Talk:144,000

144000 (number) versus 144000

I don't know how to change the box at the upper right. There is an error there for 144000 to base 20 (vigesimal). The correct value is 1G00 NOT 1000!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.109.168 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a capital I, not a 1. It is correct: capital I is 18, so I000₂₀ = 18 * 20^3 = 144000. Next time, please use the "New section" link at the top, so your discussion starts at the bottom of the page, thanks --151.75.17.33 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, silly question, but why isn't this simply at 144000? I understand the comma in 144,000 is probably not according to style, but the article without the disambiguation is just a redirect here. Obviously it doesn't conflict with the year articles like 2006.... -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but in looking at Category:Integers, it seems this is the standard way to name number aticles. — Reinyday, 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a comma should be between the 144 and 000, and without the (number) tag. Also, is it really necessary to state that "144000 is a whole positive integer between 100000 and 200000"? Does this actually help anyone? BenC7 04:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This article was titled 144,000 and was moved to 144000 (number) to conform to the standard way of titling integer articles. As for the intro sentence, it too is a standard for integer articles (see 100000 (number) as an example). It's fine that you don't want to follow the standards, but many people will disagree with you. The number articles are quite popular. — Reinyday, 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Any pages that link here link from 144,000 - not 144000. It may be a standard, but there is common sense too... BenC7 02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it for you. — Reinyday, 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone moved it back. — Reinyday, 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Between?

Isn't silly to say "between 100000 and 200000". For what matters, this number is also between -12323 and 34535345. Any objection to removing that statement? We can simply say "144000 is a whole positive number of significance in Christianity..." (Liberatore, 2006). 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Even without the "whole positive" bit IMO. BenC7 07:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual Israel

Regarding the sentence: "The 144,000 will be taken from "spiritual Israel" (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses)". This is not correct. The 144000 won't be taken from Spiritual Israel, they are Spiritual Israel, which refers not to all Jehovah's Witnesses, but to the 144000. (See the "Insight" book page 1234.) 12.183.134.48 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement explains that by "spiritual Israel", Jehovah's Witnesses are meant. The 144,000 will supposedly be taken from them. BenC7 01:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Born Again"

I removed "the 144,000 are born again" from the box that compares "Traditional Christian Teaching" with "Jehovah's Witness teachings". I did this because Jehovah's Witnesses do not use the term "born again" in the same way that groups such as "born-again Christians" use it, and it may thus cause a misunderstanding. If someone wants to add something about "born-agains" may I suggest the term "one of 'the annointed'", with a corresponding link to "the anointed"? Babuinu (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The 4400

I have removed "The 4400 is meant to allude to the 144,000" because this claim isn't sourced. --82.18.13.80 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I restored it and noted that it need a citation. That factoid is listed in the article on The 4400. — Reinyday, 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've re-deleted it. Once a controversial comment is made and deleted, the original editor (or some other supporter) should find a source before reincluding it. Otherwise pages just end up in edit wars. -- nae'blis 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please point me to the page that describes that policy or guideline? Thanks. Also, I didn't just relist it, I changed the wording. — Reinyday, 19:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, I'm thinking of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Be bold in updating pages#Reverting, Why sources should be cited, and Unattributed material. I suppose it's more of a guideline than policy, but it seems like a good idea for non-obvious "facts"; see also Avoid weasel words for why I didn't find your rewording to be more acceptable. -- nae'blis 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I opperate under the official policy outlined at Wikipedia:Editing policy which says to "avoid deleting information wherever possible." — Reinyday, 21:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Template

The Tribes of Israel template bears little relevance to the topic. Would anyone reading the article be likely to take a specific interest in any one of the twelve tribes? I doubt it. It should be removed; if anyone wants to keep one of the links from the lower section of the template it can be inserted in the "See Also" section at the bottom of the page. BenC7 01:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

what????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.33.229 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

144,000 > 144000

There's only one thing I don't like about this article and that is that it says 144,000 not 144000(and same thing with 12,000 not 12000.) I know that's only a very small, insignificant thing, but could we change it so there wouldn't be any cultural misunderstanding? Skele (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Christian Teaching

What's this? who believe in this teachings is it the priests ore what? does the church have some teachings in this because everyone seams to be baptized as a child there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardel Murzighiz (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with contents

I think the article should be for the mathematical properties of the number 144,000. a disambiguation page and a DAB should be put in for all other meanings, and a new article created for the Christian content of this article, perhaps called 144,000 (Bible). a lot of number pages have mostly cultural content, which i think for consistency and clarities sake should not be in the number articles. im not sure what the exact policy is here, and am open to discussion. i wont act unilaterally. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Noting the recent attempt to vastly increase the weight of the eschatological content of this article, i wish someone would respond to my above suggestion. i think WMOS for numbers suggests that the article on the number be about mathematical content only, with a separate disambiguation page for all other meanings, or at the least just brief mentions of other uses, with links to articles/sections on other uses, in the main (mathematical, or "x (number)" article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. In any case, the recent unsourced POV pushing for a favoured interpretation should not appear in the eschatological article either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And i agree with you. if and when i or someone moves the religious content to a new article, it still needs to be npov, and not sound as if the article was written by and for believers. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuwaubianism

It links here, but isn't mentioned on this page. Besides the info on that page, see also Distinctions of Nuwaubu, 144,000 Human Principles by Paul Simons and Nebu Ka Ma'at. Шизомби (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

proposal to split article into 2 or 3

I would like to create the following structure for this number: 140000 (number) would be for only mathematical properties, with a link to Maya calendar and The 144000, at the top, given as how they are fairly commonly looked for. The latter would be a new article about the christian idea of the 144k saved people. I think most if not all of the other references to this number, in popular culture, new age, etc, derive from its use in christian eschatology, though i cannot prove it, so they could go at the bottom of this new article. if that's considered OR, then i would create a disambiguation page, 144000 (disambiguation), for all the various meanings. probably a good idea anyway. I would like some feedback before proceeding. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• 140000 would have no article for its mathematical qualities. There isn't an article for every number. 140000 has an article only because of its context in various religious movements. Multiple articles are unnecessary. — Reinyday, 06:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• • thats a valid point. I would further suggest, modifying my original proposal, that we rename the article as proposed, with no article on the number (as there is an article for numbers 100000-200000, which includes a link to this article). this way, the article doesnt have a title that appears to be about the number, as other number articles are named. again, i wont act on this either without more feedback. thanks for yours. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose split. The topic seems not so unwieldy that it cannot be discussed in one article.
The largest part of the article likely should discuss "144,000" as it pertains to Christianity and the number's three instances at Revelation 7:4 and 14:1,3, but readers benefit from having that discussion juxtaposed with other indications of the number's significance (and frankly, the other discussion would be little more than a stub).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am assuming that this article does not need to be split then (few users made input to not have it done, and it has been sitting in the bin for 2 months), and I am removing the tag. --MWOAP (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Christendom?

Christendom is used as a pejorative term by Jehovah's Witnesses. I suggest use "Mainstream Christianity" or somethon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.11.230 (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC) signed by alternative editor --89.176.227.251 (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Christendom is indeed used as a pejorative by JWs; however, the word doesn't appear in the current article or any recent version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

JW using words like "Christianity" or "mainstream christianity", "christian world", "Christendom" as pejorative from their point of view. In fact, they considerer most of religions, including those what called itself as "christian ones" like "false religion". Why?

Christendom is sum of all dissembler churches in the world which falsed teachings and acts of Lord Jesus Christ and are, in fact, dissembled followers of Him. They admit false teachings, philosophy, pagan customs and unscriptural feats and teachings in the past and nowadays they tolerate all in normal christian life of people. Many of that is only accepting lies.

JW claimed several times only to accept "real christianity" and "true christianity" without compromises with false, which they consider as apostasy from truth and devil´s power through global society.

.... = Maybe seems strange or crazy, but if there are some spiritual beings, so all of that could be truth...absolutelly truth...not only partial...biblical christianity logically is from separate source

But the word "Christendom" is not used in this article as You noted. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The word isn't present in this article, so there is no reason for your discussion of the term here. Please note that Wikipedia shouldn't be used for irrelevant soapbox arguments. This section could probably be deleted altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I just explain You how that things do with them. That wasnt SOAP of any kind. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 01:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

---

144000 (number) → 144000 – Unnecessary number dab. See 100,000. Fish567 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest 144,000 as the new title. For numbers which are clearly not a year, we seem to be moving from the old convention that number pages were called 1234 (number), with plain 1234 reserved for the year, to a title with commas per MOS:DIGITS. Certes (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to 144,000 (with commas) as suggested above. V2Blast (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.