Talk:144,000: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎[[The 4400]]: I have removed "''The 4400'' is meant to allude to the 144,000" because this claim isn't sourced
→‎[[The 4400]]: restored with template
Line 20: Line 20:
==[[The 4400]]==
==[[The 4400]]==
I have removed "''[[The 4400]]'' is meant to allude to the 144,000" because this claim isn't sourced. --[[User:82.18.13.80|82.18.13.80]] 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed "''[[The 4400]]'' is meant to allude to the 144,000" because this claim isn't sourced. --[[User:82.18.13.80|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)

Revision as of 17:48, 4 August 2006

144000 (number) versus 144000

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Spiritual Israel

Regarding the sentance: "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)