esp. a numerologist. --CPiral 174.31.172.230 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what wikipedia is about - it's to provide information, not to make people feel good. The article is extremely informative, showing the use of numerology in a real-world setting (for better or for worse). I'm sorry that you find it distasteful, but as I said, the personal feelings of you or me, or other individual editors, isn't what wikipedia's all about. There are lots of numerology websites where it would not be useful or appropriate - but wikipedia isn't one of them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the links and internal references. As you say, this was discussed five years ago. I was about to give up. Note that Iamblichus is still not mentioned in the article. --Aleph1 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other links, but the "alphanumeric analysis" link isn't what it says or relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Number definitions section was deleted recently for some reason -- 22:21, 15 January 2015‎ Complainer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,195 bytes) (-1,862)‎ . . (→‎Number definitions: some great sources there, too...) -- removing the last vestige (since the external links were purged) of any (Western) attribution of meaning to numbers. Iamblichus [[1]] is sad. "The whole of Iamblichus's complex theory is ruled by a mathematical formalism of triad, hebdomad, etc., while the first principle is identified with the monad, dyad and triad; symbolic meanings being also assigned to the other numbers." This is just one example of the rich tradition now ignored in this article. --Aleph1 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Pascal Triangle Motivation for the Periodic System

The spherical nuclear magic numbers under the simpler harmonic oscillator model are exactly doubled tetrahedral numbers, right out of the Pascal Triangle, but with all terms doubled. According to one mathematical physicist, this is due to the way the quantum harmonic oscillator works in different dimensions. The numbers of states generated at each level are 1 for 1D (the outer sides of the Triangle), Natural numbers for 2D (the first diagonal), Triangular numbers for 3D (the second diagonal), Tetrahedral numbers for 4D (the third diagonal) and so on. Doubling accounts for pairs of particles with opposing spins.

When the spin-orbit coupling effect is added as a correction term in the nuclear Hamiltonian orbitals become split in two parts, larger and smaller by one spin unit. Sizes of such partial orbitals are: s=2,0, p=4,2, d=6,4, f=8,6, g=10,8, h=12,10, i=14,12, j=16,14.... The larger partial orbital aligns its spin with the orbit and drops in energy, eventually enough so that it becomes, energetically, part of the previous shell.

Sizes of period analogues, in the harmonic oscillator model, are all exactly doubled triangular numbers in length: s=2, p=6, ds=12, fp=20, gds=30, hfp=42, igds=56, jhfp=72....

When the high-spin orbital partials are added the size of the period analogue, from the harmonic oscillator default, increase exactly to the very next doubled triangular number: s+p=6, p+d=12, ds+f=20, fp+g=30, gds+h=42, hfp+i=56, jhfp+j=72...

And when the high-spin partial orbital is lost from its harmonic oscillator default period analogue, the remaining part is reduced in size to the next lower doubled triangular number.

After a certain point in the shell-filling system the high-spin partials, called intruder levels, drop down sufficiently to become ordered before the terminal nucleons of the default harmonic oscillator period analogue. Because of the way the period analogues are constructed the intruder 'depths' are, for neutrons, always themselves doubled triangular numbers: the first g partial drops positionally down 2, the first h partial 6, the first i 12, and the first j 20. Protons have the same depth ordering, but there are hints of variant orders available, still double triangular. The depths of nucleon intrusion appear in the main to occur precisely after the third orbital partial of the default harmonic oscillator period analogue they end up becoming a part of. 108.35.168.107 (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dudley and numerology

I have removed this addition from the introduction because I think it's confusing and unnecessary:

however, Dudley also distinguishes between "number mystics" and "numerologists," writing that "There is nothing wrong with mysticism. On the other hand, everything is wrong with numerology." (page 2)

It was added at the end of an example from Underwood Dudley that is given to show that the word "numerology" is sometimes applied to practices in areas other than the usual applications (in this case, stock-market analysis). It is not designed to discuss Dudley's attitudes toward numerology, so there's no need to start going into details about that attitude.

What Dudley calls mysticism is not numerology, as he makes clear continuing with that quote: "Numerologists purport to apply mysticism. ... They take the mystical properties of numbers and attach them to things and people. ... This is standing mysticism on its head." In other words, numbers mysticism and numerology are two different things in his point of view.

That's why the addition just confuses things, since it's not clear what he means by mysticism vs. numerology. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

David, thanks for the discussion. In my experience, skeptics on Wikipedia tend to misrepresent the views of the sources they cite. Citing Dudley as critical of numerology suggests that he is critical of a mystical interpretation of numbers in general, and this is a misrepresentation. Part of the purpose of the article is to define what numerology is and is not. In Dudley's view, numerology is not number mysticism. Yet, the article defines numerology as any purported mystical interpretation of numbers.

Perhaps the quote belongs elsewhere in the article, but it does belong in the article if the article is going to cite Dudley. If we're going to say what Dudley includes in his use of the term "numerology," we should also say what he excludes. You can't just pick the parts of Dudley's book that support the skeptical view and ignore the parts that don't. The article needs to be fair, and it isn't. It has a skeptical bias. — Fred Chapman fwchapman (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the sentence; it doesn't cite Dudley as being critical of numerology and it doesn't support the skeptic view - in fact, it doesn't support anybody's view. Somebody who had never read Dudley's book would have no idea of his ideas on numerology from the sentence. The sentence is included merely to show that the word "numerology" is sometimes applied to fields (like stock analysis) different than the New Age-y areas where it is usually encountered, and uses Dudley as an example. Because you know Dudley's opinion you read it as being critical, but it's not. It's merely reflective. Your extra quotes and analysis might belong in Dudley's own article, but not here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, you're right about the skeptics dictionary. I have given a different citation for the "regarded as pseudoscience" sentence - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

David, that's a fair point about Dudley's application of "numerology" outside of metaphysics. Nevertheless, I have a problem with the way this article defines numerology. I believe Dudley's distinction between "numerology" and "number mysticism" is relevant and should be included. Stating what numerology is not, in the considered opinion of a mathematics professor who wrote an entire book on the subject, is just the kind of content the article needs if it is to be accurate and balanced. Right now, it is neither.

Why don't we move my proposed quote near the beginning of the article, where numerology is defined? Articulating what numerology isn't helps clarify what it is. If the article can say "numerology" shouldn't be confused with "number theory," it can certainly say that one expert (already cited elsewhere in the article) states that "numerology" is not the same thing as "number mysticism."

In general, I want to see Wikipedia shed its systemic bias that all scientists are antagonistic to metaphysics. Dudley isn't, and neither am I. (My PhD is in math.) Skeptics don't own Wikipedia and have no right to mold it in their own image, yet they keep trying. That needs to stop. Let's take this opportunity to create a more balanced treatment of a metaphysical topic, okay? fwchapman (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You have a point: The "not to be confused with number theory" hatnote is an unnecessary intro, isn't it? I think it can be removed ... in fact, I will remove it.

Differentiating numerology, the practice, from number mysticism, the belief system, would be a valuable addition to the introduction. I'm not capable of doing doing that; could you? (As a side note, my BS is in math - not quite Ph.D., alas.)

As far as the skeptic/science disagreement, saying that it is regarded as pseudoscience by skeptics seems a pointless tautology ("the claims are regarded with skepticism by skeptics"). The sentence is trying to reflect the understanding in modern science that the practice of numerology - alphabetic systems, etc. - is not valid. If the introduction does a better job of differentiating numerology from number mysticism, then that might be more acceptable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

History section

Clarifications needed in History section. Regarding this phrase:

around the turn of the century (from 1800 to 1900 A.D.)

That wasn't a "turn" of a century, that was a whole century. And during or bordering on that period, there were two turns (the 1800-1801 turn, and the 1900-1901 turn) and three different named centuries (1800 was in the 18th century, 1900 was in the 19th century, and 1901 was in the 20th century). Which turn are we talking about?

the meaning of the 9 digits remains the same

Which "9 digits"? Some systems deal with digits 1 thru 9 (examples given later in the article), but nothing up to this point in the article establishes which digits are being implied in this paragraph and section. So saying "the 9 digits" here is a non-sequitur. Also, what "meaning"? Perhaps it should read "respective meanings"? I might assume so, but nothing in the article establishes that the specific schools of numerology referenced in that sentence assign individual meanings to digits. So the reader is left to assume. -- HLachman (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Both are excellent points. I have made some edits and (mostly) cuts in response to your queries; what do you think? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

On the first point, I think the edit is fine as long as the new text is what was meant (I'm guessing it is, but I didn't check the refs). On the second point, the edit eliminates the issue, but the resulting sentence no longer adds much information (as it's almost a given that different authors have different things to say). What might be more informative is to change the original text to "while assigning the same meanings to the nine digits, 1 through 9 (see Western numerology, below)", and then add a section "Western numerology" showing the assigned meanings. If the various schools have these meanings in common, what better place than this article to list them? Well, that would be my wish list (and I don't know enough about it to elaborate). In any case, thanks for your attention to these issues. -- HLachman (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Delineating the scads of vague, contradictory and shifting "definitions" of numbers given by all the self-appointed numerology experts would be a task to try the patience of a saint. It's not like there are any standards or data to establish them - it's whatever the writer of the particular book dreams up. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Numbers and their corresponding planets.

According to Numerology, everything is designated with a number in this World. These numbers are very influential in one's life. Each letter of our name is associated with a number having some specific meaning, so do the Planets have. Every Planet is given a number in numerology, let's take a look to it. 1 = Sun. 2 = Moon. 3 = Jupiter. 4 = Uranus. 5 = Mercury. 6 = Venus. 7 = Neptune. 8 = Saturn. 9 = Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.233.50 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

St. Augustine quote

I believe that the St. Augustine quote is probably dubious. I see that quote all over the Internet, but never with reference to its source. I am aware that St. Augustine did say many things concerning numbers, but that particular quote doesn't sound like something he would have said. Sounds more like a New Age-inspired paraphrase. Unless somebody is able to trace the quote back to one of his writings, it ought to be removed. 173.49.57.233 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)