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


A google search of "cenocracy" doesn't seem to come up with anything. Can someone cite a source for the cenocracy explanation offered in the last bullet of "Politics"? (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just about to ask the same thing Blah42b10 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please view the Cenocracy pages at

The word "Cenocracy" is abbreviated from "Ceno-democracy". Cenocracy means "New Peoples Government". It first appeared on a double-side colored poster providing hundreds of examples of "threes". (I think there are about 2,000 copies left.) The word was coined from Herb Buckland's political philosophy that refers to a government that truly is Of, By, and For the people. Present forms of Democracy, Socialism, Communism, etc., are variations of social governing policies that do not permit the people to actually be in charge of (what is supposed to be) THEIR government on a day to day basis. Representative government models as presently practiced do not generally permit the people to vote directly on issues concerning everyone. Present efforts to remedy this situation through forms of referendum voting fall far short of the Cenocratic ideal where the people themselves have their own legislative branch that has power, through the people, to dominate the legislative, judicial, and executive processes, if need be.

Initial explanation garnered from an old web-page:

Cenocracy is a word that was coined to represent the idea of considering the need to look beyond the views of present-day Democracy for the sake of developing a form of social self-governance that will assist in improving our lives as well as encourage the growth of humanity as a species, whose biological, physical, and mental attributes adapt to environmental changes to a degree that some observers label as subtle indications of an ongoing evolutionary process. However, there are others who would prefer to interpret such adaptations to environmental circumstances as representations of a Divine guidance from Heaven and still others prefer to approach the matter from a view of proportionality that may or may not include the idea of dismissing all present-day views, instead of choosing to combine ideas from both Science and Religion. In any respect, all three groups can and do recognize the need for attempting to improve present circumstances, even though they may prefer alternative approaches.

In coining the word Cenocracy, I was searching for some measure of linguistic symbolism that might help in providing a simple mental picture of needed social change that not only conveyed a description of improvement beyond the present circumstances of Democracy, but also expressed some degree of overlap with present and past efforts at designing the best form of social self-governance. I sought out a label that would not appear too foreign to the general public's sensibilities so as to avoid creating the possibility of a negative attitude towards an alternative idea.

Cenocracy is being presented in a slightly larger explanatory format on a poster entitled "Declaration For Greater Independence" to be published (hopefully) sometime in (April? May? June?) 2010. The problems being encountered consist of finding a suitable creative graphic artist to help with the watermarks, drop caps, etc., getting various writers to provide their comments, and finding a printer to print a single large poster at a reasonable price. Imagine having to pay $13,000 for 5,000 copies of a (roughly) 5 feet by six feet double-sided four-color poster! Imagine also talking to various people on the street, etc., who say they have a say about the government but when given the chance to do so, they slither away. (Unless they are making money at providing their opinion.) No less, there are not as many courageous John Hancock's around as one might first suppose.

Update: June 16, 2010

The printing of the poster is delayed due to the running of a contest to find a suitable logo design that will also be used for a web page and T-shirts.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three world views[edit]

According to alan watts, the buddhist philospher, there are three great world views: Western, or life as a machine, chinese, or life as an organism or Inidian, or life as a drama. Should we add this?

Done. The Tetrast (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stuff for Wiktionary[edit]

I think most of the content under the headers Groups of Three and In Chemistry ought to be moved to Wiktionary, since it's merely a list of words beginning "tri-" and the like. PrimeFan 22:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If they get too large, we could split them off, similar to List of famous pairs. I'm sure Wiktionary might want a copy too. -- User:Docu

Prefixes for 3[edit]

I suggest something must be modified about prefixes for 3. See Talk:Tri- for details. 22:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

3AD 3 and 3 (number)3 – {This actually sounds more natural with numbers under 100; does anyone ever say "This happened in 3"?? Georgia guy 13:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • On grounds of consistency, oppose the move. It has been generally established that ### refers to a year, and ### (number) refers to a number. Radiant_* 08:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would be contrary to a well-established convention and make this year inconsistant with all others. Jonathunder 18:36, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Jshadias 13:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. There are far more links to the number than the year. Fredrik | talk 16:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a big change that affects anyone editing articles on the first decade of the common era. It should be discussed and agreed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) first.
  • Qualified support - It's true that there are far more links to each digit than to the respective years. I agree that this should be discussed at the MoS first. I don't think we should make one or the other the bare page; and certainly don't think we need to tackle the "3 AD" vs. "AD 3" vs. "AD is a criminal imposition of Christianity on my religion-neutral reading experience!" . Instead, I propose
    a) 3 (year) as the page for the year content, matching other disambiguation titles (since this *is* about disambiguation)
    b) having 3 redirect to 3 (year), for the sake of supporting auto-year-formatting
    c) making the links to the number (and the dab page, if there is a separate one) clear ata the top of the year article.

Discussion of suggested move[edit]

All the other digits are in the format "n (number)":

−1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

change all (which would be a VERY BIG project) or none.

Certainly it would mean changing them all. It's not such a big project; and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers team is fairly active. +sj + 20:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW are you familiar that using a "|" within a link eg [[3 (number)|]] it comes out as 3 not as 3 (number)? -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's all or none, so in the following, "3" could be replaced by any of the numbers 1-99. For consistency, I think it is reasonable to leave the number articles where they are (i.e. 3 (number)), but I agree that one rarely would refer to year 3 simply as "3" (where as year 2005 naturally could be referred to as "2005"). I think it would make sense either to move the year articles to 3 (year), making the article named just 3 a disambiguation page, or (probably a better idea:) to have a standardized text highlighted on top of all these pages, something like

This article is about the year 3 AD - for other uses of the number 3, see 3 (number).

I have checked some of the pages in question (i.e. 1-99), and they already have a reference to 3 (number) (or equivalently), but it would be neater if the text also clarified what the 3 article itself is about. --Niels Ø 07:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Not a chance that we should move one and not the rest - therefore this is the incorrect place to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The right place to discuss this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Rename articles in first decade of the common era?. Gdr 14:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)


a lot of the information under "in other fields" should be moved to 3(disambiguation) page. some already has,such as three stooges.This information does not belong in a page refering to the number 3 in itself.

This is odd[edit]

Surely there should be some mention that 3 is odd. Or the first odd prime. Or Something.

I think there should be some mention of how... there's this natural tendency to make the number of something three. Whenever you're making a point, it sounds best to make three of them.. and other instances like that... and 'counting to three' and such.

Yes, entirely. To some degree this is a systemic cultural preference: three is favoured in most European cultures, for instance, whereas some Native American traditions (e.g. the Lakota?) prefer four and use it in many contexts analogous to our three (IIRC). I'm not quite sure what to say about this, though. I'll add something on counting to three. 4pq1injbok 05:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three Primary Colors[edit]

Red, yellow, and blue. :U —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three Graces[edit]

Past Present and Future[edit]

Three divisions of time

Time is an illusion. As is everything else... Also if you take any line and pick an arbitrary point on it you create three divisions. (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should there be some mention of the false proofs (or wrong assumption) that 3 is Pi? Well, the ratio of a sircumference to diameter.


Just remember: "stoppest thou not at two, and if thou should count onward to three, proceedeth thou not onward to four." Monty python's rules for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. --DanielCD 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fairy tales[edit]

three good fairies, three wishes, three days to guess rumpelstiltskins name, three bears, three blind mice, etc... Look up: The Number Three In Fairytales by Herb O. Buckland for a more in-depth discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I changed the definition of a threesome from "one man and two women" to "three people", as I think it's more correct. You can definitely have a threesome between two men and a woman, or three men, etc. I didn't think anyone would object, but just in case, I'm explaining it here. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Lord of the Rings[edit]

I removed The Lord of the Rings from the trilogy part because it is not a trilogy. It happened to be released in three books but that is not the way it is written nor Tolkien's wish. It is to be considered as one book of 6 separate books.

Fair use rationale for Image:SicilyFlag.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SicilyFlag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add a mention of science fiction ...? This is a pretty widely quoted and understood term. PennaBoy 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pound Symbol[edit]

When I type shift + 3 I get #, which is called the pound symbol. This is typical of all US keyboards. Yes, I know the symbol is different in the UK, but it has the same name and same key. how should this be dealt with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talkcontribs) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure its the pound symbol on the phone, on a keyboard it is the number symbol, either way, I fail to see what that has to do with with the number three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religion and myth[edit]

The religions and myth part is a little over done. Half of it is the Greek version followed by the Roman version, wouldn't it be easier to to list Zeus, Jupiter, Poseidon, Neptune, Hades and Pluto together? In addition to that, theres nothing noteworthy or religious about a trident, even a God's trident, having three points, infact, I think thats what TRIdent means. The weapon and its characteristics are not unique to him, they probably have more to do with a fishing spear being more effective with more prongs, so Retiarius can't even definitively be said to be related to Neptune. Additionally, those three were not Gods of Heaven, Earth and the Underworld, but of Heaven (or Air if you take a Classical Elemental look), Water and Earth, the elements in which they primarily dwelt as was decided after Zeus beat his father. Hades had as much control over the metals hidden in the earth as he did over the dead (if not more, less rules with shinies, a lot of rules with the uglies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Science / Religion and myth[edit]

This separation of subheadings seems intended only to imply that religion = myth. The page for the number '3' hardly seems like to place to picket for or against theism/science. A more neutral approach would be to re-title with something like "In Contemporary Religion" and another head for "In Ancient Mythology"

Colon Three[edit]

How can this page not have a mention of :3 ? (Colon Three)

Also, notice at the top of the page it says "Talk:3"

As well, notice how it was last edited (as of this date) at 9:34, and as I type this message it is 11:34 pacific time (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Well, since English is my 4th language, how is three supposed to be pronounced? I keep saying it as "free". Dumb question, I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Three" is often difficult for those who have native languages other than English (I'm not sure what other languages use the "Th" sound, if any). Put your tongue just under your top front teeth (it should stick out in front just a little) and then blow and say "ree" after that (as in free), TH+Ree = three. Hope this helps! (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds really complicated -- well my native languages are Romanian and Hungarian: which 'cause the problem. Is there an IPA for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IPA character for "th" sound is ð (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the voiced "th", as in "these". The voiceless "th", as in "three", is þ. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For voiceless th, IPA uses the Greek theta θ and not the Icelandic and Old/Middle English thorn þ. þ (which comes from a rune) is used for the voiceless th in Icelandic and in modern renderings of Old and Middle English; likewise ð ("eth") is used for the voiced th in both cases. Old and Middle English texts actually used thorn (þ) and eth (ð) for both voiced and voiceless th; there wasn't a strictly observed rule about which symbolized which. The Tetrast (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the bus home from town just now I suddenly realised I'd put a thorn and not a theta. You are of course completely right - I must have suffered a brainfart. --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's okay. Since the return of ð and þ to the English alphabet is self-evidently the supreme object of desire, an honest mistake that leads to discussion of them is a special bragging right and feather in your cap and lucky like a four-leaf clover. The Tetrast (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Anthropology section has far too much detail, which as it it says is from a discredited theory. How about this be spun off to a separate article with just a short sentence to link it on? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

serious style issue[edit]

the majority of this article needs a complete rewrite. most of this shit is either irrelevant or misplaced (this is 3 (number), not List of shit that occurs in threes. People who do not understand the difference should read the Law of Fives (five times) and consult their pineal gland.) and the rest can be much better summarized in an actual paragraph or two. Yes, the number 3 (like just about every small number) is featured prominently in both nature and cultural ideas and themes. let's find some good citations for the existence of this phenomenon and leave it at that, or create articles for specific concepts of trinity. lists are for list articles. i checked the wikipedia articles for some random philosophers in that list and their "Philosophical Distinctions" are not mentioned at all, which seems odd because that's where they belong (with sources of course). i have plenty of 3-way philosophies (not to mention my philosophy on the threeway) but this is about the number three and why people go retarded over it. and no more tildes. they look horrible. X \' Z Z \' (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editors here, at whom you're cursing, have been happy with the tildes, they're quite convenient.[YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG - X] You haven't looked very hard for sources in the philosophical articles. If you think that this article should be generally confined to the number 3 in mathematics, then you should advocate changing the article name to "3 (mathematics)". There is no reason that common triads shouldn't be placed here. The Tetrast (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
You, Sir, are an idiot. A number IS a mathematical concept. 3 the number is an abstract entity, and the primary objective encyclopedic information about three the number is mathematical in nature. The same goes for any and all numbers. Secondly, common is common, not 'lets scrape up anything we can, especially from our favorite philosophers which noone cares about'. Furthermore, there is still no excuse for the shit structure. You want to write about how people tend to invent concepts in groups of three, WONDERFUL, but before you bust a nut all over your keyboard put at least some effort and write an actual article, don't just spit out a list with 4-5 entries per philosopher with bad style and think you're improving this wiki. (THE USE OF THE TILDE IN THIS ARTICLE IS WRONG. GO READ A MANUAL OF STYLE. NOBODY USES TILDES LIKE THAT EXCEPT 14-YEAR-OLD GIRLS.) When I look at the table, it seems that whoever wrote it made the entries fit with the idea of "triads". For example Marx's three "-isms". If I went to a philosophy professor and asked "What were Karl Marx's three isms?", or asked an evolutionary biologist about Darwin's "essentials of biological evolution", would you be willing to bet money that their answers would match this article exactly, and if so then how much? Why don't you take a look at 12 (number), which WikiProject Numbers identifies as their "flagship article". See how succinct it is? See how it doesn't go off the deep end? See how it actually tries to keep things relevant. I'm not denying that three is a number which people psychologically find appealing for classifications and divisions, but making a list of every such "triad" is not relevant to three the number. Have you even looked at this page? It clearly states that number articles should FIRST focus on the mathematical properties (again: number. number. NUM-BERRRRRR. Get it into your thick head.), and SECOND on extramathematical properties, starting with "# Most universal and eternal" Is the fact that there are three basic subatomic particles universal? Probably (Well, actually it can be argued that the atom is divided into two parts - nucleus and electron shell, but I can argue with myself all day) Is saying that time is divided into 3 parts, past/present/future, universal and eternal? Well, I would say that any linear dimension can be divided into a point and everything to the left and right of it, and we don't really understand time well enough to make such bold statements and call them facts, but this at least on the level of "absolute truth" to >99% human perception. (if you ask me there is no past, preset, or future, but i've been spending the last 3 months figuring out how to perceive time non-linearly) Are C S Pierce's "three normatives" a universal and eternal extramathematical property of the number 3? NO. It is a school of thought and has absolutely nothing to do with this article. You want to write about philosophical groupings of threes? Make a section, write a brief summary about how philosophers and mystics and religions have focused on the concept of triads and trinities. Link some other articles that are more relevant to that particular topic, and leave it at that. This:

Charles Peirce's 3 semiotic elements: Sign (representamen)~ Object~ Interpretant

Charles Peirce's 3 categories: Quality of feeling~ Reaction/resistance~ Representation

Charles Peirce's 3 universes of experience: Ideas~ Brute fact~ Habit (habit-taking)

Charles Peirce's 3 orders of philosophy: Phenomenology~ Normative Sciences~ Metaphysics

Charles Peirce's 3 normatives: The good (esthetic)~ The right (ethical)~ The true (logical)

Charles Peirce's 3 grades of conceptual clearness: By familiarity~ Of definition's parts~ Of conceivable practical consequences

Charles Peirce's 3 modes of evolution: Fortuitous variation~ Mechanical necessity~ Creative love

Can be easily reduced to "Charles Peirce was one of the many philosophers who used the number three in his classification schemes", whereas all the details, with their awful style and cryptic meanings can go on his page which I'm sure you're very close to. X \' Z Z \' (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I've thought is, that the article could use some judicious pruning [HAHAHAHAHAHA! -X], e.g., the "Cenocracy" thing. But your edits are tending now to scorched earth. I noticed that User:Arthur Rubin wanted to keep such threes here as "Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmetic" and he is a mathematician. [BFD, I'm a priest and a docktor. The "3 R's" are purely an American concept (and probably the reason our schools are such shit). Compare to Sworn testimony, which is criticized for being only relevant to the UK -X] The article should be convenient to the general reader. [Trust me, as a general reader I did not find your 3-page list of philosophical windbags "convenient" -X] If somebody wants to know about prominent 3s [Such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty's 3 categories? Give me a fucking break -X], what wiki would they look at? Well, this one, of course. You think that there should be spinoff articles instead on some sort of thematic grounds (a lot of it isn't really about the number 3 -- in your opinion). But there is no reason to break the wiki up into specialized wikis unless it becomes too long. The Tetrast (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main thing about the title "3 (number)" is that it distinguishes it from "3" which is the year 3, and there is no reason to get all caught up in the idea that "number" there makes it just a mathematical topic. [YOU ARE AN IDIOT -X] But, if I'm right, [You're not -X] then why aren't the titles the other way around? Why not "Year 3" or "3 (year)" for the year wiki, while giving the simple title "3" to this wiki? [Oh my god, are you confusing the word 'wiki' with the word 'article'? -X] Convenience of wiki links. There will be a lot more links to year wikis, and as long as the year wikis' titles are simply numbers, it is much simpler to link to them from other wikis. The Tetrast (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
At this point, though I'm not finished yet, I've added footnotes for many of the "Philosophy" threes which don't appear in linked wikis - more footnotes were needed than I had thought, but still many of the three-way distinctions do appear in linked wikis. No, I don't feel like editing linked wikis to include the threes. Somebody else can do that if they feel it important. The Tetrast (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
At this (later) point I have to admit that a lot more footnotes are needed than I thought. The threes that I added were for Peirce, and those were all in the wikis. I think that the reason that I thought that many threes were in linked wikis is that, some time ago, I checked many of the threes that I found already in philosophy section of the "3 (number)" wiki, and found confirmation on the Internet but didn't add footnotes (though I'm a massive footnoter in the wikis that I usually edit), and later forgot that I hadn't found the 3s in wikis. I wish I had added the footnotes then, this is kind of tedious. Oh well. The Tetrast (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I've been looking at some of your footnotes as well. So you scrape some shit out of a "Pocket" book, that's fine. But as I mentioned above, three is a number which tends to be used a lot because of the psychological implications. For instance, a classic marketing trick is preceding what you want people to think with the word "but". The MLK passage is a classic use of opposing a perceived duality with a third option so as to set it apart from the two. Again, I feel that it would be more meaningful, relevant, and useful for the general reader to focus more on how people use three to prove a point than write out every single point ever made using the number three. and that's my point. X \' Z Z \' (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 - Britney Spears' single[edit]

In the past several days entries for the Britney Spears song "3" have been added to this page 3 times. I've deleted them twice thinking this is simply WP:spam (effectively advertising this single). There is an article about this song, see 3 (song). Anyone have any opinions about whether it's appropriate for an entry here? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages[edit]

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Thank you for your participation!


PolarYukon (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation needed for following 2 and preceding 4[edit]

No clear sources are given for this statement. Please do so.

New posts are made at the bottom of talk pages; and please sign your post with four tildes (~). No citations are required for the statement in your post. Thanks Tiderolls 04:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marx's 3 isms[edit]

Please just get rid of that. It has no real meaning and is incorrect. Marx did not have some doctrine of "3 isms".--jenlight (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it doesn't seem right, so I deleted it. Deleted the "Woodrow Wilson's 3 isms" line as well - "Colonialism. Racism. Anti-communism." since I found those three things ascribed to him by some historian, but he's not generally known for having or practicing only those three ideas. The Tetrast (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Citation for bad luck's coming in 3s[edit]

In an edit I wrote in the edit line, "Added citation about bad luck's coming in threes". Imagine that. Actually, I added a citation about the belief that bad luck comes in threes! Anyway, the section on luck needs some references. I have found a bit of evidence, but not a reference, that among Vietnamese it's considered bad luck to have three in a photo. If anybody can provide a reference on the Vietnamese belief, it would be much appreciated. The Tetrast (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

In philosophy[edit]

Why the removal of almost everything in the "In philosophy" section? Some of the threes in there weren't philosophy at all (I didn't add them, only footnoted them), but many were. In particular, Peirce is known as philosophy's foremost "three-ist"; his threefolds do not generally just happen to be threefolds; instead they form a deliberately elaborated pattern. Other philosophers' threefolds, such as those of Aquinas, bring patterns of threefolds into philosophy (and into the aesthetics poetics, i.e. philosophy of poetry/prose, of Joyce and Zukofsky). "Conception, Judgment, Reasoning" was a mainstay in Scholastic philosophy and was echoed in Kant's 3 higher cognitive faculties "understanding, judgment, reason" and in Peirce, and is one of the best known philosophical threefolds ever. And so on. Tetens's division "feeling, understanding, will" was picked up by Kant and so has been influential. I propose to restore the table, with pruning of non-philosophical items, some philosophical items, and a case of a non-threefold (Saussure), as follows:

3-way Philosophical Distinctions
Plato's Tripartite soul: Rational. Libidinous. Spirited (various animal qualities).
St. Augustine's 3 Laws[1]: Divine Law. Natural Law. Temporal, positive, or human Law.
St. Augustine's 3 characterizations of the soul[2]: Memory. Understanding. Will.
Aquinas's 3 causal principles[3] (based in Aristotle): Agent. Patient. Act.
Aquinas's 3 acts of intellect[3] (based in Aristotle): Conception. Judgment. Reasoning.
Aquinas's 3 transcendentals of being[3]: Unity. Truth. Goodness.
Aquinas's 3 requisites for the beautiful[3]: Wholeness or perfection. Harmony or due proportion. Radiance.
Albertus Magnus's 3 Universals[4]: Ante rem (Idea in God's mind). In re (potential or actual in things). Post rem (mentally abstracted).
Sir Francis Bacon's 3 Tables[5]: Presence. Absence. Degree.
Thomas Hobbes's 3 Fields: Physics. Moral Philosophy. Civil Philosophy.
Johannes Nikolaus Tetens's 3 powers of mind[6]: Feeling. Understanding. Will.
Hegel's 3 Spirits[7]: Subjective Spirit. Objective Spirit. Absolute Spirit.
Charles Sanders Peirce's 3 categories: Quality of feeling. Reaction, resistance. Representation, mediation.
C. S. Peirce's 3 universes of experience: Ideas. Brute fact. Habit (habit-taking).
C. S. Peirce's 3 orders of philosophy: Phenomenology. Normative sciences. Metaphysics.
C. S. Peirce's 3 normatives: The good (esthetic). The right (ethical). The true (logical).
C. S. Peirce's 3 grades of conceptual clearness: By familiarity. Of definition's parts. Of conceivable practical implications.
C. S. Peirce's 3 active principles in the cosmos: Spontaneity, absolute chance. Mechanical necessity. Creative love.
C. S. Peirce's 3 semiotic elements: Sign (representamen). Object. Interpretant.
James Joyce's 3 aesthetic stages[8]: Arrest (by wholeness). Fascination (by harmony). Enchantment (by radiance).
Louis Zukofsky's 3 aesthetic elements[9]: Shape. Rhythm. Style.
Søren Kierkegaard's 3 Stages[10]: Aesthetic. Ethical. Religious.
Edmund Husserl's 3 Reductions: Phenomenological. Eidetic. Religious.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty's 3 fields[11]: Physical. Vital. Human.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty's 3 categories[11]: Quantity. Order. Meaning.
Alan Watts's 3 world views: Life as machine (Western). Life as organism (Chinese). Life as drama (Indian).
  1. ^ Augustine through the Ages (1999), p. 582.
  2. ^ Encyclopedia of Christian Theology v. 1 (2004), p. 54.
  3. ^ a b c d See The Pocket Aquinas (1991).
  4. ^ "St. Albertus Magnus" in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Eprint.
  5. ^ "Francis Bacon, Viscount Saint Alban", Eprint
  6. ^ Teo, Thomas (2005), The critique of psychology: from Kant to postcolonial theory, p. 43.
  7. ^ Redding, Paul (1997, 2006), "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Eprint.
  8. ^ Joyce, James (1914-1915), A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, see Chapter 5, especially (but not only) lines 8215-8221.
  9. ^ Zukofsky, Louis, "A" – 12 (1966), and Prepositions (1967, 1981), p. 55.
  10. ^ McDonald, William (1996, 2009), "Søren Kierkegaard" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. See Section 6.
  11. ^ a b Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1942), La structure du comportement, and published in English as The Structure of Behavior.

The Tetrast (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

tetrast, if you are going to be such a fag whine about your beloved C.S. Pierce go make a special page dedicated to his EARTH-SHATTERING THEORY that everything can be divided into threes. I am eternally thankful that a sysop finally saw what was going on and fixed the situation. But no, seriously. Go start your own article. List of three-way philosophical distinctions. Put a link to it up on your user page and feel proud to have accomplished something with your life. X \' Z Z \' (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the previous editor is unspeakably rude, he does have a point. Some of the entries in the table might have sufficient relevance to belong in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's a sad fact of human relations that blunt force is the often the only instrument capable of punching through the shell of idiocy X \' Z Z \' (I apologize in advance for certain individuals who are too sensitive to hear the truth) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say that that editor continues a pattern of flagrant violation of WP:PERSONAL (see Talk:3 (number)#serious style issue above, where said editor intersperses insults bracketed within my comments.
I've already pruned the table a great deal. What is the standard of article relevance for removing more? Those are mostly major philosophers, and the threefolds generally reflect major ideas of theirs. To some extent, it's a collection. But that's true about everything on the page, including first of all the mathematics info on 3 as well. By the very nature of the case, there is no mathematical field or specialty consisting of the study of the number 3. The Tetrast (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC). Edited. The Tetrast (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I don't want to split hairs, but my comments were made with respect to the content of your reply, not your person. I am sure that you are a wonderful human being, but the things you write on the internet possess a quality of their own.X \' Z Z \' (I apologize in advance for certain individuals who are too sensitive to hear the truth) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, perhaps, adding some scholarly comments (with references) about the tendency of philosophers, and probably people in general, to create 3-ness out of chaos, would be better than almost all of the trichotomies in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is wrong with the trichotomies? You're suggesting changes without stating reasons. The Tetrast (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I might add, that all but the glyph section could be truncated with, as far as I can see, equal justification in the way that you suggest. Have some scholarly comments (with references) about the tendency of the number 3 to appear early in some notable mathematical series, and so on, but skip most of the specific cases. The tendency of small numbers like 3 to appear on sports jerseys and be limits in games (e.g., baseball strikes). Then all except the glyph section could be compressed into a single section. The one section which usefully addressed the tendency itself was the anthropology section, which had a fine historical example of three-ism going too far. The Tetrast (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

all but the glyph section could be truncated with, as far as I can see, equal justification in the way that you suggest -----MY GOD, HE'S SEEN THE LIGHT. No, all jokes aside, making the philosophical implications of three-ness a major point of the article is only inviting me to come along and argue with you. My religion and natural philosophy is centered around the number five, which means you're wrong. I know you're wrong because I am a priest (and a docktor) who has spent much time studying the mystickal properties of the number 5 and how it relates the to number 3 (and the number 2 - this is very important). I think overall my philosophy overall has as much merit as that of Mr. Pierce. Whether you interpret that as praise towards me or an insult towards the late C.S. is entirely up to you. But ultimately the details of this philosophical debate have no place on this page. Now, if you asked me, a list of stories with the number three in the title also doesn't belong here. Maybe on the disambig page - "3 can mean.... literature: The Three Little Pigs, The Three Bears, Three Blind Mice, etc." Three Bears is a popular Russian chocolate candy, do we include that here as well? I can see how cases where the numeral 3 is used in common classification systems - such as the periodic table, or even positions in sports (the first baseman is literally referred to as "3" in phrases such as "4-6-3 double play"), but things like "three witches in macbeth" seem much more eehhhhhhhh. maybe this is an issue to be argued with the whole wikinumbers project. i only have issue with this page because when i stumbled on it some 10 months ago it actually had A COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS AMOUNT of unnecessary, marginally significant, and horribly formatted content, and I actually want this website to be good and useful instead of a godawful pile of crap. SORRY FOR THE O/T but that's what happens when you get me going X \' Z Z \' (I apologize in advance for certain individuals who are too sensitive to hear the truth) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SO basically what you're saying is this article should not reflect anything you disagree with? Interesting. I sure hope no fundamentalist Christians decide to... oh wait, forget it.
And for the record, you did insult the other person before you went on to say whatever it was you said about the content.
More importantly, there is no reason to leave Plato out of this article. I'd put Heideggar in there too. Maybe one more, three examples of the use of the number three in philosophical writings sounds apropos.
(And if you're going to call someone a "fag" at least mean it in a good way.) --jenlight (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's two against one, so I'm losing this argument. I won't be interested in this page anymore. There was already a page on philosophical trichotomies, so I'm using it. By the way, as it happens I disagree philosophically with most of the trichotomies, including Peirce's, and I don't think that the ideas involved fall into threefolds, though I think that many of them were getting at something. Just my POV. The Tetrast (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

== Content added by reason of notability in an independent article ==— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

removing "other uses" section[edit]

justification as follows

  • disambig link is already at the top of the page
  • the vast majority of flags have three colors, or are divided into three sections. the french don't deserve any special recognition. america was also founded on three rights - life, libery, the pursuit of happiness. are we going to list every single tripartite motto? I THINK NOT.
  • 3 (telecommunications) and the "3, the default VCR channel" moved to technology
  • "third time's the charm" moved to the lucky/unlucky number section. that section also needs some cleanup. specifically, the counting to three bit doesn't really belong there, or anywhere else really, although it does make an interesting point. on the other hand in Russian we sometimes just use "three, four", musicians count in to whatever time signature they use, and John Lennon was notorious for using unusual numbers (or phrases such as "sugarplum fairy") instead
  • Zodiac sign moved to astronomy (it is a constellation)
  • Trilobytes moved to biology
  • "leet" removed with extreme prejudice - seriously, as someone who does know of a time before the internet, nobody writes anything 11|<3 7|-|15 except for 12-year-old boys who think they are much, much cooler than they really are, and to encourage this behaviour would be a crime against humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRevXyzzy (talkcontribs) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I object to some of the moves.
  • Zodiac sign should be moved to some other science or philosophy, not astronomy
  • Leet should be moved to technology with the shorter version originally there (3=E).
  • I have some doubt about whether the French tripartate values should be moved into the philosophy section, but perhaps not.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • what makes the french so goddamned special? aside from their claim to be the dominant cultural force in europe and the world in general? how many other cultures or nations lump their values into a group of three? it's the magic number. if you talk about one, talk about them all. but if you do that, then don't put the whole discussion on this page. imho.
  • my feelings for the zodiac are not as strong, but even if astrology is not directly an astronomical topic, the zodiac is a circle of 12 constellations that are visible in a certain order in the night sky, and that seems astronomical enough to go there, in the abscence of a more suitable place for it. it certainly doesn't belong to any other "science" and it's not so much philosophical either - the constellations are there, even if our specific set and accepted nomenclature is of Greek origin and was probably completely different to the Mayans or Egyptians or Chinese. The zodiac belt was actually taught in my astronomy classes as it demonstrates how the positions of earth, the sun, the moon, and the planets change relative to the stars.
X \' Z Z \' (I apologize in advance for certain individuals who are too sensitive to hear the truth) 19:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, also wouldn't films that are named Three or some variation thereof be listed on the disambig page and not on here? JUST WONDERING BECAUSE IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE TO ME X \' Z Z \' (I apologize in advance for certain individuals who are too sensitive to hear the truth) 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this sufficiently relevant for use here? If we included all weapons which you were supposed to count to 3 before use, we'd run out of electrons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What other weapons or even objects or subject matter, portrayed in classic or widely referenced films, also involving extended scriptural references to and played out joke themes about the number that is the exact subject matter of this article, come immediately to mind as among the vastly countless and innumerable that you allude to? One would be a good start.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Extended scriptural references" and "played out joke themes" do not seem relevant. Actually, I can think of a number of books in which a protagonist, when supposedly counting to 3, counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 3 (bang); or 1, 2 (bang), 3. I think the former is probably a better (joke) use of the "symbol" 3, although not the "number" 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, Wikilinks within quotes are strongly discouraged. See WP:MOS#LinkingArthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plainly they are relevant because without repetitions, jokes or extended references or themes played out about the number that is the article's subject matter a lot of things already accepted for inclusion in the article otherwise wouldn't at all be there: like the references to Series of Unfortunate Events, the Rama series, Lord of the Rings etc. Equally their relevance asserts itself for the -exclusion- of certain things that would be too trivial or too insignificant or too inconsequential of that couldn't rise to amounting to them. So Jesus in scripture at the Last Supper prophecying that Judas would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed would have notability for inclusion by the criterion I assert as widely acceptable, and equally a random occurrence that XYZ character in some obscure novel has 3 marriages or 3 brothers or a three piece suit or 3 names by the same criterion would also lack that notability. So lets still try and start with one by name, eh, before I .. count .. two .. three.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may be relevant according to your criteria, but those criteria appear not to be consistent with the criteria named in Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Numbers in fiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Arthur, I usually agree with you, but I think the reference belongs. I would object to including every reference to counting to three, as the ubiquity of the "on three..." reference would drown out the article. But it is that very ubiquity which is being mocked in the Python references. It isn't simply an im passim reference, it is the main point of an extended sketch in the movie.--SPhilbrickT 14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retired Jersey Number Error[edit]

Charlie Gehringer had his number 2 retired by the Detroit Tigers, not 3. Gehringer wore 3 in 1931 only, but it was not retired. See for proof. Thirty-five years after Gehringer's career ended, Alan Trammell wore the number 3 for the Tigers. Trammell wore 3 for nineteen seasons. LVTDUDE (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Under the use of the trinity in world religions, a religion from the video game Zelda is mentioned.

"the Three Golden Goddesses of Hylian"

Considering the fact that no other fictional religions are mentioned in this section and the religion section is only intended for real world religions, I believe that this line should be removed.

--Akhipill (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In sports split[edit]

As a small step toward cleanup of this article i proposed merging several sections into the 3 (disambiguation) page. The content of these sections would be more appropriate there. Discusion of these proposals is at Talk:3 (disambiguation).

Due to it's length, i propose moving the "in sports" section to a separate disambiguation article, 3 (sports), which would be linked to from the "3 (disambiguation)" article. Please comment on this proposal here. Bcharles (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea, but, if it must be done, please link properly to WP:NUM#Numbers in sports for inclusion guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about a mention of 3 and its psychological effects?[edit]

In photography, it is well understood that the most effective photos have either 1 or 3 subjects. In writing 3 is used frequently as a mechanism of communicating a profound point, an author can repeat something 3 times. Any less and the reader might not grasp it, and any more it can feel amateur or shouting. The "rule of three's" is a common tool in an authors arsenal. There is a psychological basis for the number three as why it is so appealing, and I think it might be worth mentioning in this article. The 'rule of 3's' is also used frequently in marketing, in creating copy, and big corporations spend millions of advertising, so it must have some actual basis because it is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mersenne prime "power tower" and the number 31[edit]

This edit caught my eye. It added the number 31 into a series of numbers described as a "Mersenne prime power tower". I see that the series has been in the article without containing 31 since this September 6, 2010 edit. Also, I'm neither a numerolgist not a mathemetician, but I see that the power tower disambiguatioon page seems to say that the term "power tower" refers to tetration, and I don't see how the series of numbers given in this part of the article fits with tetration. As I read it there, tetration of 3 would produce the series beginning with the numbers 3, 9, 729, 387420489, ...

This seems to need a second look by someone better qualified to look at it than I, and also seems to need some rewording or clarification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"31" is wrong.
2^3-1 = 7
2^7-1 = 127
etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Half Life 3[edit]

Confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not appropriate for this article or subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


do anybody have idea?

I am surprised by your question. How can you have the encylopedia say, in its voice, that the "flat top 3" is the "most correct variant"? You offer no citation to provide a reliable source to back up your assertion. Not only is it original research, it is disruptive for you to continue to make such edits to articles despite being repeatedly warned and blocked for such behavior. JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is self evident if one know how to draw an envelope with one undisrupted line + /\ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't add things to Wikipedia articles when they are "self-evident". That is Original Research. You really need to read W:OR. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


All of the numbers from 0 to 9 except 3 show up in Category:Integers. Why is 3 missing from the list? Bobby Jacobs (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't seem missing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is now in the list. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem was just caused by vandalism which has been reverted. Sometimes, it may take a WP:null edit to repopulate categories. wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bingo names -[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A sole proprietorship is the most basic form of business ownership, where there is one sole owner who is responsible for the business. It is not a legal entity that separates the owner from the business, meaning that the owner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business on a personal level. In exchange for that liability, the owner keeps all the profits gained from the business. This form of business ownership is easy and inexpensive to create and has few government regulations, making it a more flexible type of ownership with complete control at the discretion of the owner. In addition, profits are taxed once, and there are some tax breaks available if the business is struggling. Sole proprietorships often are limited to the resources the owner can bring to the business. For these reasons, sole proprietorships are often most appropriate during the early stages of a business where the owner has little capital/resources to work with but also has few debts to pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect . Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect -3. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#-3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"−3" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect −3. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#−3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"-3 (number)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect -3 (number) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#-3 (number) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#꤃ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Girldz lo, 2600:6C4A:87F:C659:50A2:85C1:D6A2:AF8 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]