# Talk:616 (number)

WikiProject Numbers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Is there no explanation about how the papyrus worded the number 616. Is there no exerpt or quote to pull from for this? And if the papyrus is not the oldest version of revalations (see bottom of discussion) then why are people even reading it? ~~CLH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.44.121.21 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to decuss the apparent many ways 616 is said, pointless.

The thing is the papyrus found ws sid to be dated at around 300AD which means John (who wrote revalation) couldn't have written what was on it like they say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.45.220 (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

## Clarification Was Added Due to Confusion Based on Modern Arabic Numbering

I added some information clarifying how numbers are written in Greek. There is no reason to revert it. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

Your information is wrong, or at least WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
χξς is generally considered to represent 600+60+6, rather than 6+6+6, as you claim. I do not believe modern Greeks use that system of numerology, so the error is reasonable, although not in the video you point to as a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
My information is correct & hardly fringe. I didn't make the claim you say I made. I said that a number 666 would be interpreted in ancient Greek thought as 6 + 6 + 6. Of course the text is not 666, it is χ + ξ + ς (600 + 60 + 6). And I added that to my paragraph to clarify. Any claim you made on my talk page implying that numerology or gematria or playing mystically with numbers is generally academically accepted is false; such fanciful playing with letters in texts is rightly debunked scientifically. Now the idea that ancient persons and modern can be found who practiced such numerology is of course true. There was nothing wrong about my citation, but I added another one just for good measure. The idea that ancient Greeks would have regarded 3 alphabet-numbers as having Arabic place value, is an error, as is shown by the texts that spell out the number of the beast in comparison with those that use mere letter-numbers. And it is an error that needs identification in articles on the number of the beast.(EnochBethany (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
666 means "six-hundred sixty-six" in English, and 616 means "six-hundred sixteen" in English. Thus it is patently wrong to say that 616 and 666 are not found Revelation. This is the English Wikipedia, so saying that 666 is not six-hundred and sixty-six is unacceptable. Please learn to count before editing the article again. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
However, if the "biblestudytools" source is reliable, it could be used as a source contradicting the "Nero" speculation which might be in the other sources. (I haven't read them yet.) The rest of the analysis in "biblestudytools" is WP:FRINGE, at best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It isn't using the best sources I've seen (Number of the beast has better), but I've been under the impression that the 616=Nero bit is common in academia, though not necessarily in the church pews and Sunday schools. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It's gotten worse.... Nero=616 is common in academia, but the "number of the beast" in Revelation 13 is still almost always "666". (I've seen it attributed in interpretations as the number of "Man", not the number of a man, as well, through multiple transliterations and then applying numerology. As Chebychev has at least 6 acceptable transliterations into English, I, and I believe even Biblical scholars who believe the Bible to be "the word of God" without typos, would consider numerology based on transliteration to be absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

## factual accuracy

You labeled The Number of the Beast section "This section's factual accuracy is disputed" but not in a way that indicates which facts you consider in dispute. tahc chat 22:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

## Relevance

I recently added a short entry in the 'In other fields' Section of the main article that has been removed by Tahc, without explanation. Let me now explain why I am about to reinstate that entry. First, the 'In other fields' Section is expressly provided to permit the airing of aspects of a topic that could be considered too marginal to be included elsewhere. At the same time, it is incumbent on contributors to make sure these entries are sufficiently relevant and important. I assert that my contribution meets both of those criteria. I pointed out that the number 616 is the value of the Hebrew word: HaTorah (The Torah), using the principles of Gematria. Note that Gematria already has a Wikipedia entry, as does Torah, which immediately gives weight to this piece of information. As to whether the information is important, it must be remembered that the Hebrew Torah is the document that gives the foundation to Judaism. Without it, there would be no such religion, and probably no such national identity. The word 'Torah' is by no means trivial and, therefore, the number 616 has a role in linking the Jewish identity to their own scriptures, using a recognised, ancient technique of their own devising. I trust that any counter-argument will be made clear. --DStanB (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I removed the text with explanation.
2. The 'In other fields' Section is not for indiscriminate information. All information has to be noteworthy. Some information can be useful but not noteworthy; the information I removed was neither noteworthy or even useful. As I said, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
We have articles on Gematria, Torah, 616 (number), and The, but not every set of subjects with Wikipedia articles can be put together into a noteworthy piece of information.
16 (number) plus 600 (number) equals 616 (number), but we don't have this in any of these articles because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All the parts of the fact do have an article, but together it is still trivial.
Since you have no further comment I am removing the 616 = HaTorah fact. tahc chat 17:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason I have not yet made further comment is because I do not stay online 24/7. I shall look into your given reason for inhibiting the range of information that is available in this article, and may come back to you (and whoever may be watching this exchange, since it is not a private conversation). What I will say already is that the information I am trying to make available is definitely verifiable, and seems to me no less relevant, and probably moreso than one or two of the other entries in the 'In other fields' Section. --DStanB (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is my considered response. First, I have consulted WP:N and find that it applies to whole articles, and is not normally relevant to entries within articles. More importantly, I cannot agree that my edit was 'neither noteworthy nor even useful'. It might be both of those things to certain Wikipedia users, allowing for different users having alternative interests and requirements. For example, there is a Wiki Project on Esotericism, which will eventually link to many articles that make a contribution to this vast subject area. Who is to say that the 616(Number) article might not be added to that list?
Second, the gematria value of the Hebrew word HaTorah is a number, not just a code or a label. Whereas the entry for Earth-616 in the same list is, according to the corresponding article, most likely to be a randomly selected label. Neither is 616 film based on a pure number, but on a combination of SIX and 16.
Next, I am not arguing for those two entries to be removed from the Article, since they may be considered noteworthy and useful by some Wikipedia users. Rather, my argument is that the 616 Gematria of HaTorah cannot be considered any less useful or noteworthy, and may be considered moreso by some users.
Finally, I am not immediately reinstating my original edit, while I await your final response. --DStanB (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:N is normally a policy about the topic of the notability of a topic for a whole article. None the less, can still be useful for reference. We may (or may not) find the essay at Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information for useful for the issue of topics within an article that is already considered notable. The essay, however is not official Wikipedia policy; it is advice and/or opinion. WP:N is Wikipedia policy.
(1) I consider both Earth-616 and 616 film better to leave in than HaTorah. "616 = HaTorah" is such an obscure fact it actually time consuming to compare its obscurity to other facts. Let me put it this way. The name of the topic of a Wikipedia article can always be discussed in that article. Since Earth-616 and 616 film have there own articles, the name of those two can always be discussed in those articles. If something (the names of Earth-616 and 616 film) can be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, it can often be discussed more than just one place on Wikipedia-- such as at 616 (number), when is part of the name of that thing.
While we have an article on gematria itself, but we rarely, if ever, discuss the "gematria value" of name of the topic of a Wikipedia article. Even when the article is about a Hebrew word or a Hebrew topic, the gematria value of the word cannot always be discussed in that article. The gematria value of the name of a Wikipedia article is not like the name of the Wikipedia article.
Furthermore, even if this were different, we do not and will not have a Wikipedia article The Torah nor HaTorah. Common sense and Wikipedia policy is to only have a page on "Torah" instead.
(2) While I consider both Earth-616 and 616 film better to leave in than HaTorah, I am willing to have both left out as a compromise, it that would help.
(3) You still have not given either reasons nor citations for why "616 = HaTorah" would be either notable (for lack of a better term) nor useful. Why would anyone care? Has anyone ever written a whole article or a book on the gematria value of HaTorah before? If it is so important and useful, wouldn't if be better to put it in the Torah article instead? Or at least put it there first? tahc chat 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding (3), it seems you have not read my comments very carefully. To elaborate, a citation is not needed because the 616 Gematria of התורה (The Torah) is verifiable from readily-available sources, including the Wikipedia article on Gematria. Notice, by the way, that Hebrew grammar considers 'The Torah' to be a single word. As for 'Why would anyone care?', undoubtedly there will be students of subjects related to Jewish mysticism who might like to be able to relate the Gematria of התורה to other instances of the same number. I, for one, would not like to pre-judge where the boundaries of their interest ought to be drawn. Yet that does seem to be the chief basis of your objection to this entry.

Regarding (1), I agree with most of the factual content in what you say, such as the sense of having an article for 'Torah', but not for 'The Torah' Even the Hebrew Wiki page for 'Torah' does also omit the definite article. However, I have trouble seeing how you get from there to the conclusion that the 616 Gematria value of HaTorah does not belong in the article for 616 (Number).

Regarding (2), please do not remove the entries for 'Earth-616' or '616 film' on my account. Nonetheless, I wonder if those two topics might be better placed in a 'See also' section. Whereas the 616 Gematria of HaTorah would be best left where I originally put it. That is because, I reiterate, a Gematria value is a number, whereas those other two entries use '616' not as a number but as a label. And the article is, of course, about the number 616. Therefore, I wonder why you would be more willing to sacrifice two entries that you (for whatever reason) consider relevant, rather than include another that other Wikipedia users might consider both useful and noteworthy.

I also consulted that essay on Discriminate vs indiscriminate information, but found it to be less than relevant here. The Section heading 'In other fields' must surely imply that relevant 'fields' can exist that may have no other connection than a common emphasis on the number 616 even, perhaps, where this group of numerals acts only as a label.

If you still believe I have not made a good enough case to have my proposed entry restored, is it possible to seek an independent ruling?--DStanB (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(3): You seem to be thinking that Wikipedia only uses citations to verify facts, but that is not so. Wikipedia uses citations from sources to establish that topics are noteworthy. For example, 600 + 16 = 616 is also verifiable from readily-available sources, but that doesn't make it fact worthy of including anywhere on Wikipedia.
You may personally prefer to not pre-judge where the boundaries of their interest are, but that is not how Wikipedia works. On Wikipedia we (generaly) have to assume things are not worthy of including, unless we can establish that the topic is noteworthy.
Also note that someone could write a document that lists many Gematria values, but that is not the sort of source that would establish noteworthiness.
Again, if "The Torah = 616" is so important and useful, wouldn't if be better to put it in the Torah article instead? Or at least put it there first?
(1): To summarize, "X of Y of Z" is always more obscure that "Y of Z". We have long standing practice to include "Y of Z" but no practice to include "X of Y of Z". Maybe if you reread my comments above, you can ask more informed questions on what you did not follow. (N.B. that 'The Torah' not being 'Torah' was only a side point-- not the main issue.)
If you still want to seek an independent opinion I propose Wikipedia:Third opinion. tahc chat 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, I shall defer to your position and maybe post this information elsewhere, as you have suggested. No point making a mountain out of a molehill.--DStanB (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If this information were noteworthy, then Torah would certainly be a better place for it. In my view it is also too obscure for that article, but maybe people at that page will feel differently. tahc chat 14:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)