Talk:2011 end times prediction

Congratulations

Folks, with all the passion here, we've pulled through an article that has been viewed more than 2 million times in the past month, with 2/3s of that being in the course of four days. It has seen a metric gajillion of edits, and while there certainly has been disagreement over what has been stressed and lots of fine-tuning, it's been kept largely coherent and worthwhile.

This is, of course, not the end of it all; we can expect to see coverage of the fallout for a while to come, with I expect some sociological research into the causes and effects of the whole hoopla. And we are likely to see some more hoo-ha around October 21 (although I expect it to be less.) The article itself is likely to need changing as this fits into history... I'm thinking we should eventually rearrange it so that the discussion of the impact moves higher up and the details of the formulation move to a lower spot in the article, particularly if there is good sociological science to cite. But that's all longer term; we've clearly pulled through the shorter term. Good work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So said Captain Obvious. - Another n00b (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Nat. It's been a fun ride trying to stay on top of this bucking bronco - by far the most-watched article I have ever worked on. I don't know why User:Another n00b felt the need to post a sarcastic response, but personally I think we have done Wikipedia proud, keeping this article encyclopedic through all the hysteria. (The semiprotection during the peak period helped a lot too.) It will be interesting to see what kind of analysis is produced after the dust settles - and by whom. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% agreement! I only wish other pages on similarly fringe ideas were as well managed as this page. I'm arriving late in the game here, but it's obvious to me that many editors did fantastic work on this article to keep it neutral and encyclopedic. Many thanks to you all! Dcs002 (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed an absolute marvelous work by the editors who managed the frenzy. It was phenomenal. Another great chapter in Wikipedia history Anu Raj (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Should have been deleted. How are pipe dreams and lies worth an article? The more popular and bigger the lie the more deserving it is? Check your moral compass. 79.223.154.236 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 79.223.154.236: Inclusion, in Wikipedia, of articles on subjects that are about pipe dreams and lies somehow implicates the need for Wikipedia editors to check their "moral compass"? Really? So, Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on (for example) Nazism, or any other such thing that was based on pipe dreams or lies, either, we are to suppose? Good grief. Famspear (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 end times prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525194535/http://www.straitstimes.com:80/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_671077.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_671077.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 end times prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525064617/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811120223/http://www.familyradio.com:80/x/whathappened.html to http://www.familyradio.com/x/whathappened.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526214751/http://www.ibtimes.com:80/articles/149971/20110523/exclusive-harold-camping-to-speak-monday-on-failed-prediction.htm to http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/149971/20110523/exclusive-harold-camping-to-speak-monday-on-failed-prediction.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525234326/http://gawker.com:80/5804846/rapture-predictor-harold-camping-apocalypse-rescheduled-to-october-21 to http://gawker.com/5804846/rapture-predictor-harold-camping-apocalypse-rescheduled-to-october-21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2011 end times prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familyradio.com/x/whathappened.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/la-me-rapture-20110521%2C0%2C1687317.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F05%2F22%2FBAKO1JJIK7.DTL&tsp=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/la-me-rapture-20110521%2C0%2C1687317.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710030937/http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_18331982 to http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_18331982

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Camping as not a premillennialist; Delete Elect from the article at that point

I have edited the opening of the article to improve its accuracy. The Rapture has no intrinsic connection with Premillennialism; so I deleted that. In fact, Camping was an amillennialist, not a premillennialist. The Rapture is simply the taking up of believers when Christ returns for the Church. Camping connected the Rapture with the End of the World, which is often NOT done by theologians. Whether or not the Rapture comes before or after the Millennium, whether or not there is a literal millennium, the timing of Christ's return relative to the Millennium (post or pre) is a matter of much debate among those who follow Biblical eschatology. But the Rapture itself should not be confused with these theories.

The article used "the elect" instead of the Church. Apparently Camping did believe in election, but in discussing the Rapture itself, the fact of the Rapture should not be confused with some belief in election. If a person disbelieved in "election," he could still believe or disbelieve in a Rapture. The Elect does not occur in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the only Bible passage which directly asserts a Rapture states "we who are alive." The We is obviously believers, members of the Church. Those who believe in election may of course identify them with the elect (if they are amillennialists), though they might postulate (if pre-tribbers) that there are elect Israelites who have not yet been regenerated at the time of the Rapture, but get regenerated during the Tribulation and never Raptured, but stay on earth to enter the millennial kingdom. So best just to leave "The Elect" out of it at that point in the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC))

PeacePeace, thanks for your comments. I can see you have studied this subject and feel deeply about it, but in this article we have to limit ourselves to what sources say and not do original research or put our own interpretation on things. What would you think about just leaving out that sentence about the Rapture - the second sentence in the first paragraph, the one that tries to explain the Rapture? We should base the article on what Camping himself had to say. [1] And he didn't get into theories or definitions of the Rapture; he mostly referred to his prediction as the End of the World. His prediction was simple: Massive earthquakes on May 21 would kill millions of people; believers like himself would be "caught up to be with Christ"; and the rest of the world would be left in "chaos and awful suffering" for a time. Note that he talks about individual believers being caught up. When asked who would be caught up, whether Jewish people could go to heaven, he replied "Anybody — it’s not a matter of what religion you belong to, but it has to do with a personal attitude" - including Jews if they accept "the whole Bible". I don't see anyplace where he talks about "the Church", and in fact these quotes from him seem to contradict that interpretation. He also doesn't use the term "the Elect". I don't think he was really concerned at all with this kind of theological quibbling, just with his prediction. Rather than try to interpret where he stood on this kind of issue - Church or Elect or individual believers - I think we should just leave that sentence out. It really isn't about his prediction, and people who want to know more about the Rapture can click on the link; a sentence trying to define it can open a whole can of worms of theological quibbling. Would removing that sentence be OK with you? --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between what Camping taught and general statements about theological beliefs. Camping spoke about the Rapture, but it was not in the context of premillennialism or pretribulationism. The revision I made was not about Camping's POV, but the general explanation of what Rapture means, which the article included apart from Camping's POV. The article as written indicated that Rapture was a premillennial concept (an error). The article should be clear when it speaks about Camping's peculiar intepretation and general statements about the Rapture as a theological concept, which might be deleted altogether from this article, though there is no advantage in doing so. Since Camping preached The Rapture, it is well to briefly state what Rapture means in Christian theology (puts Camping in context) without advocating for some POV as to the timing of the Rapture relative to other eschatological events. And in defining the term Rapture, "the elect" is an issue largely off topic. My revision does not manifest my "feelings," neither does it advocate for some POV interpretation; it is simply objective information, removing premillennialism and elect as unhelpful. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC))

We have to distinguish between what Camping taught and general statements about theological beliefs. Exactly. I completely agree. The Rapture is way too complicated a subject to be able to sum it up in a sentence. It means different things, and different interpretations, to different theological camps. Camping himself did not try to define it or say what school of thought he belonged to. Up to now the article lede referred to the Rapture as affecting "God's elect people," which you feel was inappropriate. You inserted “the Church” but I don’t think Camping would have agreed with that term either; he did not talk about the Church and in fact he urged his followers to quit their churches. What you have added is purely theological (even including a quote from scripture, which makes it sound like original research). It is not anything Camping himself ever said. I do think our best bet would be to remove that sentence from the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As to how the article should read, MelaineN, I don't think we are in significant disagreement. But since you made some assertions relative to what I posted, I think if you read what I have said objectively, you should come to see that there is no original research in defining the Rapture made by myself. The Rapture is a very common knowledge theological concept based on a very clear verse in 1 Thessalonians. Most of the disagreement between theological camps does not concern the Rapture itself, but its timing relative to the Tribulation, Daniel's 70th Week, the Millennium, and the supposed "End of the World."

If Ammillennialism is a school of thought, then Camping did have a school of thought to which he belonged, namely ammillennialism, though he also had a very idiosyncratic personal theology. But since ammillennialism is merely a denial of a literal 1000 year kingdom on earth, perhaps one might correctly say that ammillennialism is not a school of thought -- rather a POV on a very narrow proposition. Apparently he thought that the Church age had ended in the late 20th century. Thus it is probably correct to speak of the Rapture of the Elect, if one is clearly speaking about Camping and not Rapture as a general theological term. So you are correct that if the sentence is directly about Camping and not Rapture in general as a theological term, Church should not be used. From what I have read, Camping did talk about Church, but not about it being currently in existence in the 21st Century. I think that we are in agreement as to deleting the reference to the Church which I inserted and editing the original statement to make it clear that the sentence is purely about Camping's POV (& of course the reference to pre-millennialism should not have been put in the article the way it was). (PeacePeace (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC))