Talk:23 enigma/Archive 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 dikiebirds, plays an important role in these philosophies; this article's history illustrates well just how much power and division such a simple idea can dildo. 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 Wikipedia: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 [1] bullshit or [2] 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 ^t|c -- 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 ^t|c -- 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 ^t|c -- 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 ^t|c 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))

I've taken Lost out again for the following reason: The whole "23 Enigma" thing is for "phenomena" "related" to the number 23. 23 happens to be one of the Numbers that come up repeatedly in Lost. That the creators selected it probably doesn't make it relevant here, unless there is some rock-solid source stating they deliberately chose it for this reason (and why they missed out other common "weird numbers" such as 5, 13, 17, 47). All references in the series are not to 23 specifically, but to 23 as one of the Numbers, in the same way as 4, 8, 15, 16 and 42 are referenced. Chris cheese whine 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you can look at it one of two ways: They didn't know about 23 and so the fact that it crops up is weird or they deliberately placed it in which makes it worthy of mention. As I've said above it might just not make it worthy of mentioning in this specific entry and a split may be in order. (Emperor 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Again the Lost references have been added (a couple of times) and removed. It is at least as valid as any other work specifically referencing the idea of 23 (at least half the entires "Occurrences in popular culture") and taking it out seems awfully arbitary especially as it is currently a popular series and will keep popping (with good justification). If we applied the criteria used for justifying its removal the whole section really has to go. The only solution I can see is the one above - create a separate entry so the appearances of 23 is separate from pop culture references to it (which makes sense). (Emperor 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Oh, and "Franklin Delano Roosevelt contains 23 letters" is worthy?—GraemeMcRae^talk 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^talk 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.' [(9+11+2+0+0+1=23) theory]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/wiki/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 ^t|c -- 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 ^t|c -- 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 ^t|c -- 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 ^t|c 05:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a more prosaic explanation too [1] [2] - 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 ^t|c 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 ^t|c 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 ^t|c 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". [3]" 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 ^t|c 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 ^t|c 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^t|c 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 Wikipedia is pointing at those as sources as legit. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 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. Wikipedia 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 ^t|c 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that there are a vast number of 23s out there and: a) we should aknowledge t b) we can't include them all c) while some of them are basically true (9/11/2001 = 9+11+2+1 = 23). I suspect having them (with suitable caveats) might help avoid "23 bloat" which would be sure to get things deleted. (Emperor 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

My problem with "9/11/2001 = 9+11+2+1 = 23" is that "11" is counted as a single number; which goes against the way you would normally break down such a date. I'd do it like this: 9+1+1+2+1 = 14; 1+4 = 5; which is, incidentally the same number one gets when you do the problem the other way, but add the 2 & 3 together. That actually might go along with the Law of Fives and the Pentagon; but then you have the Pentagon within a 9/11 math conspiracy reference...and at that point, we might as well start selling tinfoil ourselves. It's a fine line between "encyclopedic" and "collection of weird-ass shit". Before long, the article might as well re-direct to apophenia. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

9/11 references vs. math & numerology & logic

Okay. I'll try to keep this civil. I may fail.

09/11/2001.

9 + 1 + 1^* + 2 + 1 = 14; 1 + 4 = 5. NOT 23.

^* NOT 9 + 11, that's not how math or numerology works.

From a recent edit:

The World Trade Center attacks happened on September 11, 2001 (9/11 = 20) on a Tuesday, the 3rd day of the week (9/11 = 20 + 3 = 23)

9/11 seems to indicate 9 divided by 11...which is 0.81818181818181818181818181818182. Try again.

If you mean 9 + 11 = 20; and Tuesday being the third (3) day of the week, then you get 23; but you STILL have to add the 2 + 3, which equals....FIVE. This is the 23 (numerology) article, NOT the 5 (numerology) article. Not the "9/11 was caused by the CIA in conjunction with the monkeys who live in my head" article. Uhnkay? Awesome. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this does seem to be the most popular of what I think of as "obvious" 23 sums. Most of the just seem to involve jumping through hoops to find the right way to get to 23 (as 9/11/2001 can be added up various different ways arriving at different numbers and then you pick the path that gets you to 23). We should try and avoid these unless someone has published something prominently idnetifying this as significant. (Emperor 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Delisting

Someone posted a laundry list warning on the front page. Now while the pop culture references seem to work as a list I have suggested above that we split them off into a separate article.

The rest of the article would work better with fewer lists: it makes for better flow and also means that it is harder for people to drop in their favourite 23 (which usually seem to to be of the "obvious" but insignificant variety - see section above).

I'm not sure if it is worth sandboxing but I'd suggest expanding on various paragraphs and using the best examples from "A 23 enigma list". So make the second paragraph the core of a section "Origins" and bring in its appearance in Burroughs Dutch Schultz book then quoting the section in the Illuminatus Trilogy where Wilson and Shea pick up the ball and run with it. Then mention Principia Discordia and the like (throw in years of publication so people can see the development). Then have "The case for 23" with prominent examples that people have published on as being significant for the case of 23. Then have "Apohenia" which takes paragraphs 2 and 3.

As I've said we can't possibly have a comprehensive list of 23s (for practical reasons and because much of them aren't verifiable) so we break things down so it takes about the way it came into the public conciousness, the main examples used to support the case and a more natural explanation for it. This would focus this entry on the phenomena of 23 - we split of pop culture references to 23 (which is notable but isn't relevant to the nature of the phenomena) and we link to sites with more comprehensive lists of 23 with suitable caveats about them being largely unsourced (I think you can catch up on this latter aspect on weirdactors talk page).

I also think that if we do this we might need to added hidden comments to each section suggesting people think carefully before adding their favourite 23 example in (especially where it is of the "obvious but not significant" variety mentioned above) and that it might be worth running it past the talk page first. What we really want to avoid are the same examples being added in and removed all the time - removing lists will, hopefully, reduce this problem but not eliminate it.

Thoughts? (Emperor 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Alban Berg and 23

first time writing on here, I cannot find anything anywhere about Alban Berg the composer and his obsession with 23. His piece the Lyric Suite is full of refferences. George Perle wrote a book about the lyric suite and included the annotated score that Berg gave to his mistress Hannah Fuchs detailing where the 23's and tens were, among other things. He thought 23 was his # and 10 was hers. Perle talks alot about this. I wrote a college term paper about this. I think it should be mentioned somewhere. Maybe there just aren't to many Berg fans out there. Also when Berg died the number 23 was there, another example of confirmation bias or something perhaps. <http://www.geocities.com/al6an6erg/lyric.html> This is not a great source, but it does mention this. If I can find my paper I will list some more refferences. Also I believe this example of 23 to be important since it predates the Robert Anton Wilson bits. Berg wrote this piece in the 20's maybe ? more historical, not simply a response to Wilson. Like my personal 23 incident a band out of San Diego called the K23 Orchestra <http://www.k23orchestra.com/> which is merely a reference to a Tom Robbins novel Jitterbug Perfume and K23 in that book. (Jeremyveggiebass 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

If you can properly source it then add it in. It sounds interesting. (Emperor 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Artist/ Band Names

Many artists and bands names (Tupac, Pablo Picasso, Eazy E, UNKLE, Dr. Dre, etc.) contain 5 letters (2+3=5, 23). It is worthy to mention that many of these artists are rappers, some have died, and/or have made major contributions to their specialty; whether it be art or music. Does this fall under the 23 enigma?

Also, a previous post mentioned the presidential names that consist of 23 letters (Exp. Franklin Delano Roosevelt) that may constitute for the enigma.

Endtro 20:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

5 does not equal 23. I don't care how its rationalized. EvilCouch 14:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a well circulated connection: "Discordians regard this as a corollary of the Law of Fives". That said the above information isn't worth noting here and won't fly in the Law of Fives section so... (Emperor 14:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Possibly source

A big 23 article but it does run fast and loose with the examples [4] so I'll throw it in for perusal and not add it it. (Emperor 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Finding 23 where there is no 23

Am I the only who thinks it is kind of pointless to desperately try to find 23 anywhere? e.g.: "Anna Nicole Smith died on 02/08/2007 (2*8+7=23)" I mean, come on... I agree in adding birth that where in the 23rd day of a month or in year XX23, but multiplying to get 23?, come on... I think this should be removed. --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It is a cause of concern for a number of us. I believe I have a solution as anything else is bordering on original research. It can only be included if a reliable source considers it as being part of the 23 Enigma. Robert Anton Wilson has written extensively on this and this plus other examples based on the same principles would be enough to provide a solid set of examples of the occurence of 23 without violating the various core Wikipedia guidelines like verfiability and notability. Equally (as discussed above) pop culture references need to be split off to their own entry as they don't have any bearing on the enigma and it can get horrible circular if they are considered as such. So yes - remove it. (Emperor 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Cleveland Torso Murderer

The Cleveland Torso Murderer's first two victims were found on September 23rd, 1935. Victim 7 was found on February 23rd, 1937. His last three victims were found in 1938 (1+9+3+8=23); one on April 8th, the other two on August 16th. None of the murderer's victims were ever found on their exact date of death, but rather 2-3 days to a year later in some cases. It is unknown what day the victims actually died, so it is referred to as the day they were found by the police. It should be noted that director David Fincher is making a movie (due to come out winter of 2007) about this murderer and the case surrounding it.
I was unsure as to where to put these dates and if they fitted within the "Deaths" category, so these facts are currently in the date of death's articles (Sept. 23, Feb. 23, 1938) linked within the 23 article. --Endtro 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that 1+9+3+8 = 23? 70.82.7.156 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's actually about the 3 victims and april being the 4 month of the year and the day august 16th. 3+4+16=23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.181.140 (talk) 14:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

another thing

what about this, the war in iraq began march 23, 2003 at exactly 2:30 pm

No, it didn't. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on 19 March, 2003 and was officially announced a bit later on the 20th. Quit making up stuff. EvilCouch 10:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So it was announced 3/20/2003, there are a couple of 23's peeking out of that. 12.106.111.10 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I added the OR and Unreferenced tags. I think it's self-explanatory. This page has a LOT of random examples of the appearance of permutations of the number 23, which have been synthesized by editors (the very definition of OR) into a larger meaning, without any references. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

23 Enigma is not the same as 23 numerology

I vote this page should be deleted. It's complete and utter nonsense.

If it were to be cleaned up it should deal with the concept of the title - specifically why the number 23 is a significant number in some peoples opinion. This useless insane trivia being posted here is pathetic.

If the article is about the "23 enigma" it should discuss how some people will make every attempt to link any data they can find to the number 23. Specific instances ad-nauseum are not required.

I'll attempt a cleanup, but this is pretty bad. --66.129.44.244 03:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Earlier I did suggest making 2 pages: one on the 23 Enigma which only mentions the cases people like RAW have deemed significant (as this shouldn't be a random accumulation of stuff which may or may not amount to 23) and 23 in popular culture which looks at the various references to it in books, films and music. As it stands this entry has been hacked back to the edge of pointlessness and refocusing it may help drag it out of the mire. (Emperor 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Recent deletions and bad additions in occurences

Over the last few months much had been deleted from this article, and much of that has been unknowingly and will eventually be restored with much clean up needed. This is now nothing to what is was before. 23 (number) has more. I suggest either merging this and some of its exellent, but deleted, history into 23 (number), or simplifying that a lot and moving it with some of the restored history here. Simply an explanation of the enigma will not work. With concensus, I'll be happy to do the merging. Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

...Hello? If no one else has an opinion in a week, I would like to cut much of 23 (number) and move it here, along with a very selective portion of this page's history. I can make sure that this won't become indiscriminate and won't copy everything there is, but compared to before, this seems like we are starting over. Reywas92^Talk 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No thankyou. Please do the opposite. If there is any salvageable content here, put it in 23 (number) (which itself should be trimmed). The last thing we need is this sort of rubbish spreading. Chris cheese whine 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Query re sporting coincidences

I don't think picking out a few interesting sporting achievements where the athlete happened to be wearing number 23 is noteworthy at all - there are <insert large number here>'s more where the person was not wearing 23. Do we set up pages for all the records achieved by people wearing number 6, or 28, or GA? I see the reference to Michael Jordan has already gone and, if there are no reasonable objections, I will remove the Super Bowl reference too. Secret Squïrrel 05:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Nature Section

As the number 23 appears in nature I added a Nature section and added a few wrongfully removed facts. If movie, music, and sports posts that are done purposfully because of the 23 enigma are ok, a few basic nature facts should be included aswell.

Phishybongwaters 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)PhishyBongwaters

The Point That Seems To Have Been Missed

"You have achieved Discordian enlightenment when you realize that, while the goddess Eris and the Law of Fives are not literally true, neither is anything else." - R.A.W. in Cosmic Trigger

Way cool quote..:) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Page number

Anyone have a page number for their R.A. wilson quote? I'll try to look one up for the one I added later, but I'll have to hit the library. Wintermut3 08:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible source

Fortean Times ran a repeat of an article on the number 23 in their April edition of 2007, it was by Robert Anton Wilson. Could be useful as a source perhaps? The original was printed in issue 23 ;)

Good spot. I'll ask about getting this online. It is worth noting it was printed on pages 22-23 ;) (Emperor 02:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

OK that is now online [5] and I've linked it in, hope it helps. Thanks for the nudge. (Emperor 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Carcurachudon Nimelemisis

Carcurachudon Nimelemisis is a Googlewhack. The only hit is this article.--QuestingVole 01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I assume that you are in bad faith. Via strass (don't have tildes on iBook keyboard)
  • Sorry? I was just pointing out something that looked like vandalism but wanted to be sure before I deleted it. You can put your signature in by clicking the signature button above the edit box.--QuestingVole 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image?

I just uploaded an image from Daria. Would it be appropriate to include it in the article as a use of the number 23? If not, I'll go ahead and delete it again from the servers. samwaltz 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

23 = Discordian?

"The '23 Enigma' is the Discordian belief that all events are connected to the number 23..."

Waitaminute... Just because Discordianism makes a big deal about 23 doesn't mean they own it or invented it. They just adopted it, compiled some instances, and came up with some theories, and i guess promoted it. People WERE obsessed with the number long before Discordianism, and there are plenty of people who are or have been so obsessed or interested and are not Discordians at all! While 23 is a very prevalent Discordian idea, as Dicordianism is rather a dis-organized religion, it is by no means required dogma, and can easily be seen as not particularly necessary nor related to most other core Discordian beliefs. Calling the 23 enigma a "Discordian" belief is like calling charity a Christian belief: technically true, but rather misleading, especially as a first sentance!P Elgaroo 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sequential

I think something should be said about the fact that the number 3 follows 2, as in 12345... and therefore more probable that these two numbers will show up next to each other than almost any other set of numbers. Any probability theorists out there? Sean 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

take a 3 digit number of decreasing digits, like 641, and subtract the reverse from it. 641-146 = 495. add the reverse of that to itself 495 + 594 = 1089. you will get 1089 every single time. there are "magic tricks" involving questions with very narrow answers, like animals that start with K, or foods that are orange, or multiples of nine, and sure enough, everyone in the room gets the same answer. what's totally weird about 23 is that aside from being a prime number, there's nothing too unique about it. so to have it show up so often, or in such notable places, from chromosome count to sport jerseys, makes people take notice. we're naturally drawn to patterns, familiarity, and a sense of magic, so seeing a number everywhere is normal, but why that number? i was having this very conversation in a bar decorated with "stuff" all over the walls (snow shoes, train ads, vintage albums etc) and the person i was talking to interrupted me to point out that behind my left shoulder was a small metal disk. stamped on it was just "23". really, unless you're a 23^rdian, it looks silly. but when it follows you around, it's weird x 23. came back to sign this 76.238.60.13 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

citation?

apparently this article needs a citation for the Illuminatus book. is this sufficient? thought i should ask here first, being new to this lark, as it seems this code uses a template which apparently need to be approved before adding?

illitrate 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why permission is needed to use a cite template, but it seems fine to me. I'd remove the empty sections and wikilink the names, however, leaving this:

Wilson, Robert Anton; Shea, Robert (1988). The Illuminatus! Trilogy. New York: Dell Pub. Co. ISBN 0-440-53981-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

- SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Pyro3k Michael R. Pierotti 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If this article is supposed to reference the 23 Enigma, should a few samples of the anomaly be referenced?

For Example: Add the numbers 1 - 22 together in a spreadsheet and you get the number 253 or 2(5=2+3)3

Why no mention of Burroughs and Captain Clark?

I noticed that there was no mention of the story of William S Burroughs encounter with Captain Clark which is cited on the Burroughs page as the origins of the 23 enigma. 209.248.160.82 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Biorhythms

I moved the following paragraph to its own section, under the heading "biorhythms," but have now removed it altogether, and bring it here for discussion:

A 23 day 'physical cycle' or biorhythym was postulated by Wilhelm Fliess, along with a 28 day 'emotional cycle'. By taking these numbers in combination Fliess was able to create the length of other cycles, for instance the length of a year.

First of all, this is unreferenced (and I found no reference for it in the Fliess article, either), it seems rather silly, and I am not sure it is truly relevant to the topic. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why is the 23 Enigma on the same page as 23 in Numerology? This is like putting Intelligent Design and Evolution on the same page. Does anyone intend to fix this? 71.89.8.194 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean further? Numerology is often used as a shorthand term for assigning a significance to a number and looking for occurrences of it, which is exactly what the 23 enigma does. If by your analogy you are implying that one of them is scientific, and the other (at best) pseudo-scientific then I think most people would disagree (and suggest both were pseudo-science/pseudo-mathematics). --Neo 09:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the 23 Enigma is a specific mutation of numerology that only applies to 23 - but not concerned with the number's significance or meaning (typical association of the term "numerology") so much as its perceived prevalence. So, it could be mentioned, but probably should have a separate page so it doesn't clog a more general "in numerology" one.4.238.21.144 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Example: Global Warming.-- S.Kohli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.131.137 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is being edited to death

A lot of Greyface's agents have been editing this once valuable piece of information and deleted about 23 * 3 / 2 useful references. Why would anybody who's intentions are other than suffocating human culture mark content in an article about the mighty number 23 as "irrelevant" or "original research"? Is it "original research" that 2 + 3 = 5? Do I need a professor to write it down first? And is it irrelevant if one regards the overwhelming importance of the first three primes and their meaning in connection to the secret societies? If almost everybody agrees, I will get all the important information that has been deleted in the past 12 months or so back into the article. It is a lot of work, but I obeisantly volunteer to get it done. Kalisti! Herbert heart 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm - No. Even if I believed that the '23 enigma' were a 'real' phenomena, it is not the place of this article to report all the coincidences which lead to it - just as an article on Nitrogen should not list all the nitrogen chemical compounds, an article on prime numbers should not list all prime numbers, and indeed President of the United States does not list every president.

And it *is* original research if I notice that, for instance my birthday is 25/01/1984; 25-1 = 24, 1+9+8+4 = 22 and the average of 22 and 24 is 23, and amend this for the article (even if it is not my birthday, but for instance the date of a major world catastrophe). If someone writing in a sufficiently reputable format (for instance a major news paper, not most blogs) notes it and writes it down with a concious reference to the fact then it isn't original research (but still doesn't belong in the article).

As to 'the overwhelming importance of the first three primes and their meaning in connection to the secret societies?' can you provide evidence for this statement? If so then *that* belongs in the article a lot more than some random trivia that by a convoluted series of mathematical operations one can make the date I last ate Pizza equal 23. --Neo 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If your birthday is "25/01/1984; 25-1 = 24, 1+9+8+4 = 22", then that makes me suspicious because you are probably from another planet. Besides, your statement indicates that you desire only proven facts in an article about the number "23", which sounds like one-hand clapping to me. Better to remove the article altogether, then. People that clean articles like this one are a myth to me, if at least they would collect all the valuable hints on a separate page be it within or without Wikipedia. As it is, I have to scan the history completely, pick up all the good stuff and compile it again. I will have to write a program for that. I can understand that it is undesirable to have irrelevant data or original research in about any article but who is seriously going to say "this is relevant" and "this not relevant" in an article about the 23 enigma??? Herbert heart 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not into the whole 23 craze but i have to agree with the birthday guy that statistical information and rash opinions should not be put on the page. Maybe a link to another website with that information would be acceptable however if it was added to the page here it might ruin the integrity of the site. Lets try and be as non-biased as possible.--Shortpride33 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But, isn't 25/01/1984 the UK standard for date? January 25, 1984 isn't that unusual otherwise. Centrisian (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost

There seems to be too much detail in the Lost paragraph. Perhaps it should be trimmed, and/or references provided that each of the 23's is notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is all original research. The other items in the "cultural references" section are unreferenced, which is certainly a problem, but they are, at least, direct allusions to the enigma, inspired by either William S. Burroughs or Robert Anton Wilson. There is no evidence that all these appearances of 23 in Lost are meaningful or intentional. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)