Talk:Numerology

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

Biblical numerology[edit]

Is there anything in Biblical numerology that is worth saving? The page has been a magnet for unreliable sources. I'm thinking of nominating it for AfD but wanted to check if anything could be copied to this page. --mikeu talk 01:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an individual, Vernon Jenkins, MSc, who has analysed the Old Testaments first part. If you are interested, go to Other Bible Code and read. Since he is an Master of Science holder, he cannot really be a nutter. He takes the matter seriously. The web page is a bit less than mastery in beauty made, but there some golden nuggets too, pictures which illustrates his points. What heading would this have in Article section, if included at some time? Any suggestions?Per in Sweden (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Note that there is a difference between unreliable sources and verifiable unreliable sources. Vernon's page is the latter. For example wikipedia is a verifiable unreliable source, since it includes references that can be checked, but still false information could happen, therefore unreliable. I know this is hard to take, but wikipedia is not on par with encyclopedias written by professors. Per in Sweden (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC) It is not widely recognized, but you can verify what he says. If a web page said "The Bible has three occurrences of Abba", this can be verified with reliable sources, such as biblegateway.com . Therefore this web page is verifiable, it lets you do the work. If a web page claims there are 777 occurrences of Abba in the Bible, this is simply an unverifiable web page, since verification shows it is bogus myth spreading. The Vernon site is verifiable unreliable source, based on the Hebrew and English Bible. Per in Sweden (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since he is an Master of Science holder, he cannot really be a nutter. Thanks for the laugh. You should read Nobel disease to get rid of those illusions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wiki-link. Interesting. Bad prejudices is good to destroy; thanks. Although it was something that I knew, really, just sloppy writing. Per in Sweden (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: According to a source on the Internet, Vernon Jenkins MSc died 24 Nov 2020. The his site is on sale. If you search his name you might find something interesting.Per in Sweden (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further note that the word "really" means in this context "probably" in a way. Therefore I said as an interpretation "Since he is an Master of Science holder, he cannot probably be a nutter." making your remark mute. Per in Sweden (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probability is connected to frequency of occurrence. Something with low probability will not happen often. In this case, your assumption is "a Master of Science has a low probability of being a nutter", with the implication that it is lower than with people who are not MSc, for which there is no evidence). Even if that assumption were true, it would only mean that of a random group of MScs, only a few are nutcases. But if your reference group is not random because it consists of MScs believing in crazy stuff like numerology, then the number of nutcases will be much higher. See conditional probability.
But all this is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on Wikipedia users' attempts at logic. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you pass exams testing your intellectual capacity, then that acts as a filter at that point of time the exams are made, regardless of nobel disease, of course you could fall ill after the exams, as to which the nobel disease victims contributes, probable. The man in question, Vernon Jenkins, held lectureships at Cardiff University, which is hard if your are insane. So I think probable holds as a notion. Per in Sweden (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC) A bit too fast there, I never clicked on the link (just read on google) to https://cardiff.academia.edu/VERNONJENKINS where it says "Long-retired from lectureships at the Polytechnic of Wales in the Departments of Mining Engineering and Mathematics and Computer Science." Per in Sweden (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not getting it. All this is completely irrelevant. The guy is just some guy who wrote something. There are many thousands of academics, each of them typically competent in one specific area. Wikipedia will not just randomly quote one of them talking about a subject outside of his area of expertise, propagating silly ideas.
Trying to impress people with academic grades works only on naive people who are unfamiliar with academia. When you discuss academically savvy people and try to bolster your opinion by saying your source has a degree in something, they will immediately stop taking you seriously because you obviously have no clue how serious discussion works and how it does not. This is what has happened here.
No, we will not use that person as a source unless we have a good reason. "He has a degree" is very much not a good reason. See WP:DUE and WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew numerals is that a reliable source to you?Per in Sweden (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. See WP:USERGENERATED. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Isaac Newton[edit]

I added a paragraph describing Newton's faux pas regarding the colours of the rainbow. Sorry I didn't include a link, but it's not my original research. I read it somewhere in what I would call a reliable source but I have lost the ref. 3 primary colours + 3 secondary = 6 colours. If one is to include tertiary colours then fairly that would add up to 12, not 7 like Newton did. Why indigo should have preference over any other tertiary colour is a mystery. If someone knows a good ref please add it, thanks Ningnongtwit (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any boundaries between colors are purely arbitrary. There is no truth here, only opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Methods section[edit]

This section is a POV minefield... Lots of WP:UNDUE content sourced to primary in-universe sources... That is not how wikipedia works. We should not repeat the claims of cranks in wiki-voice. See also WP:FRINGE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it isn't sourced at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Arithmancy[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arithmancy Sennalen (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab Numerology"[edit]

There is no such thing as "ilm-ul-cipher" and "huroof" is a misspelling of "huruf" (like spelling "Hindu" as "Hindoo"). Can you please correct these errors (before they make Wikipedia more laughable than it already is)? 2601:204:EB7F:E870:EC67:5489:D639:FC69 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Numerology&oldid=1209979635"