Misplaced Pages

Talk:23 enigma: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:26, 2 January 2007 editWeirdoactor (talk | contribs)1,862 edits Response to Emperor.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:27, 2 January 2007 edit undoWeirdoactor (talk | contribs)1,862 editsm Fixed wikilink. WS:OR? Some needs caffeine.Next edit →
Line 190: Line 190:
:::Just my fourpenneth. (] 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)) :::Just my fourpenneth. (] 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC))


::::Cool. If the links had a disclaimer as you mention, I'd be more comfortable. I'm just wary of anything that even smacks of ], and want to protect the article from AfD hunters. -- ] <sup>]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>]</sup> 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Cool. If the links had a disclaimer as you mention, I'd be more comfortable. I'm just wary of anything that even smacks of ], and want to protect the article from AfD hunters. -- ] <sup>]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>]</sup> 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:27, 2 January 2007

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 23 enigma. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 23 enigma at the Reference desk.
WikiProject iconParanormal Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 23 enigma article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1

July 2006 Cleanup

I added and moved and deleted a bunch of stuff, and it didn't help much. This page needs a lot of work and probably *is* mostly unfit for encyclopedic inclusion. It can be a useful link, though, from Burroughs, Wilson, Crowley, Discordianism, et al. The 23 Enigma, and the multiple ways of looking at it, plays an important role in these philosophies; this article's history illustrates well just how much power and division such a simple idea can provoke. However, the lengthy and unwieldy list really does belong on a blog or discussion page, not in an encyclopedia article. I didn't have the heart to delete all those beautiful ramblings, so I cleaned them up some and left them all for someone else to deal with. Matheson 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

October 2006 deletion debate

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The 23 enigma

Earth's Day = 23 Hours and 56 Minutes per rotation

Earth's Day is really 23 Hours and 56 Minutes per rotation, not exactly 24 Hours. The reason for Leap Year.
Leap years compensate for earth revolution period (~365.24 days). Leap seconds compensate for earth rotational variations (~+1 sec. every 18 months). Also, hours were originally defined as 1/24 of a day, so the rotation period determined the length of an hour not the other way around. Leap seconds are merely adjustments in respect to the standardized atomic time second. IOW, the quoted statement is pure BS.--199.84.45.115 23:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not BS per se, just a misunderstanding. 23 hours 56 minutes is the time it takes the Earth to rotate (sideral day). However, the solar day is exactly 24 hours by definition. Nik42 08:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
... all a bit coincidental in my opinion. I was with you on the blood taking 23 seconds to circulate (although that would most definatly vary from person to person) and biorhythms being 23 days long but you lost me with stuff like Apollo 11 and 12 adding up to 23 (so what..) and Shakespeare.
.......well for me to be at the 23rd st light rail station on the twenty third of june in my 23 rd year watching train twenty three arrive was interesting enough to get MY attention. Then to sign up for internet station #23 at the local libary the very same day and find ABOUT 23 By Jim Fournier online was a lot bit coincidental. ZS

Below is a sample of things claimed to reveal the enigmatic nature of the number 23. Some entries of this list of dubious accuracy (e.g., about blood circulation) or of overstretched applicability (e.g., "23.5 degrees"). I agree, and this is one of the interesting things about it. The "enigma" is rather like the subject of urban legends; the legends need not be true for the fact that so many people believe them to be interesting in itself.

What about tags to identify the confirmed/debunked status of these "facts", such as Snopes uses for urban legends? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18

49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What should not be done is to list completely bogus facts as facts. If you want to work out another systom of indicating which of these "facts" are bullshit or insignificant coincidence, by all means do so. But don't remove cautions about their reliability without replacing them with other cautions. - Nunh-huh 18:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you have the shoe on the wrong foot, Nunh. You're saying "This article is non-encyclopedic because it's littered with 'facts' of dubious relevance and of dubious accuracy. There, now I've made it a list of 'facts' of dubious relevance and dubious accuracy, about which I've made penetrating comments that cut to the heart of the matter such as 'They're dead now'; 'Alert the press'; and 'Except it isn't.' There, the article is far more encyclopedic now." I'm not sure why you think it's appropriate for us to be stuck turning your snarky whines into something that you wouldn't be ashamed to show a future employer as a sample of the quality of your work. If you couldn't take a moment to convert your "oh bullshit" reactions into something constructive, why should we? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because you should be ashamed to peddle falsehoods in an encyclopedia, that's why. - Nunh-huh 20:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The falsehoods were put there in the article by someone other than me before I even got to the article, so spare me this "peddling" business, please, and stop offering it as a defense for your own actions. What you did is you saw an article that needed cleaning up, and you took the time and energy that could have been used to do the needed clean-up, but what did you do? Offered little gems like "Alert the press", leaving as much if not more clean-up to be done on the article. Way to go, man; strike that blow against the Establishment. Fight the Power. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lost (TV series)

Someone referenced the Lost TV show. Hardly worthy research material. - Should the reference in LOST be added since it is a very common number in the show (and was most likely chosen due to the 23 enigma)

The numbers from Lost are NOT a direct reference to 23, and should not be included on this page. If we included the Lost reference; to be fair, we'd need to build a page for each of the numbers, which would be ludicrous. -- weirdoactor -- 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A follow-up: in my opinion, the references on the page should be about unusual happenings or circumstances/occurrences of 23, not occurrences that are created by human action. In other words; if a writer wrote 23 into a script, it's not worthy of mention in the article. That probably means that most of the "Occurrences in popular culture", if not all, need to go. They aren't, in my opinion, serving the needs of the article. Thoughts? Comments? I'm not going to start hacking up the article without some discussion and consensus. -- weirdoactor -- 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Except maybe the freaky deal or no deal occurance? - ANON 11/12/2006
Exactly. That's an "organic" (rather than "constructed") occurrence. Maybe someone could create a page of "intentional mystic number occurrences in pop culture, fiction, film, music, etc.". Those don't belong on a page about organic occurrences. It's like the difference between grass roots organizations and astroturfing. -- weirdoactor -- 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I do think that deliberately inserted references to 23 in works of popular culture are worthy of mention (especially if they are part of wider pattern of esoteric references - like Grant Morrison's work), however, it might not be appropriate to add them into the entry. As mentioned below it might be worth splitting them off to 23 in popular culture - I've worked on a few of these (e.g. Nikola Tesla in popular culture) and there does seem to be a point which is reached where editors of the main entry start getting 'nervous' about the growing pop cultural reference section which is round about the time the split happens. I suspect we are close to that point now. So to sum up: Such things can be relevant and worth of note but possibly not in the main entry. (Emperor 03:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
Okay. But if we split off the pop culture (the non-organic) references onto their own page, you might be opening the door for about a million different whackadoo incidents/books/movies/pamphlets/tattoos/etc.; but I'd rather they have their own page than be on this one. -- weirdoactor 16:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The trick will be not just to split it off but to define what it is and what it isn't - probably posted to the talk page (and added as a comment into the body: "This entry is for pop culture references to the idea that the number 23 has some kind of numerological significance and not just for things that happen to mention the number 23". Then keep an eye on things, removing stuff with weasal words or no clear connection. We can move them to the talk page and if people can justify it it can be put back in. Pretty much the same should go for tidying this entry up - it can't just be that someone was born on the 23rd or was 23 when they died - a relaible source has had to highlight it as being important and actually connected with the weirdness. (Emperor 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Oh, and "Franklin Delano Roosevelt contains 23 letters" is worthy?—GraemeMcRae 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, William Jefferson Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush all have 23 letters in their names.—GraemeMcRae 04:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Debunking

In the tags that confirm or debunk the collection of 23 related facts, much emphasis is put on the arbitrariness of the appearance of 23. For example, the tilt of the earth's axis is rejected because dividing a circle into 360 degrees is arbitrary.

The symbol "23" is also arbitrary. It could also be represented as X X I I I, or 101112, or 23 knots on a piece of string, or 23 pebbles. It is an abstract concept that represents I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I things.

To me, the most important fact is that a human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes. 23 is the number of "things" required to produce a human, that has a brain, that can design the internet, that can write words here.

23 is the number of things required to invent the symbol "23" that represents the number of things required to invent the symbol.

i agree. the quantity of 23 is important, however the number is not. the 9-11-2001 holds no bearing, as you cannot arbitrarily choose to use '11' as '11' and '2001' as '2+0+0+1.' The undertow 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

23 and the illuminatus trilogy

After reading the "illuminatus trilogy" i started to notice the number23 more and more, a year later i took the book off shore to a drill ship that i was working on. We wre working off of Angola west Africa, i lent the book to a surveyor on board the drll ship. He read most of it but started to get nightmares about the book and so stoped reading it. Aweek later wile talking to the captian of the ship about the next job he told us that we will be sailing to an island off of Cameroon called Malabo, this ment nothing to us untill he tol us that tha island used to be called Fernando poo.... this was the name of the island mentioned on the firts page of the book, we arrived on the 18 of april and left on the 23, 5 days later check out the book by Robert Anton Wilson

  ........Nathrak.......


Deleted excessive "see also"s

I zapped the 'see also's referring to 11, 22 and 33 for the obvious reason, the least of which being that the links point to nonexistent articles. Zeno Izen 08:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


-The number code in the Legend of Zelda in the 'video game references' section is randomised every time you play, with a different message every time, so the 'reference' is probably just a coincidence (but isn't it always?).

Tool misdirect

The link to the rock band "Tool" took you to the article on "tool" as in hammer or screwdriver, so i fixed the link. --Bmk 03:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

list of 'mythic / legendary' references

Do others think it is necessary to have a point-by-point rebuttal to each of these claims about the ubiquity of the number 23? To my mind it is unnecessary and panders to those who would like to start meaningless debate about the validity and significance of each occurrence, also arousing the type of person who believes almost all of society is committed to 'hushing up' and denying the 23 phenomenon. It would be nicer, I feel, to start this list with one well thought out paragraph making the points about the arbitrary nature of the degrees of a circle, date and base-10 numbering conventions etc, and of course the likelihood or otherwise of coincidence etc in all of these and only keep the commentary to those entries in the list which merit further discussion. If no-one feels strongly I will try and make these edits. Via strass 15:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this is an excellent idea. My own feeling is that the article should perhaps be divided into two parts: 1) an explanation of the phenomena and a few of the interpretations thereof (e.g. hints of conspiracies, mere coincidence, power of perception, influence of past "observers" - Burroughs, Wilson, etc. - on present "observers" such as rock bands and film makers, etc.); 2) a list of occurences/observations, without justification or objection. This could lead to a long list, but it might be a little less cluttered. In short - no objections to your proposed edits. Good luck. Matheson 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes on my edits Aug 12

  • I have split the list of '23 occurences' into 2: the list of 'occurences and coincidences' and the list of cultural references. The motivation for this is that while having a list of the places 23 appears in popular culture might be interesting, many of these references are intentional, by artists aware of the mythical status of the number. That's why I have left a section 'cultural' in the main list, for things like shakespeare's birthday which is not a 'literary reference'. The list of famous players wearing the number 23 has been kept with that list for the same reason, especially since part of the conspiracy theory surrounding 23 refers to its link to individuals becoming successful. In fact some of these players are said to have chosen the number 23 deliberately for this reason (eg Beckham at Real).
  • The subsection of the mathematical list entitled '322 Skull and Bones' appears to me to be complete garbage, and to bear no link to the number 23 whatsoever. (The digits 2 and 3 unsurprisingly appear in many places where the number 23 does not). I haven't deleted it in the first instance since I am making lots of structural edits right now which others may like to look at and modify first. Obviously the 'equality' here cannot be exact. I am a mathematician and I am not competent to judge what is the unlikelihood of this identity occuring without the help of an all-overarching Skull & Bones conspiracy. I am however the sort of mathematician who is at least willing to accept the possibility that say, the angle at which the Earth rotates, could have been fixed or fudged by Illuminati, but to whom it is anathema that the value of Pi could be anything other that what it is.

Disputed

Added this number-theoretic breakdown, which I am now disputing. Can someone verify it and determine if it is appropriate?

"As a number with which to associate..."

Alksub 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Smallest number of integer-sided boxes

Anyone could explain the 23 is the smallest number of integer-sided boxes that tile a box so that no two boxes share a common length. comment? It didn't come across really clearly and the link provided doesn't really help.If this is referring to the squaring the square tiling problem, the smallest number needed to square a square is 21 and not 23. Could someone check/clarify? - fiveless 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm going to remove it. I assumed your suggestion was the result referred to. So if you are right it's either the previous best result or complete crap. If someone has a peer-reviewed journal ref i'll put it back. Via strass 11:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry having looked at the reference I think it refers to a different but related problem; covering a rectangle with rectangles, with all lengths different. Via strass 12:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add to musical references

http://en.wikipedia.org/Assemblage_23

MAJOR pruning is needed for this article

This article has become a textbook directory/indiscriminate collection of information. What has to be determined is a) what is worthy of encyclopedic mention and b) what is unimportant trivia. Do we need to know every instance in which a "23" is involved? Every sports uniform number? Every occurrence in popular culture? I think that by focusing on less dubious entries, this can become a more solid article. Thoughts? -- weirdoactor -- 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at it. In particular, I've removed Lost (TV series), since the repeated occurrences are not strictly a reference to 23, but rather references to one of the Six Numbers - there are also lots of references to the others (e.g. the flight number containing 8 and 15). Chris cheese whine 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Very nice work. I'll try to get some done on it this weekend. -- weirdoactor -- 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh. It's getting bad again. My Real Life hasn't allowed me much editing time here. Meh. -- weirdoactor -- 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth establishing criteria for inclusion? I am reading quite a few of the list (like "Famed Tejano singer Selena was murdered at the age of 23.") and thinking 'so what?' Perhaps the main list should only include examples that other people have thought was significant enough to mention (i.e. they need to all come with references). Same should probably go for the popular culture section (also possibly consider a "23 in popular culture" section if it gets too big in the future). (Emperor 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Weirdoactor, although I support culling the extended list of 23 references in songs, films etc (which will presumably need to be done over and over again forever), and also agree that not every sportsman with a 23 jersey can be cited here, it is at least quite a commonly remarked on curiosity that a fair few massively successful sportsmen have played in the 23 jersey, eg Michael Jordan, and at least one star player (David Beckham at Madrid) is said to have chosen that number for its 'lucky' reputation. I think some of these should be included here. Via strass 17:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Via; they decided to have 23 as a jersey number; it's not like "fate" or "the monkey's paw" FORCED them to wear 23. That's my point; the article needs to be more about "happenstance" than directed happenings. -- weirdoactor 05:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a more prosaic explanation too - it seems to be that Michael Jordan's success resulted in a lot of other sportstars picking that number thus resulting in what looks like a cluster (its not that they were randomly issued the number and it happened to be 23). Its worth noting that Jordan made his comeback with the number 45 shirt and seemed not to have been bothered by the change in number. (Emperor 05:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

23 and 47 related?

What about this? Can anyone expand please? "47 (number) - another number that is said to occur frequently in connection with nature and human events (and is also, like 23, frequently cited in fiction)." (In "see also") -- Dexter prog 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

47 = 2*27 + 1 this sounds trivial, i know. But it's important because 23 and 47 are at the end of the first chain of Sophie Germain primes. This is one of the few actually significant mathematical properties of 23. If you start at the first prime, 2, then doubling and adding 1 yields further primes up to 23, the last Germain prime in the chain, followed by 47, a prime but not a Germain prime, then 95, not a prime. hth Via strass 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice.

Looks like the UFO freaks nice people have claimed this page. *click* Annnnnnnnnnnnd, it's off my watchlist. Good luck. Have fun connecting 23 to Bigfoot/Chupacabra/Christopher Walken. -- weirdoactor 13:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been dragged back. So, beware, UFO lovers. Any OBPOV (Ooga Booga Point Of View), and I will smite thee. -- weirdoactor 16:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of the Beast or 2/3

2 divided by 3 = .666 <---------- ??? i say this has to go (delete it) to maintain any 'continuity' for this page.
2/3 is not .666, but .6 repeating or .667. either way, .666 is not 666, but one-thousandth of it. the number of the beast is not a fraction.
the 'number of the beast' refers to a particular religious faction and besides the fuzzy math, it seems exclusionary.
things that occur in 23 (the quantity) seem to be most relative. but taking 2/3 is really as relevant as 3/2 = 1.5, which is number of litres in the toyota scion engine. it is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with 'twenty-three.' The undertow 02:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also 2 other items from the 'mathematical' list have to go for sure. The 'fact' about roman numerals simply expresses that the number 23 in Roman numerals is made up of 2 tens and 3 units, the same as in Arabic ones. This is tautological. The fact about being able to make any number from adding 2's and 3's expresses the 'surprising fact' that 2 and 3 are the smallest natural numbers, except 1(!) Via strass 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
im thinking the pi reference is just as bad. there have to be a plethora of non-integers that work in the same fashion. 1.995 comes to mind.The undertow 12:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. As I mentioned above what this entry should be about are examples of 23 that other people have thought significant to publish in works which touch on this (not just random mentions of 23 or tortured "proofs" that just happen to occur to someone). I have added links to sites which are far more comprehensive than we could ever be and includes all the various jumping through hoops to get to 23. I'll go back through the Illuminatus Trilogy and extract the examples RAW gives. We should then be able to prepare examples to show the case people have made for this. (Emperor 14:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Trimming 23s

OK lets run through this and see if there is a reason for things to be in here. For starters I am reading the following and can't see why it is here but I might be missing something: "On Microsoft Windows computers, a line break is stored as ASCII code 13, then ASCII code 10. On Apple Macintosh computers running Mac OS 9 or earlier, a line break is stored as ASCII code 13. On Linux and Unix systems, a line break is stored as ASCII code 10." (Emperor 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Obviously, this is evidence that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs rule the world. Ha. Snip it. I don't see its relevance at all. -- weirdoactor 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Gone. If anyone wants it back then could they explain what the point is?
Next: "According to the Dr Pepper company website, the soft drink "is a unique blend of 23 flavors". " which is relevant/important because....? (Emperor 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
It's as relevant as the "Lost" info; and it would appear to be an organic, and not a manufactured occurrence. And it's sourced, unlike much of the original research that makes up this page.-- weirdoactor 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There's the rub. This entry is about the 23 Enigma and so can't just be a random cllection of 23s (or can it?) but 23s people have thought significant in relation to the Enigma. Equally the use of 23 in popular culture works are noteworthy (although not necessarily in this specific entry) when they are specific references to 23 (and possibly somehow invoking the enigma or at least cashing in on it). Its the bit in between that is the tricky bit to define. What about: "Famed Tejano singer Selena was murdered at the age of 23"? A lot of people died on the 23rd of the month or aged 23 or even on the 3rd of Feb (The Day the Music Died, although that only works in the American system - it'd be 3/2 over here in Blighty) but does that make them all worth mentioning here? I don't know but to try and keep this entry from exploding some kind of criteria is needed. (Emperor 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
A quandary indeed. One thing I'll say about the Dr. Pepper entry; they've been saying that "23 flavors" thing since before most (if any) people started seeing the 23 pattern...such as it is a pattern, and not mere apophenia, as I believe it to be. As for Selena, and Shakespeare, et al; maybe we need another sub page about births and deaths? -- weirdoactor 20:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes perhaps a List of 23-related births and deaths might be a reasonable solution. (Emperor 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

(un-indent!) I cut some unsourced stuff today. It caused me physical pain to remove the Burroughs story, as I am a fan, but it's unsourced, and anything I found while researching took me back to Misplaced Pages. I took out the "Other Media" section, because it was frankly silly, and I took out the external links because none added anything to the information in the article, or were just unsourced info. Let me know if I cut too deeply. -- weirdoactor 19:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I'd say a little too deep:
  • Burroughs - this is the classic 23. It is mentioned in the Illuminatus Trilogy as the principle source of all things 23. It is weird that it wasn't sourced. I'll dig out the details.
  • GTA - seems relevant to me - 23 and the Pentagon all hooks it in with the Illuminatus Trilogy (23, Law of Fives and the Pentagon). Its a more obvious culutral reference than some others
  • Links - I added them in because there are a vast number of claims to 23 and this article can really only feature the best of them. Those links provide more exhaustive lists of 23s that crop up.
Just my thoughts anyway. (Emperor 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Yeah; removing the Burroughs story was not easy for me. I'll keep looking for a citation.
  • I think if we start keeping references from video games in the article, we're going to have a hell of a time trimming the pop culture fat. I love video games; I play video games...I actually edited that entry awhile back. I don't think it's relevant. Maybe if there were a separate article just for pop culture references; it could have a home, but I just fought to keep an article that was being AfD'd (List of songs containing covert references to real musicians); it reminded me that we might need to only have "organic" references, period, because of the low opinion that most AfD "delete" voters of any trivia. If we start cataloguing every reference, organic or constructed, the article is going to get killed.
  • The external links had a) info that's already in the article, b) info that has been removed from this article time and again because it can't be sourced, or c) info that is just tinfoil hat silly. That's why I deleted them. Put them back if you feel strongly about them; but I think they weaken the credibility of the article. It's sort of like Misplaced Pages is pointing at those as sources as legit. -- weirdoactor 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still looking. I'm sure I read it somewhere but it might have been by Gyson so I might be better of trawling through The Illuminatus! Trilogy.
  • I agree about the need for a separate 23 in popular culture entry but for a different reason. I think this entry should be for the discussion of the phenomena and people referencing the phenomena is notable but a whole different kettle of fish. This should be where the arguements for and against are outlined and in this regard pop culture references to 23 don't fit (it would all get horribly circular if references to the phenomena counted as evidence for it - possibly very post modern and smarty pants but not on my watch!!).
  • Well I see it as providing a more comprehensive list of 23. Misplaced Pages don't necessarily endorse the actual links but we could always have them with a caveat: "There are long lists of 23s in circulation and they are collected (usually unsourced) on the following sites:" at the very least it would stop people trying to insert everything. What I'd like here are solid well sourced examples, however, there are a mass of other 23s out there and people will have to use their own critical thinking facilities to cope with them.
Just my fourpenneth. (Emperor 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Cool. If the links had a disclaimer as you mention, I'd be more comfortable. I'm just wary of anything that even smacks of WP:OR, and want to protect the article from AfD hunters. -- weirdoactor 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: