Talk:Biblical Numerology

Somebody salt this page already, it's been deleted at least twice in the past 5 minutes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted the first time for being a copyright infringement. The second time, I deleted it because you had accidentally recreated the page in an edit-conflict with me- you tagged it for AFD just seconds after I deleted it, creating a page with nothing but the deletion tag. It happens, when you're as fast on the trigger as you and I are. But we can't speedily delete it as a recreation, because this version isn't copied from another web site like the previous version was- it truly isn't a recreation of the deleted copyright infringement. Instead, we'll let the creator give a try at writing a version that is encyclopedic and referenced, and if it isn't, then we'll delete through the prod or AFD process. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed in the folks jumping to deletion here. Really, I can understand concerns with copyright violations. That's a reasonable deletion concern. The current content of the page? Fair enough, it needs improvement. That doesn't equal the subject meriting deletion. To parrot Uncle G, there are other tools in the box. FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored the deletion request that was recently removed - it wasn't being made because of any copyright violation, but was a request under the Housekeeping category. Am I to understand this article is being merged with numerology, then? Sidatio 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good that the article survived, but there's still no work being done on it. I'm putting it on my To Do list to merge this article with numerology until such a time as a plausible article can be written. Of course, if the article becomes plausible before I get around to it - well, there'd be no reason to merge it, now, would there? :-) Sidatio 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Where would you like me to start? I don't know of any resources of the historical aspects needed in this article, but I can find quite a bit of information on the meaning of the numbers and then some prominent advocates of this concept. Pbarnes 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I remind everyone that merge requires consensus. DGG (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Numerology (2nd nomination): (emphasis added)

"The result was No consensus to delete. However, there is a consensus that the article is quite awful and, to a lesser extent, an apparent consensus that a good article could potentially be written on the subject. Further discussion on how to go about fixing the article and on a possible merge, if temporary, into Numerology should go on Talk:Biblical Numerology. Pascal.Tesson 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"

So, I guess we're having that conversation now.

The article desperately needs credible, verifiable references (we have a fair amount of external links, but nothing cited in-article), and it could use a tear-down and re-write to make it more encyclopedic. For all the talk about keeping this article, no one seems to want to improve it! I know we all have our priorities, but a meaningful edit hasn't been made to this article in over a week. I'm hoping that's because someone's re-writing it as we speak. If that's not the case, however, and this article comes to the top of my To Do list in something like its present condition, then one can only reasonably assume that it's not being worked on and it needs to be merged with numerology - at which time I will make a case to do so.

Now, that's a LOT of time I'm affording this article. This isn't a big priority for me - it's #3 on my Wikipedia list of stuff that needs to be done. The first two are heavy projects, and even they are low on my main list at the moment because of some charity website work I have undertaken, plus the fact that it's month-end at work. So, we're looking at giving this article at least another month to take shape. That should be plenty of time, right? If little to nothing's happened in a month's time here, I think it's fair to assume I'd have a good case for merging the information into numerology until a plausible article came of it. But, like I said - that's at least month down the road.

So, let's get to it! I'll be happy to help shape the article if I have the time, and if it's well on its way to becoming a proper article when it comes To Do time, I'll be more than happy to help out. If it looks like it does at present, though, it seems simpler to call for a merge - and I am a huge fan of Occam's Razor. ;-) Sidatio 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising to me that this hasn't attracted much attention, it's really a subject of somewhat esoteric interest, at least compared to more conventional subjects that draw more Wikipedians to them. If it's not being worked on, my suggestion is to try to get the attention of people who might want to do something about it. Occam's Razor isn't exactly a great way to guide your decision making process. FrozenPurpleCube 00:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• To each his own! If people want to work on it, they'll find their way here. It's somewhere on my To Do list, personally - I'll get to it if and when I get to it. :-) Sidatio 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would be the theory of Wikipedia's growth, a natural expansion by interested people doing what they wish. However, there are ways to shape that growth, which is the point of organized projects and development efforts. Me, I don't actually care to work on this subject, but I was just checking up on the results of the discussion and saw your remark. Since you seem to want something done though, I figure it's worth trying options it seems you aren't considering but may produce the results you desire. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but it's something to try. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, it's difficult to consider options one doesn't know exist, right? For example, today is the first time I've ever seen the "expert" tag. Had I known that existed, it would have definitely been something I would have applied to draw attention to the subject. Would I like to see the article grow into something? Absolutely. Would I consider nominating it for a merge if it doesn't? Certainly - I'm no expert on the subject, so in order to do the article justice, I'd have to do a metric ton of research. In the meanwhile, it would seem prudent to write a summary of the information here, stick it on the numerology page, and come back to expand it rather than leave the present article to languish in anonymity. Will I ever get to it? I honestly don't know at this point - the further I get into Wikipedia, the more things I find that hold a greater priority for me than this article does at present. Add that to my non-Wiki obligations, and you've got a brimming schedule!

I digress, though - I have a sneaking suspicion this is better suited for one of our talk pages. I will say, though, I appreciate the input. I might not agree with your assessment of Occam's razor and its place in my thought process, but I would happily defend to the death your right to post it. Again, thanks for the advice. :-) Sidatio 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, now you know there is an expert tag, and I hope you find it useful in the future. It may not do anything, but it's an option, and if you didn't know about it, all the more reason to use it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note - there is no way that there could possibly be a numerological significance to the number of notes in a musical scale as the biblical musical scale did not have 8 notes. I think at that time they were stuck with 5 notes. Early medieval music only has 6 notes. kterlep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kterlep (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Who the heck wrote this?

Sorry, I know this page is already under attack, but I just had to add a neutrality template to the article; right now, the whole thing reads like a lecture on one person's personal numerological interpretation, rather than an objective discussion. Minaker (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a synthesis tag. If it were a published interpretation, even a single person's viewpoint, there would be no origional research problem including the material. The problem is it appears to be an editor's own original research synthesis. Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't publish editors' own interpretations of the Bible. There really isn't any alternative to footnote-style cites to establish that each claim actually represents a published viewpoint and not an editor's personal view or personal interpretation of the sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the edit history, a lot of different people wrote it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pwnage8, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it was really written by just one person, or by a hundred, the point is that the article should be more than a collection of personal beliefs (regardless of how many people those beliefs have been collected from) that are presented as fact. As Shirahadasha points out, interpretive or subjective statements should be footnoted to cite which published viewpoints they represent; otherwise, there's no encyclopedic value to the article. My original comment was a resposne to the fact that the article, as it was written, was like an instructional manual on how to interpret the Bible numerologically, as if such a thing can be done objectively. Minaker (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this article has been merged, I do not think this discussion has much point, unless the intetnion is to revive the article as a separate sub-article to Numerology. This is not one person's WP:OR, it expressed views held in some sections of the world of Christian Biblical exegesis. However if the article is to be reinstated, it needs to be provided with a full set of references to published works. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)