Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

We can divide in sections

I propose a division of predictions into three types: Past, near future and far future. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think simply "Past" and "Future" would make more sense. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

List was originally sectioned, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_predicted_dates_of_the_end_of_the_world_or_similar_events&oldid=429889555 Makes sense now to split as it's getting a bit long. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was the one who merged them into one list, because I couldn't see any logical reason to split it that way. Splitting it into Past and Future makes more sense, especially because it also effectively splits them into False and Possibly True. I don't think we need to be concerned about the list's length, though, unless there's some technical reason I'm not aware of; I'm pretty sure there are many lists much longer than this one on Wikipedia. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is strange stuff.

(1) "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."

This sentence seems to recommend expanding the list by making more such predictions. Probably not what was meant.

(2) "the end of the world or similar events". What other event is similar to the end of the world? It would seem to be in a class by itself.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Certainly not by predicting the end yourself. See Wikipedia:Original research. To me, it encourages adding widely reported predictions, predicted by others.

(2)Some items on the list are like The Summit Lighthouse, for instance, which is about nuclear war, but presumably not the end of the world or survivalist precautions wouldn't help. Also, the Book of Revelation predicts several stages before the actual end of the world. We don't want a scriptural debate, for instance, on whether the coming of Jesus will be before, after, or during the end of the world; anything like that belongs on the list. Art LaPella (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientists

Which ones? Sure current modern science says this, but look at how much science has changed in the past 5,000 years, much less 5,000,000,000. We need to clarify which scientists, and in this case, generally ones who are following the general relativity thought. Nickjbor (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Expand list template

Should we include the {{Expand list}}? I prefer my disclaimer of "It is a list of some of the more notable predictions in eschatology.". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. I'm also about half way through adding every notable prediction to the page anyway. Freikorp (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Does it really make sense to include Joseph Smith, Jr. in this list? Unlike the others in this list that set a fixed date, his statements was merely that it seemed unlikely to happen before a particular time, and was conditional on him living to a ripe old age, which did not happen. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Mormons are Millennialists (specificly holding to Premillennialism), so the Second Coming (LDS Church) of Christ is not seen as the end of the world in any event. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the Millennium/Second Coming of Christ are not the end of the world per se, they are the beginning of the end - the end of life as we know it and a guarantee that the end will occur. Therefore all notable predictions of the Second Coming/start of the Millennium are to be included in this article. That being said, Joseph Smith Jr's statements do not seem to fit the criteria for inclusion. Freikorp (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The citation currently provided for the JSJr info is a book by John Ankerberg, and in looking at the cited page using a Google preview of the book, it merely repeats as evidence the statement by JSJr that the Second Coming of Christ wouldn't happen before he was 85 years old. As even this demonstratively anti-Mormon book can't adequately support it's own assertion, this whole line should be removed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked up this reference myself. [1] "Smith taught that the Second Coming would occur between 1890 and 1891" ...in 1935 he declared Christ's return would occur 56 years later and in 1843 he predicted it would occur in 48 years." "I prophecy [sic] ... that the son of man will not come into the heavens until I am 85 years old, 48 years hence or about 1890." It seems to me that he thought Jesus would return WHEN he was 85, not just sometime after that, and the author has drawn the same conclusion. Wikipedia:Verifiability currently states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." After looking at the evidence I don't see any reason why it should be removed. Freikorp (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Stating that John Ankerberg's book is a "reliable source" for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints history is the same as stating that "Mein Kampf" is a reliable history of the Jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.43.130 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the actual quote: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face." [2] To infer anything else from this statement is a waste of time. It is clear that the author sourced in the article is biased and has taken liberty with the above referenced quote. Articles cannot be based on extreme sources, one way or the other, but on those that strive to provide information unclouded by personal vendettas against those with opposing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.250.170 (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pandering to Christians

The Jesus of the Gospels very clearly predicts that the world will end during the lifetime of his disciples. This list first neglected to use his name and only mentioned the apostles and early Christians. Now the whole prophesy is removed. Pathetic case of special pleading. The failed prophesy should be put back into the article, and under Jesus' name as the person who made it and was wrong.74.90.94.99 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

agree Just because it was Jesus who was wrong does not mean this should be taken from the article.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. There is considerable doubt as to whether Jesus made any such prediction. StAnselm (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian apologetics shouldn't be considered. Just because some choose to dispute it does not make it any less valid, their POV is irrelevant. Jesus is quoted as using the phrase "this generation" often, and it is clear he is speaking of his own. The text is plain, the failed prophesy should be included in the list. The person who removed it from the list is inserting a Christian bias into the article.74.90.94.99 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC) He makes clear references to judgment day, and he speaks of this occurring during the lifetime of people standing with him. It could not be clearer. It has to be put back in, under Jesus' name. St. Paul also says similar things, and his prophesies should also be included. "27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

-Matthew 1674.90.94.99 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, why would a non-Christian POV be any better? Are you saying you understand Jesus' words correctly, and I don't? StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that the text is clear and that you're advocating its removal because of Christian bias. Yes.74.90.94.99 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC) And the early Christian belief that the world would end in their lifetimes is also plain and hardly disputed. Ridiculous that this early Christian belief would be removed from the list. A blatant example of Christian bias.74.90.94.99 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Renamed

The previous article name was longwinded and impractical. 'Apocalyptic' can properly be used to refer to 'end of the world' scenarios regardless of whether they are religiously based, and also covers religious 'apocalypses' wherein society is significantly altered after the removal of 'the wicked'. (At a stretch, we could also change it to list of nutbags, but that would probably be considered unfair by the nutbags.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good change; I like it. Freikorp (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So do I. I was just wondering this morning what event might be "similar" to the end of the world. StAnselm (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Newton's Prediction

Should we involve Newton's prediction on this page? there is a reference on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2060s#2060 71.180.171.44 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - the article by Stephen Snobelen is a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

2800 BC quote from the Assyrians

I've removed the following quotation:

“ An Assyrian clay tablet dating to approximately 2800 BCE was unearthed bearing the words "Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common. ”

There are three problems with this which made me remove the quotation. One is that the reference originally given, a book called Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts, is a pitiful misrepresentation and a wholly unreliable source. The book was ghost-written by an anonymous writer for Jerome Agel, a publisher who licensed celebrities' names (such as Asimov's) and placed them on books full of plausible drivel that would sell because of the name on the cover. The book contains no notes, no bibliography, no references to reliable sources, and many of the "facts" in the book are simply not true. It's simply a very poor reference which shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia.

The second reason is that other reliable sources call the quotation spurious. Oh yes, you can find people repeating the quotation all over the Internet, but actual reliable sources, such as Suzy Platt's Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service, can find no evidence that the quotation is older than 1949.[3] It's simply one of those spurious quotations people would like to be true (because it suits their political or generational prejudices? because it sounds neat? Who knows), so they repeat it over and over again.

The third is that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the tablet from which the quotation was taken. Such a tablet would be (or have been) photographed, studied, and analyzed. But there is no evidence at all that such a tablet ever existed.

So yes, this quotation is plastered all over the Internet, but it's dubious enough that it shouldn't be on this list. --NellieBly (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Timothy Dwight IV.

In the table, it says that Timothy Dwight IV: This President of Yale University foresaw the Millennium starting by 2000. Am I missing something, or is this not an apocalyptic event? -Branabus 19:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've wikilinked it Millennialism for clarity. I did get a laugh out of how that was worded once I looked at it again. If it was Millennialism that you were questioning, while it it not the end per se, it is the beginning of the end and supposedly a guarantee the end will occur, so predictions about Christ's 'Millennium' are to be included. Freikorp (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. No, it just looked quite a lot like a joke had been inserted into the article. Thanks. -Branabus 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Move Thie Prediction

Can we please move the May 27, 2012 prediction from "Future" to "Past"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.171.44 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm.....no, since it is not in the past yet. Freikorp (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

BC/BCE

The Date column for BCE is labeled BCE, but the description of the 389 BCE prediction has BC. 173.71.65.237 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Jimmy Snyder

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Freikorp (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Columns for date of prediction, and category

When reading through this I often found myself wondering when the prediction was made. I think it makes a significant difference, and it's often not mentioned in the description. It seems like it might be useful to have a category column, a lot of these would be something like "Christian". This might help fix the Christian-centric problem of assuming that people think "Christian" when they read "preacher", for example. I love this page, thanks for working on it. —Darxus (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about a column for when the prediction was made, it would be interesting at the least. I can't see myself having the time to do it anytime soon though. I'm not so sure about a category column, and I think that would be a bit trickier. Firstly I think it's fairly obvious in most cases when reading the description what kind of people are making it, and do we get more specific than Christian? It's a very broad term. If the claimant section already mentions that they are Seventh day adventists, for example, do we really need another column reminding us that Seventh day adventism is a branch of Christianity? I think individually rewording "preacher" type mentions would be more appropriate here. Freikorp (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I have added an "unreliable sources" tag to the article. For a start, many of the references are from websites such as religioustolerance.org. Many others are from popular books about failed predictions. Since most of the entries are about historical people and events, we should have scholarly history books. For example, how do we know that "An eclipse was interpreted as a prelude to the end of the world by the army of the German emperor Otto III"? One source provided is [http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm 46 failed end-of-the-world predictions that were to occur between 30 & 1920 CE, but didn't]. It merely contains the statement exactly (!) as we have it in our table. There is a list of references at the bottom of the web page, but no indication were they got this info from. The other reference included is Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Field Manual for the End of the World by Jason Boyett. However, he doesn't mention Otto's army. He has an entry for 968 which says "Major solar eclipse. Major apocalyptic panic. Major jumping to conclusions. Same old story." This is not scholarship, folks. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reference. Note there is no hint that the panic was about the end of the world rather than just about the eclipse. 142.150.38.84 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09637494.2011.546503 "In his Gesta of the bishops of Liège, for example, Anselm recorded that Bernward's older contemporary, Bishop Eraclius (959–71), preached to Otto I's troops during his 968 campaign in Calabria after an eclipse of the sun had spread fear among the emperor's troops (Anselmi, 1846, ch. 24). According to Anselm, Bishop Eraclius said in part: O bravest warriors, you who have won famous victories through a thousand dangers by your distinguished name, rise up, I urge you, rise up and fear nothing. Take up your manly strength, cast aside this unseemly torpor. It would be shameful to fear the natural changes of the elements. There is nothing here to endanger life. No one is dripping blood from a wound received by an enemy. Harmless shadows are wrapped around the sky. After a short time, you see the light returning. Everything else is safe." Reference: Anselmi. 1846. Anselmi Gesta Episcoporum Leodiensium (MGH SS, vol. 7) , Hannover: MGH.

Galactic merger apocalyptic?

The entry on galactic merger was removed with the explanation that the event would not be apocalyptic. The New Scientist source suggests the Earth may not be habitable which would mean the event would fall under the definition of apocalyptic in the article lead. Jojalozzo 23:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Where exactly does the article say that?
2. From Andromeda–Milky Way collision: "Such an event would have no adverse effect on the system and chances of any sort of disturbance to the Sun or planets themselves may be remote."
3. Also, no apocalypse because Earth will be cooked anyway by then: "Without intervention, by the time that the two galaxies collide, the surface of the Earth will have already become far too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life" --79.223.31.59 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"The Sun will almost certainly hang onto its clutch of planets throughout the mayhem, even if the Earth is no longer habitable." I think the problem is that the movement of the solar system may shift Earth's orbit which is critical to habitability. Jojalozzo 23:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And you kindly point out that the merger will cause the Earth's surface to become uninhabitable. Jojalozzo 23:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Read that part again, maybe then you will notice that nothing in there suggest that the merger will be apocalyptic. --79.223.31.59 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your quote suggests we might avoid being cooked by planetary engineering, no? I find this article interesting. I think we could use input from other editors here. (Also, please do not change or delete other editor's talk page entries. Thanks.) Jojalozzo 23:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need input? The article on the topic is crystal clear, all we have to the contrary is a magazine article which does not support your point. (I wrote nothing on your talk page?!?) --79.223.31.59 (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need input because we disagree on the interpretation of sources and there's little sign of reaching consensus. The Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. (I was referring to your deletion of my post here on this page.) Jojalozzo 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit: Fix the un) Ok, then explain where your source (which is not a scientific magazine btw.) says that the collision will make Earth uninhabitable. It only mentions that Earth is uninhabitable, which will happen a couple of billion years before the merger due to increased heat output of the sun. Note that the NS article offers no mechanism by which the Earth would be destroyed.

I did not point out the WP article as a source, but to point out a contradiction. You should have this debate at the article which covers it, not some list. You are wrong here.

Talk page: My bad, that must have been a conflict, I haven't noticed it. --91.10.27.219 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(I think you mean uninhabitable, right?) I don't want to drag this out nor see the article further disrupted, especially since this issue is quite tangential to its main thrust. I admit I don't fully understand the science nor the timelines and concede to your superior grasp of the topic and apologize for tangling with you here. Jojalozzo 17:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, un-. Spell checker fail.

I'm puzzled, why do you think you have to apologize?

Anyway, have fun! --91.10.27.219 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012

The Big Rip in 22 Billion years is missing from this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_rip 131.137.247.6 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added information about the big rip. I've chosen my words carefully, as the '22 billion year' figure is just a hypothetical example, not a traditional prediction per se. Accordingly if anyone can think of a better way to include the big rip theory into the article i'm all ears. Freikorp (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect?

I've forgotten how to make a redirect, but could someone do a redirect for "dates for the end of the world" to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, you can ask the Nice People here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Redirect and they'll make a redirect for you. It will show up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects . Tamtrible (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words used in this article, lending credence where it should not exist

References are given, but weasel words are used for many 'Claimants' and descriptions. Clearly not all of the members of certain groups are represented by the references listed. If a nutty author publishes a tract, she/he may not represent a a whole group of people with a similar affiliation. I suggest this article list the claimant as: the author with her/his affiliation in parenthesis, or (if the author is not affiliated with the group) list the author and in parenthesis list 'unaffiliated, but speaking about this group'. Otherwise I feel that we could find some author (note the weasel words) writing about the apocalypse and say that all white folks or Greeks or Egyptologists believe the same as the author. --98.70.56.220 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Be specific. Please specify which predictions you think have weasel words. I will review each one as time permits and make changes if I think your concern is valid. Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Section titles for past and future predictions

The titles of the 'past' and 'future' sections have been changed twice recently, neither change was by me. Originally fit was 'past predictions' and 'future predictions', then it was changed to 'failed predictions' and 'future predictions', and now it is 'predictions for past dates' and 'predictions for future dates'. I preferred 'failed predictions' and 'future predictions'. I think if people disagree on that we should go back to simply 'past predictions' and 'future predictions', not what is currently in the article. Any objections to me changing it back to 'failed predictions' and 'future predictions'? Freikorp (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "past predictions" and "future predictions", or "predictions for past dates" and "predictions for future dates" sounds more, well, neutral. Tamtrible (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the term 'failed' isn't neutral here, since all these predictions of the end of the world didn't come true. But anyway, I've changed it back to how it originally was for now. Freikorp (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter Effect (1982)

According to Wikipedia articles John Gribbam and The Jupiter Effect, the prediction was that some disasters would occur, but not the end of the world. 50.92.192.192 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed accordingly with reference copied from The Jupiter Effect wiki article. Freikorp (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

2038 32-bit Unix time problem

Could this be added to the list? Much of the same arguments have been made for this as with Y2K. See Year 2038 problem Rammer (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 32-bit Unix epoch time counts as an "apocalyptic" event in the same way as Raptures and the like do. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should go on the list. Y2K could have been a disaster if major effort had not been expended. The 2038 issue is the same. Topher67 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes and Three Secrets of Fátima

First not expressly an "end of the world" scenario, but certainly an end of the Popes. Not date specific as far as I know. Second is clouded in controversy, including claims as to whether it is "apocalyptic." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Prophecy of the Popes 'prediction' used to be in the article - You can see it in this version of the article [4]. It read "St Malachy is said to have predicted in 1143 that there would only be 112 more Popes before the end of the world. Pope Benedict XVI is the 111th. The prophecy states the last pope will be named Peter of Rome." It was removed by an IP user on the grounds "This does not cite the 21st century. It can be assumed that the last two popes they will not live up to 22nd century, but this is not fact." [5]

Any objections to adding it back to the article? Yes, it is not a fact per se but it kind of goes without saying don't you think? I seriously doubt Benedict XVI 's direct successor will still be alive in 2200.

As for the Three Secrets of Fátima: If you'd like to propose how a prediction from that article could be worded we can discuss it here. Freikorp (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We cheated death again

	The passing of another prediction
	We could all have celebrated Winter Solstice, too. Play the link on December 22, 2012. Welcome to the 14th b'ak'tun. 7&6=thirteen(☎) 15:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Weinland

The article cited (Benjamin Radford, "10 Failed Doomsday Predictions" LiveScience, November 4, 2009)for Weinland's date of September 28, 2008 for the return of Christ is incorrect. That date was not what Weinland claimed for the return of Christ, rather it was the beginning of a 1335 day countdown to the return of Christ on May 27, 2012. Radford was careless when he researched his article. Unfortunately since it is in LiveScience it is quoted without question.

I have been researching Weinland from actual source documents since 2008. But if my website doesn't meet Wikipedia's source standards, so be it. So I sourced Weinland's own websites in my edit of Jan 8, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekimks (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can there be a simple loss of credibility based on three strikes that simply goes along the lines that if Ronnie's prediction SOMEHOW fails again, we can ignore future predictions, on the basis of loss of credibility? In fact, why is he even being considered credible if the book that he's allegedly following says that nobody knows the day or the time of the end? I would go further and extend that to any christian who has made a prediction of the end, but people will be gullible people. Or would that be unpartial? Or am I just tired of 'idiots' calling for the end of it all? 98.236.127.59 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

...No. This article is clearly not about credible people, it is about predictions that gained attention. If we removed predictions that didn't make any sense (i.e base on a book that clearly says "that nobody knows the day or the time of the end") this article would be almost entirely empty, completely defeating the purpose of having the article! Freikorp (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

More sources at Craigslist

Here is a very interesting link that might help provide additional sources: http://rochester.craigslist.org/rnr/3487090645.html JJB 04:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wild about the Rapture Ready book. We should be aiming for more scholarly sources. And we shouldn't have entries just with "various Christians", especially if they are recent predictions. If they are notable predictions worthy of inclusion, we should be able to name the predictors. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There were many of these "various" already. Certainly there is likely to be a better scholarly source for the interpretation of the Thessalonians. But I think we will need to retain the headings of "various" for now because there are too many of these to delete them all. Adding the "who" template would be appropriate. In the case of Are You Rapture Ready, it is clearly a valid source for the fact that the prediction was made, which indicates retention with a tag added rather than deletion. JJB 22:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, but the mere fact that the prediction was made does not mean it belongs here. I'm more comfortable with the "various" designation with old predictions, such as in the Middle Ages. If all we can say about the 1998 prediction, for example, is that it was made by "various" Christians, then it probably isn't a notable prediction. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The first source suffices to indicate that a second source is likely to exist and thus that that's not "all we can say". But until then, JJB 05:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

So if you're uncomfortable with "various" predictions are we going to remove the predictions about Y2K or the 2012 mayan apocalypse? I couldn't help but notice "who" tags weren't added for those predictions - using your logic I don't understand why you left these predictions untouched. Yes, it's kind of hard to attribute the 2012 Mayan apocalypse to one person, but does that make the absolute plethora of media coverage about the prediction un-notable? The fact of life is that sometimes thousand or even millions of people can be paranoid about something even if they don't have a common leader. I don't see why notable fears of the end should be removed just because we can't pin the blame on a specific person or organised group. I think its perfectly acceptable to state various anybody were concerned the end was coming, if the prediction garnered considerable attention. Freikorp (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right - it's hard to attribute the 2012 Mayan apocalypse prediction to a person or group of people - "various" is totally appropriate. But how many people predicted June 1967? It might only have been one or two obscure people. Indeed, the September 1996 prediction was explicitly restricted to one person. Well, who was that? The book Are You Rapture Ready? doesn't tell us. And mere mention in the book doesn't establish notability - the book is by no means a scholarly source. Apart from it's very POV slant, it doesn't have any footnotes. StAnselm (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's a fair example. I disagree with some of the who tags though - for example the 1666 prediction - I think it's fair to say "various Christians" would have held fears because of the date. It also bothers me the tags have been added to the future predictions from various scientists - especially when two of those predictions have an entire article with references dedicated to them. "Various scientists" seems more practical than listing every single scientist that concurs with the theory. Freikorp (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Although there are possible POV issues with the "Christians" bit. Are we sure there weren't any non-Christians who held fears? Are You Rapture Ready? says "most Londoners", though I suspect this is pure speculation. I'm not able to access the other reference cited. StAnselm (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

June 12 2889

Some scientists claim that if global warming continues at the current rate, the Earth will be inhabitable by June 12 2889. I am not sure if this can be classed as the apocalypse, though. 92.17.111.208 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Before we can even consider whether or not it can be added to the article we need to see a reliable source. Please provide one when making suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources contd

• The many various ref redundancies have been resolved, including a duplicate ref name that caused incorrect citation.
• Upon review it appears that Rapture Ready and Skinner are no more nor less informal than many other heavily leaned-on sources (Randi, Kyle, Boyer, et al.).
• Rapture Ready has inline citations rather than footnotes. Its POV is that datesetting is invalid, the same POV as most other sources.
• Upon review many of the "Various" entries are merely placeholders for "currently unavailable". This is properly tagged with "who" rather than deletion.
• In the long run, these are properly researched and filled in, as they all refer to something.
• The method of finding names for 2000 and 2012 was so obvious a step that I didn't add who tags. It's probable I was inconsistent to tag the science articles, which are similar. Names just haven't been added yet.
• Notability is about articles, not line-items. When a list is notable, one source has always been held to confer notability for one line item, unless another source impeaches the first one.
• Accordingly it appears that all line-items should be retained with tags until we have consensus on list criteria (prediction v. suggestion, unnamed v. named, any etc.). JJB 20:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we followed WP:BRD here. I have boldly removed some entries, some of which you have disputed. I am not removing those back in, except for the possible BLP violation. However, you are adding back your recent additions that I have disputed. We should keep the status quo while we discuss things here. StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already argued on this talk page (Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events#Unreliable sources) that we should not be leaning on such unscholarly sources, so I don't think your point 2 is much of an argument. The Are You Rapture Ready? has a POV far beyond rejecting date-setting - its authors believe in a rapture (presumably premillenial pretribulation) which impacts its interpretation of 2 Thessalonians. Now, I don't know what you mean by "inline citations" - are you talking about the website? I can't find any references at all in the book. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not much for status quo but I do prefer BRD as a guide. During a list dispute we do need to see all the candidates in one go, and that becomes more difficult when forking is as likely as in this article. This is the baseline for discussion that includes all the disputed entries on one page (unless you are willing for us to restore them commented-out). (Except that link neglects to tag 1997.) Next, "unscholarly", whatever that means, does not imply "unreliable" and does not disqualify a source by itself but calls for more sources to be brought in. As I implied at first, there is a clear divide between date-setting and non, much clearer than among the various trib and mill views; and Are You Rapture Ready (the book) includes regular inline citations, viz., the four that I copied out from pp. 35-45 into this article. So I don't see why that or Skinner or other sources would be impeached. I also don't get the BLP violation: we don't have any indication Florence Houteff is alive, Shepherd's Rod#Succession makes the same claims with sources, and the claims are not abnormal to her or any more abnormal than those about any of the other living persons.

From the baseline I see:

• Missing specific claimants at 634 BCE, 389 BCE, 995, 1000, 1033, 1184, 1351, 1656, 1666, 1780, 1856, 1967, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and the last three. Some can be resolved with source research. It is true the inclusion criteria require a claim by a notable group or individual.
• This is combined with source reliability questions at 1656, 1967, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, and perhaps elsewhere.
• Suggestions rather than predictions at 1899, 1988, 1989, 1999 twice, and 2000.
• Two disputed statements about Lindsey.

Comments? JJB 23:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If, as you say, that the inclusion criteria require a claim by a notable group or individual, that just about settles it - we can't have the "various" entries. I do think Are You Rapture Ready? is probably unreliable - "most Londoners" for the 1666 entry seems dubious, and completely unsupported. I think we've been talking past each other in regards to this book - what I meant was that the book doesn't contain any footnotes, so there is no way of checking the claims, or finding who these "various" designations might refer to. Now, for reliable sources, we don't need to check the claims - we take them on face value - but I don't think it's a reliable source. And if the predictions were really "notable" (in the sense of worthy of inclusion, not in the WP:N sense) then we would expect the prediction to be in a more reliable source - in the absence of which, it shouldn't be included. The BLP violation comes from the fact that she might be alive, and self-published sources should never be used to make claims about living people. Why would we include the source, anyway? StAnselm (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 1996 prediction, I can find a bit of stuff in self-published books. This one names "Charles Taylor", but the book is published by iUniverse. The February 1997 prediction seems to come from William Dankenbring and Triumph Prophetic Ministries - but again, neither of these are notable. I can't find any specific predictions of 1998, being 3 x 666. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have found a number of reliable sources that attribute the 1656 to Christopher Columbus, so we can remove that from the disputed list. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

So, just to clarify - are we saying that entries with redlinked claimants can be removed? StAnselm (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Date setting

This is a list of dates, and almost all entries have a specific date. The entries for "1st century CE" and "2nd century CE" stick out as different - both of them represent a vague feeling that "Jesus will return soon". This is not date setting, and doesn't belong on the list. I propose that these two entries be removed. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. Considering the articles title is "list of dates..." I think you are right. Do you think we could move the mentions to Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions? The mentions themselves are notable, they just belong better elsewhere.

How do you feel about the prophecy of the popes mention? Due to the supposed date it was made and the fact the current pope is the second last on the list, I think it is just far too interesting not to include, even though it doesn't set a specific date. Freikorp (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a lot of fun. But it's a classic case of WP:CIRCULAR. Prophecy of the Popes#Interpretation contains no references. There is no evidence of anyone interpreting this to mean the end of the the world. That entry should go as well. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

June 6th, 2006 (6/6/6) doomsday prediction

Shouldn't this be added to the list as well?

• http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WolfFiles/story?id=2073602&page=1
• http://www.satansrapture.com/june666.htm
• http://blog.chron.com/thinkingchristian/2006/06/doomsday-or-not/
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13134489/ns/us_news-life/t/apocalypse-tuesday/

-- 71.141.110.31 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added this prediction using your Msnbc and Abc News sources - I'm pretty sure the other two don't satisfy WP:RS. Freikorp (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, neither reference has anything about people predicting an event for that day. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but wouldn't all of them in tandem account for a positive "prediction"? Also, unless I read WP:SPS wrong, the second source is a self-published source, but it's not claiming proof of something, but just a proof of a claim. -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Predictions vs. suggestions

In Christianity there is usually a careful distinction between a prediction, which puts the datesetter's reputation on the line, and a suggestion, which the datesetter holds only to be a possibility. I think that several items should be deleted as being mere suggestions and not fitting the list inclusion criteria that state that the apocalypse was or is forecast (rather than merely a possibility). I have marked these "verification needed". JJB 02:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that these entries specifically mention they were suggestions solves the problem - if we were trying to pass them off as hardline predictions there would be the issue of factual inaccuracy. I vote to keep notable "suggestions" included at this stage. Freikorp (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually no. This is not a list of suggestions or it would need to be very greatly expanded; if we were to change the inclusion criteria to include suggestions, there are many hundreds more ways in which the world might end than in which it will end. It is probable a couple that I tagged might be tweaked into unqualified "will" statements by source review, and thus kept. JJB 22:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I am happy for the offending suggestions to be reviewed one by one and removed if they cannot be salvaged. Freikorp (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This generation shall not pass away

An unbeliever could include "first century" on this list, based on Matthew 24:34. Art LaPella (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's a matter of whether someone is a "believer" or an "unbeliever", it's not likely to be NPOV. StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Googling the phrase, shows that people taking this prediction at face value, might be what the NPOV policy calls a "tiny minority". Oh well. Art LaPella (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added the belief that some early Christians thought Jesus would return in their lifetime based on quotes such as that. Believe it or not I didn't even notice this conversation before I did. It is referenced; Christians at the time did expect it would happen, there was apparently mass hysteria when it became apparent he wasn't returning. I've even found references that some modern Christians actually think he did return. I don't see how the fact I am an "unbeliever" (never heard that term before BTW) has any relevance to my neutral addition. I am happy to debate the entries continued inclusion but I firmly believe it is notable and neutral. Freikorp (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not "neutral" in the sense that is it just one opinion/interpretation. There are other interpretations, of course. As you indicated, Preterism says that Jesus was indeed talking about the first century, and that it did all happen. But other interpreters take the "this generation" phrase to mean "the human race" or "this sort of people", etc. Since it is not an unambiguous prediction, it doesn't belong here. StAnselm (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Half the predictions listed in this article are just one opinion/interpretation of something in the bible. The only difference I see here is that it was Jesus himself that made the claim, which I'd assume Christians may see as extremely threatening to their belief system - what with their own lord and saviour being potentially wrong about something. It does not matter whether he was right or wrong or whether it has been lost in translation or why people interpreted it in a certain way - it only matters whether or not some people believed in it. Christians at the time were expecting Jesus to return, therefore it should most definitely be included. Can you explain why you think otherwise or should we just take this to 'thirdopinion' now? Freikorp (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important distinction: between predictions based on an interpretation of the Bible (of which there are many) and interpretations of predictions in the Bible. While I haven't seen the primary source (and I think it should be included) I assume it is clear that Hippolytus of Rome predicted the return of Jesus in 500. But it's not nearly as clear that Jesus predicted his own return in the 1st century. Removing "Jesus" from the entry doesn't help all that much, because it still raises the question, which Christians thought Jesus would return in the first century. Paul? Then we're back to interpretation of of the Bible again. Certainly, some interpretations of the NT suggest that Paul thought Jesus return in the first century, but it's not clear cut. Of course, this all applies to Nostradamus' prediction of 1999 - without being familiar with the evidence, I wonder if this comes from Nostradamus himself, or just his interpreters. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally the potential that "this generation" was referring to something other than the actual people before him is why I attributed this claim to early Christians as opposed to Jesus himself. Believe it or not I am trying to be impartial about this. I would have reverted that IP's contribution if you hadn't removed the whole thing entirely. Freikorp (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand the distinction now that you point it out. I guess what we disagree on is criteria for inclusion. I firmly think any belief of the end that was notable enough to garner historical attention should be included as a prediction, regardless of whether it was an interpretation of the Bible or an interpretations of predictions in the Bible - The end result is the same, people panicked and thought the end was nigh. There are several predictions on this page that don't attribute the prediction to a specific person, for example the 1780 fear from various New England residents or the 968 fears from Otto III's army. I don't think these predictions are any less notable just because these people don't have a specific leader we can attribute the prediction to. Of the two main references that were backing this up before it was removed; one states that the belief that Jesus would return while his apostles were still alive was unanimous in the years after his death (I couldn't tell you how accurate that is, but keep in mind wiki's verifiability, not truth guideline). The other simply states early Christians thought Jesus might return whilst the apostles were still alive. [6] [7] These were simply the first two google responses I got after searching for something like this. If you require better references I will commence searching immediately. Freikorp (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy with "some first century Christians thought the world would end in the first century" if that can be reliably sourced. But the three references you had supplied (and I looked at them all before I removed the material) merely assert this. And it would be very hard to find clear unambiguous proof of this. For a start, first century people didn't realise they were in the "first century". Hence, it is not really a date that is predicted - just a feeling of imminence. (And of course, many people today would still say Jesus' return is "imminent", without putting a date on it.) But regarding criteria for inclusion - I'm still not happy with entries that say "according to certain interpretations, X predicted Y." I have no doubt you can find scholarly opinion that says Jesus predicted he would return within 40 years and got it wrong - but if it is included, it is in a different category to (almost) all the other entries here. Having said that, I would love to see a whole lot more primary sources in this table. StAnselm (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Bringing Heaven to Earth Because He Has Returned by Robert Jones is self-published. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I must admit I often forget to check whether books are from SPS. I understand your point regarding 'certain interpretations'. I had a somewhat difficult time with my significant expansion of this article. Prediction of a specific day (and even time of day) were of course easy; it became difficult as there are so many notable (and fascinating) predictions that are not so specific. There were a lot of great predictions I really regretted leaving out because they were either too ambiguous or reliable sources could not be found. I also agree primary sources would be better. Before I stumbled across this article only about half the predictions had any reference [8], so my primary concern was getting a reference at all. Now that that's done I'd like to get better ones as time permits. I still think the 'prediction' in question is notable for inclusion, as whilst saying the end will occur before certain people die isn't a specific date, it does put a definite limit on things (as opposed to the plethora of people who have said he would return 'soon' over the centuries); I'll simply add it to my list of things to improve with the article. If you have further suggestions for improving the article I'm be happy to hear them. Freikorp (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That is if you believe in the Jewish book of fairy tales, oh I mean the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.164.229 (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ

I've recently been making some changes to the article Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ. I spent some time cleaning up the article and I was preparing to expand and reference that article in great detail when something occurred to me. This article, List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, already contains most if not all notable predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ. If the second coming of christ article was an accurate and well referenced article I'm thinking it would pretty much be all the predictions of Jesus return in this article just in their own table on that article.

Does having so much repeated information pose a problem on wikipedia?

Should we remove all the predictions of Christ's return from this article and put them in that article, and just add a disclaimer on this article "For predictions of Jesus return, see Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ?"

Should we just redirect that article to this one, and add the disclaimer, "predictions of the return of Jesus are included."

Or do you think it is okay for the "Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ" article to just be a cut and paste job of predictions from this article? Freikorp (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My $.02: I wouldn't delete those predictions from this page, but I'd try to flesh out the ones on the "predictions and claims" article at least a little more. Given the nature of this article, it's not exactly going into depth on individual entries...Tamtrible (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs Prophet of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints

The Huffington Post [9] reported the following on 31st December 2012:

"Infamous polygamist and leader of the break-off Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sect has predicted that the end of times is near, prompting some to worry about violence this New Year's Eve.

Warren Jeffs is currently serving a life sentence in Texas for abusing underage girl "brides," but authorities say he has been issuing missives to his 10,000 followers from his prison cell, the New York Daily News notes.

This is not the first time the cult leader has predicted the end of the world, however.

As recently as Nov. 12, Jeffs issued a warning to his followers that the world would end on Dec. 23. He told them they should prepare themselves for the reckoning. According to KUTV, Jeffs warns FLDS members to “be ready” for a “disastrous cleansing.”

Former FLDS member Isaac Wyler told the station that Jeffs told his flock to “make these grey or blue backpacks, 2x2x1, pack them with essentials,” he said. “Be ready to go at a moment’s notice.”

When the world did not self-destruct, Jeffs blamed his followers’ “lack of faith," according to The Independent.

Jeffs has also told officials that if he and his fellow FLDS leaders remain in jail, the world will be subject to terrible plagues and natural disasters, Time reports.

While much of Jeffs' predictions seem like the mere rantings of a man who will not have the opportunity for freedom until his 93rd birthday, former member Wyler said the continuing obedience of some in the FLDS community is unpredictable and frightening in its strength."

Warren Jeffs is considered a prophet by members of his Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints despite currently serving a life sentence for sexually abusing children.

81.104.46.239 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Added to the article. Freikorp (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing, again

This edit has added commentary about many of the predictions. The commentary does not belong in an encyclopedia article, but I have left it in for the moment, so that action can be taken. The thing is, many of these criticisms may well be valid. It questions the source The Last Days are Here Again. Now, this is published by Baker, which is a respectable publisher, but the Google snippet view (which is all I have) seems just to list a series of dates "of eschatological significance". Somehow, for 1878, at least, this has become "The second prediction of the end of the world from the Bible Student movement". That entry, in any case, should be removed - I haven't checked the others, yet. StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it because commentary does not belong in an encyclopaedia - but I fully intend to look into all of the claims. Freikorp (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the entries based on Kyle's list of "dates of eschatological significance". There is still some work that needs to be done checking out some of the JW predictions. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Freikorp (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lindsey

• The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon pp. 8, 132 does say: "The decade of the 1980's could very well be the last decade of history as we know it. ... There are several possible fates for the U.S. They include: A takeover by the communists. Destruction by a surprise Soviet nuclear attack (I don't even like to think about this possibility) ...." These are slightly misquoted in our article and identically in the paleofuture.com blog ("1980s", "destroyed").
• Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse p. 57 says: "December 21, 1981: Remember our good friend Hal Lindsey of The Late, Great Planet Earth? According to that worthy tome, this date is his expected Rapture-rama. The math is easy: Take the re-establishment of Israel in 1948, which we all know officially kicked the End Times into high gear, and add forty years. Popular theory–among rapturous Revelationophiles, at least–holds that forty years equals a generation. And since The End is only a generation away from that starting point, we can pinpoint earth's Last Day for 1988. Subtract a seven-year tribulation, and you've got yourself a 1981 Rapture." It is not clear what event would happen seven years from 12/21/81, other than yet another solstice.
• The Late Great Planet Earth (1978 printing) p. 43 actually says: "A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so." Rapture before 7-year tribulation is mentioned p. 132.
• No evidence for the specific (OR) claims of Pocket Guide was found in a skim of both Lindsey books.
• It is clear that Lindsey is deliberately avoiding datesetting ("something like", "if", "or so", "could", "many scholars"). This is also consistent with Lindsey's position about such claims elsewhere (Planet Earth–2000 A.D., pp. 2, 6: "The Bible warns against date-setting .... I put a lot of ifs and maybes in because I knew that no one could be absolutely certain"). Since Pocket Guide does not mention a page number and combines several strands to form a conclusion (12/21/81) when neither the conclusion nor all the strands can be found, and the paleofuture.com blog misquotes and misinterprets the primary source, I submit that they are unreliable sources for "predicted dates for apocalyptic events" or "dates of predictions ... when the world was, or is, forecast to end", which are the current inclusion criteria. JJB 21:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Planet Earth–2000 A.D. p. 305 says: "The world's elite are gearing up for the biggest New Year's Eve shindig in history .... set for the Great Pyramid of Cheops in Giza, Egypt, on Dec. 31, 1999 .... I'm not planning to attend. In fact, looking at the state of the world today, I wouldn't make any long-term earthly plans."
• No evidence for a more specific statement about Christians' plans for 2000 was found in a skim of the book.
• The book (1994) does say p. 2: "Is there anything magical about the year 2000? I don't think so .... I don't know if the year 2000 will be meaningful in relation to Endtimes events. I do know this: The final seven-year countdown leading to the return of Jesus could occur even before the year 2000. It could literally begin today, tomorrow or next week."
• I submit that the book does not source the statement in our article that "Christians should not plan to still be on earth by the year 2000." JJB 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Redlink predictions

I've gone through the Redlinks in the article over the last few days: I was able to find enough information to create articles for Lee Jang Rim's Dami Mission and for Sheldan Nidle - feel free to read the articles and peer review :)

I don't think Henry Archer (Fifth Monarchist), Monte Judah, Stan Johnson & The Prophecy Club or Marilyn Agee are notable enough to ever have their own wikipedia article - accordingly I am thinking they should be removed from the article. Marilyn Agee gets the most mentions in rapture prediction books, probably due to the sheer number of predictions she made in such a short time, but I still think she and everyone else would fall under WP:ONEEVENT.

Any comments or objections to their removal? Freikorp (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess a prediction can be notable, even if the person making it is. The Archer prediction is mentioned in lots of sources, and that makes me think it should be included. Predictions that have a bare mention in one or two books should not be. Now, Monte Judah gets quite a few hits on Google Books, but lots of those are from self-published books. I don't think his prediction has received enough coverage to make it worthy of inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And further, the Archer prediction is in real history and other scholarly books rather than just rapture prediction books.[10][11][12][13] StAnselm (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those sources for Archer, I'm happy for him to remain for now - I might even be able to scrape an article together for him. I did get some short lived excitement out of finding book sources for Judah, though I did quickly notice the sources were self published. I've removed his prediction, I'll do one last sweep for sources for The Prophecy Club and Marilyn Agee - if I can find anything better than a brief mention in a rapture list book I'll post the source and leave them there, otherwise I'll remove them till further notice. Freikorp (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. StAnselm (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey good job with that article. I can't find anything specific for Agee. According to this website [14] (Interestingly according to that site Agee has made 17 predictions about the end, and has no signs of stopping - at least Harold Camping gave up after 6) she gets a brief mention in Tom McIver's, The End of the World: An Annotated Bibliography. McFarlane & Co., Jefferson NC, 1999. Another brief mention in this rapture book [15] published by Routledge, a very brief mention in this book [16] published by American Vision and a brief mention in this Spanish language book [17] published by "Booket" - information on that publisher can be found here [18].

Stan Johnston & The Prophecy Club: this opinion piece from nantonnews.com mention them by name but does not give a date for their prediction (It's rather obvious the author got their information from wikipedia though) [19]. This source has some interesting information on their prediction but probably doesn't meet WP:RS, [20]. The only book I can find that mentions the prediction other that the one already used as a reference is this book [21] published by Xulon Press.

I'm more than happy to hear debate on keeping these two, but if their are no objections/comments i will remove them, as no reliable source gives any information about the prophecy club or Agee themselves, just their names and their prediction date. Freikorp (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to both of them being removed. StAnselm (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

'Various' predictions

I agree a prediction from the 20th or 21st century that could only be attributed to, say, 'various Christians' is not notable, and I also agree with the previous comments that attributing predictions to 'various' is much more acceptable for old predictions. Accordingly I've removed the following 'who' tags:

• Both the BCE predictions
• The 1524 and 1624 predictions - I've found a new reference and accordingly am now attributing the prediction to 'London astrologers' instead of just 'Astrologers' - I've also expanded the description for clarity.
• The 992-995 prediction. I've also found and added a reference that specifically says "When it was noted that Good Friday and the Feast of the Annunciation coincided in 992, the Christian world believed that the Second Coming would take place within three years."
• The 1033 prediction. I've found a new reference that specifically links the 1033 prediction to the 1000 prediction, and have reworded the description for clarity. For the record, An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural makes the same connection, but still doesn't attribute it to a single person.
• The 1346–1351 prediction - I've also found a more scholarly reference for this claim. Whether or not this prediction gets removed at a later stage because it does not set a specific date, is another issue.

The only who tag I have note removed is for the 1184 prediction. I have not removed this tag as I instead propose removing the entire prediction - I simply cannot find any other information on this prediction other than the reference already cited, and the current reference for the 1184 prediction is not very specific at all. Any comments or objections to this proposal or my removal of the tags? Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think 1184 should be removed. There was certainly a lot of apocalyptic prediction in the 12th century, but we already have Joachim of Fiore and John of Toledo. (Both of them prophesied in 1184 - could that date have been mixed up, I wonder?) I note there are a number of sources that mention 1184 as a date, but nothing is more specific than that. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Clean up

I've removed the following 3 predictions.

Date	Claimant	Description	Reference(s)
1980–1989	Hal Lindsey	Lindsey book The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon stated that "the decade of the 1980's could very well be the last decade of history as we know it" and that the U.S. could face "destruction by a surprise Soviet nuclear attack." Lindsey suggested the 1988 Rapture, reasoning that it was 40 years (one Biblical generation) after Israel gained statehood.
1994	Jehovah's Witnesses	The witnesses proclaimed 1994 as the end of the generation that saw the events of 1914.
1999	Seventh-day Adventists	Some literature distributed by Seventh-day Adventists predicted the end in this year.

• The 1980-1989 is another non-sepcific prediction. The online reference does not back up the claim of a 1988 rapture, and neither does the book reference. The book only has snippet preview on google books. Notice searching the book for "the decade of the 1980's could very well be the last decade of history as we know it" certainly does get a hit on page 85 like the article says it will: [22]. However searching the book for "1988" does not get a hit until page 93, where the subject has clearly been changed: [23]. Unless someone can find a reference that backs up the 1988 claim, this should be removed.
• The 1994 claim is contested above - see my comments at the "Regarding Predictions and Alleged Predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses..." section of this talk page. This prediction is currently just an extrapolation - it's based on the 1914 JW prediction and their constant redefinition of what a 'generation' is - see here for info on the issue [24]. There may be a way to add this information back into the article, but it certainly does not belong as it currently is.
• The 1999 claim just isn't detailed enough - it could potentially be added back with a more specific reference.

I have removed the 'dispute' tag rom the article. I believe the 'various' issue has ben addressed. The issue of non-notable claimants has been addressed. I may have missed one but the non-specific predictions (i.e 'before the end of the 20th century') have also been removed. I hope this adequately addresses the issue. Freikorp (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Predictions and Alleged Predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses, The Bible Students, Charles Taze Russell, and Joseph F. Rutherford

It should be noted that only one "end of the world" prediction is valid of those allegedly made by Jehovah's Witnesses, The Bible Students, Charles Taze Russell, or Joseph F. Rutherford.

It should also be observed that Jehovah's Witnesses have always kept very good [pubic] records. This is not a case of predictions that were made hundreds or thousands of years ago where documentation may be hard to find. In this case, anything and everything ever believed and taught by Jehovah's Witnesses has been publicly documented and purposely spread. Therefor, if a citation is not noted to back up claims of "end of the world predictions" made by Jehovah's Witnesses, it is not because the organization did not provide documentation for what they believe; therefor, the only reason no direct citations are given to back up most of the claims in the list, is because no such documentation exists to cite.

It should also be noted that what is believed by Jehovah's Witnesses is always printed for examination before it is accepted. So if it is not printed, it was never a teaching or belief of the organization or religion, Jehovah's Witnesses.

In addition to this, what is accepted by the organization as a whole must also come directly from those taking the lead in the organization, namely, the 12 members of "The Governing Body", and more directly, those who lay a claim to being anointed by holy spirit among the Governing Body, otherwise known as "The Faithful and Discreet Slave" whom reside at Bethel Headquarters (See Mt. 24:45; Lu. 12:42). It is important to understand this arrangement which all Jehovah's Witnesses strictly adhere to, because this means that if some one individual or group within the organization, who is not one of these men taking the lead, comes to believe something contrary to what the "the faithful and discreet slave" has put in writing in Watchtower publications, then this teaching is not a teaching of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses; but of the individual(s). Therefor, such a teaching can not be rightly attributed to the organization or religion as a whole; and must be placed squarely upon the individual or groups who spoke it. This is the case with a several of the predictions listed in the "List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events."

It was stated at Proverbs 4:18: "The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."

If God said that the light (or understanding) was to get lighter and lighter as the days draw to their conclusion, then it must also go to reason that logically and inversely, our understanding will be dimmer the farther back in time we look. Therefor it would actually be unreasonable, and against scripture, to believe that we would always have a perfect understanding—our understanding must be hazier and less accurate the farther back in our history, to be in line with Proverbs 4:18. So in going right along with God's Word, Jehovah's Witnesses make changes as spiritual understanding gets "lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." This is also in line with Jesus' own practice of shining greater light upon old ways in his day. (See examples at Matthew 5:21-48) Please feel free to make a prayerful examination of the following scriptures in conjunction with Proverbs 4:18: Dan. 12:4; 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Pet. 1:19.

Note as well that in the "List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events", the same individual entered all the alleged Jehovah's Witnesses predictions on the list. Therefore this is all the thoughts and agenda of a single individual.

Regarding the times when The Bible Students, or Jehovah's Witnesses did make claims to a year where they believed an event would happen: There were indeed times when they did believe an event would happen, such as the years 1914, and 1925. However, please consider the following. At Acts 1:6 Jesus' disciples asked him directly "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" Christ's disciples often misunderstood the full meaning of Jesus' words, even mistakenly believing that he was setting up his kingdom at that time, and upon the earth. Christ's true followers are always eager to understand Bible truth, and just as the disciples did in the 1st century, today, they sometimes run ahead of themselves in the same fashion. Does this mean they are wicked, misled, or false prophets? In answering that question, Christians would do well to be careful not to inadvertently call Christ's 1st century apostles and disciples false prophets as well. (See Mt. 7:1-14; also Mar. 9:38-40; Acts 5:27-28, 33-39)

Here I will examine the alleged predictions in question, to show that in most all cases, these predictions can not be attributed to Jehovah's Witnesses; and in many cases, the dates given were not even doomsday predictions at all. Just because a date is quoted in an article, does not mean it is automatically an end of the world prediction—in fact, every single year since the beginning of the Bible Students in the late 1800s has appeared in writing in Watchtower publications at one time or another; yet all those years can not all be "end of the world predictions" merely based on the fact that a year appears in print—it must state directly that a specific date is a prediction.

The 1914 prediction is the only true apocalyptic prediction that was ever put in writing and made official as a prediction of The Bible Students (Jehovah's Witnesses). Charles Taze Russell discerned that the gentile times mentioned in the Bible in the book of Daniel were coming to their conclusion, and that the rightful king, Christ Jesus, would be enthroned in that year, 1914. The Bible Students, and Russell, did indeed believe they may be taken to heaven in that year, and that the end would likely come. However when the end did not come, learning a lesson, from that day forward, Russell, and Jehovah's Witnesses, never laid claim to a specific year ever again, always choosing instead to adhere closely to Matthew 24:36 which states: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."

However, Matthew 24:6-7 does say that when Christ comes in power (sits on his throne), that one of the very first signs would be "wars and reports of wars" and that "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom… ." The indication would have to mean [wars that were somehow different than all the wars preceding them throughout human history]. In addition to this, Revelations 12:7-12 tells that Christ's first act as king would be to clean out the heavens of the spirit rebels therein, resulting in Satan and his angels (demons) being cast down to earth, and this would bring "woe to earth" from Satan who would cause trouble on earth. In 1914, just as predicted at the end of "the gentile times" when Christ was to take his seat on the throne, World War I broke out, followed closely by World War II. Regarding World War I, the book La Grande Guerre (The Great War), by General Richard Thoumin, published originally in France, says: “The blood and tears of the First World War changed the face of the earth.” Because the greatest single world scale war came in the exact same year that the gentile times ended, which marked Christ's taking the throne, and ousting Satan from heaven to earth, World War I was without a doubt the first of the wars he spoke about in Matthew 24:6-7.

Now that the one apocalyptic prediction having a specific date assigned, that was made by Jehovah's Witnesses, is out of the way, I would like to explain the other dates claimed in the "List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events."

1874 Alleged prediction by The Bible Student movement:

This is actually untrue, in that this prediction was made by Christopher Bowen, and later falsely ascribed to C.T. Russell. Russell is on public record stating even on the night Bowen predicted, that he (Russell) did not subscribe to this prediction of Phil Bowen's. In disappointment over his failure, Phil Bowen left the Bible Students group after this incident. It should also be noted that "The Bible Students" in this early date were not an organized religion; but were a rather small group of Bible students who gathered to examine the Bible together, hence the name "Bible Students." So just because Russell was part of the group, does not make any predictions at this time, predictions attributable to the organization "Jehovah's Witnesses." In fact several other small religious groups formed from out of the Bible Students. If we are to attribute end of the world predictions coming out of this group to Jehovah's Witnesses, then we have to give equal credit to any other group that came out of the Bible Student group. No matter, this prediction was made by one single individual, believed by few within the group, and in no way did Russell make or believe in the prediction. Therefor, the claim that The Bible Students (Jehovah's Witnesses) made a prediction regarding 1874, is false, and lacks vital details, which are laid out here. The prediction belongs in the list of doomsday predictions; however it should be rightly ascribed to Phil Bowen.

The Following Alleged "Predictions" Can Be Explained Together:

1878 Alleged Prediction one and two, by The Bible Student.

1908-1910 Alleged Prediction one and two, by The Bible Student.

1916 Alleged Prediction by The Bible Student.

1941 Alleged Prediction by Jehovah's Witnesses.

1984 Alleged Prediction by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Regarding claims of end of the world predictions for 1978, 1908-1910, 1916, 1941, and 1984, please take note that no citation is given in the list to back up any of these claims. If such quotes and citations existed, they would have been listed by the claimant. Publication dates are also not given, simply because documentation simply does not exist to support these claims. Remember that the organization Jehovah's Witnesses publicly documents all their teachings with very thorough, written records—so any lack of citation is not an oversight, it is a deliberate deception. If it exists, then quotes, magazine or book names, as well as page numbers, should be given to support such claims. I am confident that no such documentation exists to back up these claims. And if such is offered, I will gladly research it to show how the claims are being taken out of context. Remember that just because the Watchtower quotes a date, that does not automatically make the date an end of the world prediction—it must be stated directly as such; or else the date is not in relation to a prediction. Clearly, the person entering dates on the list was pulling these out of thin air—they simply do not exist on record. All these dates can therefor be stricken from the list of apocalyptic predictions, as what was never in writing is pure hearsay and wild conjecture (lies).

1918 Alleged Predictions by The Bible Student:

First of all, please take note again that no citation is given to back up this false claim. If such documentation existed, it would have been given. It is not given because this is untrue. The fact is that the year 1918 was spoken of in the Watchtower publications in relation to an event having absolutely nothing to do with a "Doomsday prediction." This can therefor be stricken from the list of apocalyptic predictions, as what was never in writing is hearsay. This is another case of a year appearing in Watchtower Publications, and being falsely claimed as an end of the world prediction, solely on the basis that the year appeared in print; yet having nothing to do with the end of the world. For more detailed information about this date, please feel free to contact Jehovah's Witnesses directly. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have. https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

1920 Alleged Predictions by The Bible Student:

This claim is untrue. This statement in the list was made by the ousted, former member, R. Franz; however there is no written record of such a teaching anywhere in the Watchtower Publication Archives. Notice that the claimant links persons to Franz's page; but does not make any quotation or reference to a Watchtower Publication. If the claim is that the Bible Studants (Jehovah's Witnesses) made the prediction, then why not point directly to the source? The answer is that the claimant does not direct readers to the Watchtower, because the prediction never appears in Watchtower Publications. It only exists in Franz's imagination, and in his book, and that is the only place such a claim will ever be found. This claim therefor can be stricken from the doomsday list as a product of fiction and imagination.

1925 Alleged Prediction by Joseph F. Rutherford:

The book: Millions Now Living Will Never DIe did state: "We may confidently expect, that 1925 will mark the return [from the dead] of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old . . . to the condition of human perfection.”

However, note that this does not state that the end of the world will come in 1925. To state so would be going far beyond what is actually written. This is a case where Jehovah's Witnesses were mistaken; however, as noted above, at Acts 1:6 Jesus disciples believed he was restoring the kingdom in their time. If one is to make the claim that one does not have God's spirit based on false expectations, then they also claim Christ's disciples also did not have God's spirit because they had false expectations. No matter, nowhere in the book cited do Jehovah's Witnesses ever claim that the end will come in that year. A resurrection, and Armageddon, are two entirely different things. This mention can therefor be stricken from the list of doomsday predictions.

1966-1975 Alleged Prediction by Jehovah's Witnesses:

This can easily be cleared up as a prediction that is deceptively and misleadingly placed in the doomsday list, as not only was this claim never made in Watchtower publications, but the Governing Body, those in authority, made statements contrary to the prediction, in attempts to set individual's minds straight.

It is true that some [individuals] and [small groups] got the idea that the end would come in 1975, based on the idea that 1975 marked 6000 years from mankind's creation. However, this was only spread to a relatively few groups within the organization. Because it was never taught by the Faithful and Discreet Slave, those taking the lead, and was never backed up in writing in Watchtower publications, it can never be regarded as being proclaimed by the organization, Jehovah's Witnesses.

In the August 15, 1968 Watchtower, pp. 794-501 those in authority (the Governing Body) attempted to set straight this thought that was spreading amongst some few individuals, even pointing Jehovah's Witnesses to Mt. 24:36, which states: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Therefore this teaching was not backed up by the organization. Please refer to said Watchtower, and not books by disgruntled ex-Jehovah's Witnesses like R. Franz, who's book is not published by Jehovah's Witnesses. This doomsday prediction was believed by [individuals]; but was never not taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, and it can therefore not be ascribed to the organization. Talk to Jehovah's Witnesses to see the 1968 Watchtower, and learn the truth.

1994 Alleged Prediction by Jehovah's Witnesses:

Note yet again that no citation is given to back up this claim. If such documentation existed, it would have been offered just as it was for the cases which did appear in writing in Watchtower publications. Citation is not given because this is untrue. The organization, Jehovah's Witnesses, has never assigned ANY DATE to the exact meaning of the word "generation" mentioned at Matthew 24:34, and no citation exists in writing in Watchtower publications that offers a precise date. This false claim is made because the understanding of the term "generation" has been clarified. It has been clarified even more since 1994; yet still a date has never been offered or especially written in Watchtower publications. Because no date has been placed on the basis of the term "generation", and in fact no quote is offered by the claimant, this doomsday claim can be stricken from the list of doomsday predictions, as what was never in writing is hearsay, conjecture, and lies.

2000 Alleged Prediction by Jehovah's Witnesses:

This is actually one of the very few doomsday claims where the claimant actually offers a direct quote, and notes an exact Watchtower publication, along with a page number. This alone should cause one to wonder why [he] did not offer such for all the past claims—it is because this is all he has, and the rest are erroneous lies, misleading misapplications, and fabrications.

So then what is the truth behind this year 2000 claim?

Claimant rightly quotes: "In 1971, and again in 1984, the Jehovah's Witnesses stated the end would be before the end of the 20th century." …The book "The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah", p. 216, "Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."

Although this was believed by Jehovah's Witnesses to be true, notice that the claimant does not quote anything beyond the year 1984. This is because this idea was found to be in error after 1984. But even more curious to note is that the statement does not say that the year 2000 will be the end; but it says the end would be "before" the 20th century, and "within" the 20th century. So then, one can just as well ascribe each and every one of the twenty nine years in between 1971 and 2000 as possible prediction dates—however this too is as unreasonable as making the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses pointed to the year 2000, which is found nowhere in print. The fact is that no specific year was ever directly given. Therefore the year 2000 can not be found in quote anywhere in Watchtower publications to make this year 2000 claim valid. It too must be considered stricken from the doomsday list.

Final Statement

If there are any questions: http://www.jw.org/en

I'm sorry if this article is long; but it was necessary to cover all the entries on the main page, most all of which should not be there for me to have needed to address them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Devlin 1 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand you have many concerns concerns about this article - just for future reference all of your concerns will probably get addressed quicker if you bring them up one at a time. Most experienced wikipedia editors watch hundreds of articles - meaning our time for editing is spread over a considerable area. Having such a long list of concerns means it will take considerable time for anyone to reply to them, which will make people less likely to want to start in on the conversation.

Anyway, i'll take some time to look at some of your concerns. Firstly you state "Regarding claims of end of the world predictions for 1978, 1908-1910, 1916, 1941, and 1984, please take note that no citation is given in the list to back up any of these claims." This is not true - every single prediction in the article has a citation - see the references column. Some of the citations in the past have been found to be unreliable, or vague, but every prediction clearly has a citation.

• 1878 to 1910: All predictions from 1878 to 1910 have now been removed - I have no objections to their removal.
• 1914: As you state, this prediction is valid and I agree it should remain.
• 1916: You state "Publication dates are also not given, simply because documentation simply does not exist to support these claims." Well that's not true either - I was able to find not only the publication date for this entry, but also the whole page on google books [25] See page 46: "For the last years of his life [Russell] was convinced that the First World War would end in 1918 in armageddon with the rapture of the church." Accordingly I have reworded this prediction to how it appears in the book, and have changed the predicted date to 1918 (not sure why it was 1916 in the first place - probably a typo), and have attributed it directly to Russell. Does this 'prediction' meet the criteria for inclusion? I think so, but I'm happy to hear what other experienced editors of the page think.
• 1918: The original 1918 prediction has been now been removed, and once again I do not object to this.
• 1920: Thanks for pointing out this prediction was made by Raymond Franz, and not the whole movement in general - I have now attributed the claim to him instead.
• 1925: You've made a valid point that this it a prediction of a resurrection, rather than armageddon. I'll give it some time to see if anybody else has anything to say about this prediction before removing it myself. Any objections to its removal?
• 1966-1975: The Watch Tower publication cited clearly states on page 29 "According to this trustworthy bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975...So six thousand years of man's existence on earth will soon be up, yes, within this generation." Your comment that those on authority did not share the belief may very well be valid, but the prediction is clearly in a watch tower publication. If you can provide evidence that those in authority tried to set the record straight we can probably add that information to the prediction, so that readers can note the belief was only held by some, and not all Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 1994: The book that is used to as a citation for this claim only has snippet preview on google books, and I can't manipulate it to show me even a snippet of the page in question. Until someone can prove that the page in question does not back up the claim I think it should remain.
• 2000: Your point that "this [prediction] was found to be in error after 1984" is not automatic grounds for removing the prediction. If you have a reference you may, of course, add that the Jehovah's Witnesses later changed their minds about the prediction, but this does not change the fact that the prediction was made in the first place, and accordingly on those grounds alone the prediction should remain. Your point, however, that the prediction simply states the end would become before the end of the 20th century, is valid. The prediction used to be in a category in the article entitled " 'Before' 2000' ", which has recently been removed. We have currently had considerable debate about what the grounds for inclusion in this article are, and I can assure you this prediction and others like it (no specific date set) will be reviewed in time.

As a final note, I must say you make some nasty allegations in your comments, accusing others of "erroneous lies, misleading misapplications, and fabrications". You clearly have not read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Freikorp (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "no citation is given" means no citation in the referenced book. That is, the references we quote talk about JWs making predictions, without referring to specific issues of the Watchtower. StAnselm (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you mention it that's probably what he meant. I value your opinions - can you have a quick look at the 1916, 1975 and 2000 prediction in particular and give you opinions on them? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

1. The 1918 is clearly appropriate as it now stands.
2. I'm not sure about the 1975 prediction. The fact that it was only "this date might be appropriate" made me think it should be removed. But that comes from the secondary source - it's published by "Commentary Press", which could be anything. Looking at the original, however, we get quite different language: the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E. Now, the writer seems to accept this date, and I presume that this means they think 1975 is the rapture. That makes me think it's worth including. And it's certainly an official Watchtower publication.
3. The cited quotations for 2000 don't justify its inclusion, in my mind. The most we have is "before 2000", which isn't real date setting - cf our previous discussions. StAnselm (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've now removed the 1925 and 2000 predictions. The only prediction I am uncertain of whether it should stay or be removed is the 1994 prediction - have a read of this chronology [26]. Yes the source itself is biased but pay particular attention to the sources this website cites - all official JW publications. It would seem this 1994 prediction, which isn't well defined in the article, has been an ongoing saga, and I'm not sure how we should include it, if at all. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Freikorp, Thank you for taking part in this discussion, and for setting the main page straight in several areas. I really do appreciate it. I admit I am relatively new to writing and editing wiki pages; and all my additions in the past have been very neutral, mostly adding information about music, and other non-controversial, undisputed matters.

As to my stating: "no citation is given", what I mean is, [no citation of the prediction claimant]. For a man or organization's recorded thoughts to be valid, they must come from that individual or organization, in this case Watchtower Publications. JWs print everything they believe, and farther, they hide nothing, as they distribute the teachings liberally. So if a wiki contributor makes a statement on the thoughts of an organization, a citation that does not point directly to the organization in question, is hearsay. The problem here is that many of the dates claimed to be by Jehovah's Witnesses were made up, and that is why links point not to Wt. Publications; but to outside sources, which in themselves do not point to Wt. Publications. If nothing points to the organization or individual being accused, then there is nothing to substantiate the claim—especially considering that the accuser must have obtained his information from somewhere, if it is indeed valid… in which case he does not offer it for review. And that is the problem I am running into in this case. I have in my possession full scans of "Harold of the Morning" issues running back to 1874 (Russell only wrote for the 1878 and 1879 issues); I have "Studies On the Scriptures" (1886 to 1918) Vols. 1-7 with revisions; I have "Studies On the Scriptures" (1891) Vols. 1-6, in several revisions; I have lesser known publishings going back to 1876; Zion's Watchtower dating from 1879 to present; and many more books, magazines, newspaper clippings, etc. If the people making claims about JWs do have Wt Publication sources to back up their claim, refusing to put forth such Wt sources makes it impossible for even someone such as myself who has these old publications to validate the claims. Therefor, this is why I say "no citation is given." Citation is given; but because it does not lead to the source in question, it is hearsay, and would not stand as valid witness testimony. I would LOVE to see where the claims are cited in Wt. Publications! But because no such direct citation is offered, it would take months to read through all those old publications, just to find and validate or invalidate the claims.

Regarding the 1918 Apocalyptic Prediction Claim: According to the June 1, 1959 Watchtower, p. 373: "The Scriptures show that there are two kinds of resurrections: the one first both in time and importance, which one is heavenly; and the second or later resurrection, which will be earthly. To appreciate what the Scriptures have to say about these two resurrections we must first of all understand what they teach regarding two destinies for the obedient ones of mankind. On the one hand, there are many promises relating to a place prepared in the heavens for Christ’s followers, where they will sit on thrones, serve as kings and priests for a thousand years. They are spoken of as gaining a crown of life, a crown of righteousness, and as being ‘heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’ and part of the Seed of Abraham that will bless all the families of the earth. Their number is a very limited one, just 144,000, therefore fittingly termed by Jesus a “little flock.”—Luke 12:32; John 14:2; Gal. 3:29; 2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 2:10; 20:6. All these will share with Jesus in the first resurrection, he having been the first to experience it. Like him they must first have been born again and begotten to a living heavenly hope by God’s will and his holy spirit. They must have the witness of the spirit that they are God’s sons and, like Jesus, must prove faithful until death. Fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that the resurrection of these body members of Christ began when he came to his house for judgment in 1918. Only a remnant of this 144,000 remain, and these experience the first resurrection upon their death, even as Paul shows: “We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet.”—John 3:5; Rom. 8:16; 1 Cor. 15:51, 52."

Examination of this article shows that before 1918, the organization did believe they would be brought up to heaven—Scriptural reasonings are considered. No claim was made however that being brought up to heaven would also result in an apocalyptic event. Therefor the two, being brought to heaven, and an apocalypse, are separate.

The book "Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" (hereafter "Proclaimers) writes: "The year 1918 came, and the remnant, or remaining ones of the anointed, were still on the earthly scene."—chap. 16 p. 245

So the thought was that those who were heavenly anointed (have the prospects of ruling in heaven with Christ) would be brought to heaven in the year 1918. This did not happen. It was realized in that year that those being brought to heaven would only be ones who had already died, fulfilling Jesus' words, and John's words in Revelations, that there would be two separate resurrections. So being brought to heaven was only applied to those already dead—I believe all resurrections are only applied to the dead.

Several other things happened in that year 1918. When they realized that the heavenly resurrection only applied to anointed ones who had died, further examination of the scriptures revealed to them that there are two classes, one which goes to heaven, and another remaining forever on a paradise earth. This led to the talk "Millions Now Living Will Never Die", which was given from 1918 to 1925. "After the Gentile Times ended, they thought that the time of restitution was very near; so from 1918 down till 1925, they proclaimed: “Millions now living will never die.” Yes, they understood that people then living, mankind in general, had the opportunity to survive right into the time of restitution and that they would then be educated in Jehovah’s requirements for life." —Proclaimers Ch. 12, p. 163

Wt. Publications also speak about a great cleansing work that was done in 1918, where many rebelled within the organization, and broke away.

All these events are in writing, and connected to the year 1918. But nowhere in Wt. Publications does it state that an apocalyptic event would take place in the year 1918. This is another case of a resurrection being substituted with Armageddon, where it does not apply.

I will attempt to address just one more - The 1994 claim.

I'm not sure what to say about this; except that although the one making the claim directs people to in the link you posted above, the article "Talking 'Bout My Generation"; the Watchtower site has been updated since he wrote his article, and all the Watchtower links are now dead ends. Secondly, even his own wording is a bit vague. Under the year 1988 he says: "The Society states that a biblical generation consists of 75 years. Thus, 75 years from 1914 comes to 1989, marking the potential end of that generation." His use of the words "potential end", is not a statement of [a year]; it is a "potential" year. If anything he is admitting that there is no exact year given for him to quote.

Moving onto the 1994 end of the world claim in his link… Under his corresponding 1988 entry he states: "Thus, the "generation of 1914" could be extended until 1994." My attention is drawn to the words "could be", and I notice this is in quotes, so I'm guessing he is quoting that directly from a Watchtower article. (?) Even if this quote is directly from a Wt. Publication, again, this is not a definite statement, and does not point to any year; the Watchtower is purposefully cautious as to say "could be (maybe)." Anything in addition to this (applying a year to a "maybe") would be going beyond quotation of the source.

Because I don't know what the broken Watchtower links were, I've searched the number "1994" in my Watchtower CD ROM Library, it brings up every occurrence of the year, and this is what I found...

Watchtower December 15, 1993 p. 16 par. 21 - Regarding the 1994 yearly scripture;

Watchtower September 15, 1988 p. 3 - A quote from an African News Paper regarding the projection of Aids deaths by 1994;

Awake! Jan. 22, 1993 - An article on volcanos;

Awake! April 22, 1988 p. 31 - Article "A Milestone In Aviation.";

"1993 Our Kingdom Ministry" - there are eight mentions of the year 1994, all in connection with making plans for the next year;

"1992 Our Kingdom Ministry" - "The Memorial for 1994 will be Saturday, March 26, after sundown."

There is nowhere in Watchtower publications that remotely connects 1994 to an apocalyptic event, or even to the term "generation." This is how the claimant got his information. Based on the organization stating that a generation would begin at X year; he applied Psalm 90:10 which says "In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years…", he calculated a midway-point number of years (75) beginning from X year, and arrived at the year 1994. Everyone including myself has [considered] such a thing. But no one with a solid degree of reasoning would go beyond Jesus' words "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father", and put an exact date on the end. And this is why the organization has never put such a thing in print.

I hope this has answered your question. And I'm very thankful for your removal of the inaccurate and unsupported entries that were put into the list.

Additional Considerations

In the link to the article you provided "Talking 'Bout My Generation", Although his claims that the "generation" can now be indefinitely extended into the future, are not true; His own statement also invalidates all future claims. If Jehovah's Witnesses ever start going door to door saying "this is the end", it will be well documented, and on a world wide scale; and it won't be a blurb in a Watchtower article proposing a date; it would be in the midst of the event. So I personally feel, based on [his] word choice, that no further entries should be considered (from this source); unless such is stated directly in Watchtower publications, and linking a year directly to the claim.

It's unfortunate that the links to the Wt. site in that article are [dead links] now; but that oversight could have been overcome if he noted the Wt. publications by name. It is unfortunate; however it also leaves no room for validation. I don't like to play the "default" card; I prefer doing the research; however, by default of the fact that no one can verify his Wt. sources, there is left nothing to verify.

I also noticed that the 1941 and 1994 sources are not Watchtower publications. Again, if the "end of the world" claimant is Jehovah's Witnesses, I see no reason why Watchtower Publications can not be sourced directly, as they are readily available.

As you stated (paraphrasing) the 1995 claim should read "Some Individual Jehovah's Witnesses"; and The Organization as a whole shouldn't be implicated, as not only did they [not] write such a claim, but in addition, they wrote an article trying to steer people [away from] the claim (August 15, 1968 Watchtower, pp. 794-501). If I may offer to rewrite this "Apocalyptic Event" claim to be more accurate? That way, it can be kept in the wiki list; but made accurate. At your discretion, this is what I would recommend:

Change the "Clamant" in the list to "Some Individual Jehovah's Witnesses"; and enter the following explanation.

"From 1966 to 1995, some [individual] Jehovah's Witnesses believed that the end would come in 1995. This they based on a recent "estimation" which would place 1995 as the 6000 year mark since man's creation. Some individuals took the claims seriously, even selling worldly possessions to spend their remaining days in this system in the preaching work. In an attempt to correct the matter, the August 15, 1968 Watchtower, pp. 794-501 was written, pointing Jehovah's Witnesses to Mark 13:32 where Jesus said "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father." Of those relatively few who took to the belief that the end would come in 1995, however, many of those stuck to [their] understanding. As a result, some left the organization after 1995 passed; whereas others stayed in the organization, feeling they did the best thing under the circumstances, by selling their possessions to do God's will."

This explanation actually fills in details that can only be had from someone [inside].

Sorry if this is considered another "long" entry. I hope however that this puts to rest any inaccuracies in the wiki list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Devlin 1 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok firstly I 'd just like to clear something up - you bring up that if JW's had of actually predicted something it would be printed in one of their official publications. I believe you, your point is valid. However wikipedia has its own guidelines for what is and is not acceptable as a source, which can be found here WP:RS and here Wikipedia:Verifiability. You bring up an interesting point, but I think it you should be aware that under wikipedia guidelines claims can be added even if they don't come from the original source, as long as the source is considered reliable by wikipedia's standards. WP:Verifiability states; "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." So can use certainly attempt to use official JW publications sources for rebuttals to non JW publications, but unfortunately for you not being able to find the original prediction in a JW publication does not automatically mean the prediction must be stricken from the list. Peoples interpretation of other people beliefs can still be considered reliable, even if they are not entirely correct - the main issue is that the claim is verifiable. To be neutral, it may be acceptable to add a disclaimer of such along the lines of "according to [source that is not an official JW publication] Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the end would occur in..." and that way the reader can make an informed decision of whether or not to believe the prediction is genuine, or possibly a misunderstanding.

Regarding the 1994 prediction. The predicted date of 1994 in the article is clearly somebodies (maybe mine, I don't remember) extrapolation based on the 1914 prediction and the subsequent publications that a biblical generation could be 70-80 years. I'm not surprised you can't find mention of a 1994 prediction in official JW publications as I'm sure they never put 1994 as a predicted date in print. Like I said, I'm not currently sure how to include the saga of continually redefining what a generation is in the article (if at all) but I can at least agree that if the prediction is to remain long term it needs to be changed or given more explanation for clarity. The source I posted [27] yes the online sources are dead-links, but it was the offline watchtower magazine sources that I was referring too, sources 3 to 12 on that webpage. I'll look into those sources more closely to see if the prediction can be salvaged in any way as time permits.

Regarding your proposal for the "1995" prediction (did you mean 1975?, I'm confused). Your proposed wording is a much more over-deatiled than it has to be. I've actually found an apology from the JW's to their members in The Watchtower, march 15 1980 pages 17-18, which can be viewed here [28] (incidentally I've also found this source which documents how the failed prediction affected membership within the church, it's quite an interesting read, and I'm getting the impression more that just s few JW's took the prediction seriously [29]) I think the March 15 watchtower is the best source to use here - as it clearly states, we can use it to express that not all JW's believed in the end, some cautiously expressed that it was only a possibility and others took the belief much more seriously.

I suggest the paragraph read as follows: "In 1966 Jehovah's Witnesses published that it would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975, which would mark the end of man's existence on earth." Belief in the prediction was not held by all Witnesses. Subsequent publications cautioned against the prediction, and others stressed it was only a possibility, though some continued to affirm the 1975 would "probably" mark the end. Freikorp (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bearing with me and working with me on this.

Regarding the idea that outside sources can be admitted to support a claim; I definitely agree with this… in most cases. However, in this case the claim is that a prediction has been made. This is not just an outside source referencing a quote about music, or something that happened in the confusion of World War II; This is not a matter of opinion or personal interpretation; This is a prediction, and for a prediction to be made, it would not be some [physical action] to be observed and noted; it had to be [uttered or written]—in this case, it would have been written. This is a matter of [well documented] HISTORY, and a "neutral point of view" has no place in [documented] history, where the [1st party's] words are being ignored [in favor of hearsay] that is contrary to the original quote.

If you want to keep prediction claims in the list that are [only] verified by outside sources, it should state so in [the main list]; and not as a side reference—writing a disclaimer as you suggest: "according to [source that is not an official JW publication]…". The person making a [false claim] doesn't have to shoulder accountability if they word it to sound like someone else made a prediction. So if the cited source is questioned, accountability should be passed onto the one making the claim. But I still hold to what I wrote above—A prediction should source the predictor where it's a matter of [documented] history, and a 1st party quote is available to cite.

Regarding the 1918 claim. I have pointed out sufficient information to form a basis that this claim was for a "rapture" like event; but in no way was an apocalyptic event ever laid claim to by Jehovah's Witnesses for that year. Therefor I feel this claim can be removed. This 1918 claim appears in the wiki under "rapture" claims, and I see no reason why it should not remain [there].

For 1994, as I pointed out above, I did a full [database search] of every occurrence of the number "1994" that appeared before the year 1994, and I listed my findings above. A doomsday prediction should specifically say something like "In the year [A] I predict [B] will happen"; but a vague reference that [can be] interpreted by the wild imagination of the mind to mean [A] will result in [B] will never be a quote, and will remain interpretation. No such claim was ever written where 1994 is mentioned in connection with an apocalyptic event. Therefore this should be removed.

You wrote above regarding this claim: "I'm not surprised you can't find mention of a 1994 prediction in official JW publications as I'm sure they never put 1994 as a predicted date in print." But that's the point. If it is not in writing, it is hearsay. EVERYTHING JWs believe and teach is in print. If it's not, then someone else said it. I did a full database search, and the claim doesn't exist. With all due respect, I don't think removing it is going to ruin the apocalyptic wiki list.

As to 1975, First, I'm sorry I wrote the date wrong in my last entry. All these years begin to get jumbled up after a while. (I also apologize for my wordiness and thorough "leave no stone unturned" approach.)

I feel your suggestion for rewording the claim is well spoken: "In 1966 Jehovah's Witnesses published that it would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975, which may likely mark the end of man's existence on earth. Belief in the prediction was not held by all Witnesses. Subsequent publications cautioned against the prediction, and others stressed it was only a possibility, though some continued to affirm the 1975 would "probably" mark the end.

…I only changed the word "would" to "may likely", changing "which would mark the end" to "which may likely mark the end". This I feel falls in line with the 1980 wt article you cited which used the words "probability" ("a strong likelihood or chance of something."—Dictionary.com); but not definitely.

I prefer the "Claimant" be reworded to reflect the same. Perhaps: "Some Jehovah's Witnesses". Any more thoughts?

(One last note. I'm sorry that this has turned out to be such a lengthy discussion. However, with 14 claims having been made, as you can see, each but a few have been proven to be wrongful claims in one way or another. As I pointed out in the beginning, this was an intentional lie, and I'm sorry there's really no other way to put it. If you want wiki to have this kind of inaccurate history, and outright lies in it, then wiki need not concern itself with what I've offered in uncovering the truth—but you do seem to be sincerely interested in accuracy, and want wiki to be as honorable as possible… I have done what was necessary to help you set it straight. If the lies had not been entered in the first place, this lengthy discussion would not have been [necessary]. I feel one should be upset at the person who lied on a wiki page; and not with the person who set it straight.) --James Devlin 1 (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My parting words: as of tomorrow morning I'm taking a break from editing for a few weeks so you'll have to follow this up with one of the other editors of this article if you still want to make changes. I had already removed the 1994 prediction, see below, so that is no longer an issue for now. I understand and respect your comments about predictions having primary sources, but I'm not convinced that is the way to go for this wikipedia article - it presents a problem in particular for the ancient predictions. A disclaimer that non-primary sources are used is an interesting proposal, but I'm afraid you'll have to take this issue up with other editors, and accordingly also the 1918 prediction which as per my reasoning I find acceptable. The 1975 prediction currently has two references. The first reference [30] (which gives its prediction of the end on page 31) backs up the sentence "In 1966 Jehovah's Witnesses published that it would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975, which may likely mark the end of man's existence on earth." The second reference (1980 apology article) back up the explanation that follows. The first reference seems to me to be a very definite prediction, so I think the wording of the entire description is appropriate as it currently stands. Your proposal to change the claimant to "Some Jehovah's Witnesses" - it's a fair proposal as there is a reference that it was not held by all; I won't stop you making this change.

Not assuming good faith can cause problems, but admittedly so can assuming too much good faith - that's often my problem. As the top contributor to this article I have naturally added most of the predictions. I used many sources, but as a starting block I added many predictions based on what I found at this source [31], including some or maybe all (it's been a while, can't recall) of the ones we have removed. Normally I wouldn't take a website such as this too seriously, but this website appears to be well referenced. As you can see here [32] the author cites books that are not self-published (and therefore reliable by wikipedia's standards), for many of his predictions; I only added predictions from that source if they listed a reliable source as backup for their statement. I have assumed good faith of this author and therefore added predictions into the article based on his claims, using his references (often without verifying his sources as their was no preview on google books and I'm not going to pay money ordering that many hard copy books off the internet just to back up wikipedia references), into the article. I have since found out, even before you brought up these particular predictions, that sometime this authors information is not entirely accurate (though most of his cited predictions are). He made the claims about JW predictions and because he cited a published source for his work I assumed in good faith that his source was accurate, which is regrettable. I don't think anyone who edits this article has deliberately tried to make the Jehovah's Witnesses look bad. Freikorp (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

REGARDING THE 1975 CLAIMANT "SOME JEHOVAH"S WITNESSES"

• Please see the talk page here: Some Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the change in 1975 Claimant on the list of apocalyptic predictions...

• First off, Freikorp, editor to this article on apocolyptic predictions, responded to me above: "Your proposal to change the claimant to "Some Jehovah's Witnesses" - it's a fair proposal as there is a reference that it was not held by all; I won't stop you making this change." So I made the change because the change was researched and passed by one of the main editors of this page. I then found it necessary to write the page I wrote, because the apocalyptic claimant did not exist on wikipedia. Now it does...

• Secondly, The article I wrote in that link has been questioned on the grounds that it is my opinion. I have now added in three publications which outline the official procedures of Jehovah's Witnesses, which completely verify all claims in the article, ALL claims in the article are fully referenced and can be researched. If someone feels the article does not reflect official organizational procedure, or recorded history, please discuss it there. Otherwise, please retract your claim that it is my opinion. I have clearly sourced all material in the article. Thank you. --James Devlin 1 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I have permission to change the claimant in the 1975 claim. This change is according to research done by two individuals. Whoever is making the change back is attempting to bypass the talk page to achieve personal agendas. You have been reported. If you have a different opinion, please discuss it here. Otherwise the change will be made according to accurate research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Devlin 1 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, Jehovah's Witnesses is also the name of the denomination. With Roman Catholicism, we distinguish between "Catholics" and "the Catholic Church", but "Jehovah's Witnesses" refers to both the denomination and the people. The 1975 prediction was an organizational/denominational one, so "Jehovah's Witnesses" is justified. The text as we currently have it explains that not all JWs accepted it. StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Trying to add "some" is simply not needed. The description clearly states "belief in the prediction was not held by all Jehovah's Witnesses". That is a necessary and sufficient qualification. James, will you please note that the prediction is discussed at greater length at Watch_Tower_Society_unfulfilled_predictions#1975:_The_worldwide_jubilee. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree on the following: You changed the wording to read as though the organization itself made the prediction, and it did not. Then you allowed it to be kept in that some Witnesses did not believe it. This makes it sound as if the organization is at fault; yet some witnesses were wiser than those taking the lead in the organization and writing the publications. This is an attempt to make it appear as if there is discord in the organization, and that some are more right than those taking the lead.

You changed it to read "which stated that the fall of 1975 would be 6000 years since man's creation and it would mark the end of man's existence on earth." The 1968 Watchtower DID NOT say that. In fact it specifically cautioned against this statement. You don't want my article to be written because it presents all the facts, and also cites all the sources.

Those taking the lead in the organization did not propose the prediction. The blame should go where it belongs, on INDIVIDUALS with the organization. The change is valid, based on the research of two individuals. If the claimant can not be changes, then the wording will be changed to reflect the TRUTH, which you appear to want to avoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Devlin 1 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why did you throw away the link to Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions#1975: The worldwide jubilee? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

65,000,000 BCE

Interesting mis-understanding of the list, but this should be removed.Silas Ropac (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I've removed it now, but feel free to remove something like that yourself. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So to spell it out in case 76.176.204.205 checks the talk page: the list is for predictions made by humans of apocalyptic events. As predictions the event had to be in the future at the time of the prediction. An extinction event or any pre-history event necessarily was never predicted by anyone, there was no one around to make the prediction.Silas Ropac (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

2045 - Ray Kurzweil predicts The Singularity

I think 2045 should be added to the list. As discussed in The_Singularity_Is_Near Ray Kurzweil predicts "The Singularity" will occur in 2045. The quote from the book p.136 is "I set the date for the Singularity - representing a profound and disruptive transformation in human capability - as 2045". The date is clear, but is this really an apocalyptic event? The list introduction says a prediction should be about the "end of humanity" as one example. Kurzweil predicts "Sharp distinctions between man and machine will no longer exist". Eventually The Singularity, in Kurzweil's mind, leads to non-biological intelligence permeating the universe. I could dig up specific quotes which better illustrate the apocalyptic nature of his prediction.Silas Ropac (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is interesting. "Extremely disruptive, world-altering event that forever changes the course of human history" - yes, I think we can call that "apocalytpic". StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quote from "The Singularity is Near" p.7 "It's a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed." Kurzweil would probably object to the term "apocalyptic" as negative, while he sees The Singularity in an extremely positive light, but perhaps that was the case for many of the older list entries? Silas Ropac (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Here is a Time Magazine cover [33] and article [34] about 2045 and Kurzweil, showing it is a notable prediction. Not directly related to the prediction, but for context, in December 2012 Kurzweil joined Google as a Director of Engineering [35]. Silas Ropac (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I added Kurzweil to the list. I use the quote "an extremely disruptive, world-altering event that forever changes the course of human history" from The Singularity Is Near. But that line does not have a citation, most specific claims in that article do not. Would be it better to cite only Kurzweil's book directly instead of that wikipedia article? Silas Ropac (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote from that Time article "The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011. This transformation has a name: the Singularity." Silas Ropac (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree to the addition of Ray Kurzweil's 2045 prediction to the list. Even the quote listed does not discuss an "end" to the human race or the planet, but merely a transformation. Note that Kurzweil states, "changes the course of human history." This signifies that human history continues on, as does any other literature that uses this phrase. The beginning of this article states that, "This is a list of predicted dates for apocalyptic events such as the Rapture, Last Judgment, or any other event that would result in the end of humanity, civilization, the planet, or the entire universe. The list shows the dates of predictions from notable groups or individuals of when the world was, or is, forecast to end." This prediction does not fit into those parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apeman2001 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is not cut and dry. Kurzweil makes a living selling his prediction and as such is very careful to not to describe it "as an apocalypse". I have not studied the past predictions in this article, but I suspect some were similar, described by their predictor "as a transformation" rather than an end?

Completely out of my comfort zone here, but isn't The Rapture also a transformation, for the saved? "We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

Kurzweil has said human civilization will continue on in machines which were designed in our image. So that is a continuation of sorts, but it's also an end, an end to hundreds of thousands of years biological humans, and billions of years of biological evolution.

"The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine". The Singularity is Near p.9 as cited in Technological Singularity. As a human, having no distinction between machines and humans sounds like the and of humanity. Kurzweil I think at times would characterize it as the spread of humanity, shedding our biological origins and adopting a new machine subtrate. So there are multiple philosophical stances to take here. But I think the magnitude and nature of the change qualifies it for the list. I believe many people would consider this prediction threatening and apocalyptic, even while others might look forward to it. But I think that is the nature of these type of predictions? --Silas Ropac (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So pending other input I'll change the 2nd sentence from "...disruptive world-altering event..." to "There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine". As I discuss above, although this has multiple interpreations, the end of humanity is a reasonable one. --Silas Ropac (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the article with the new quote. Although I agree that Kurzweil says humans will still exist, even after The Singularity. He's certainly free to make that interpretation. But the prediction is that there will be no distinction. The interpretation is separate. Do we call the resulting things humans, or machines, or something-new? That might change over time. Society might mourn the end of humanity one day, and then reconsider and declare humanity lived through it after all. We don't know. So in that respect I think it's clear a list of events that predict "end of humanity" deserves to contain a prediction that, logically, can be interpreted as the end of humanity, even if the predictor disagrees with that interpretation. Silas Ropac (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes

"The current Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, would correspond to the pope described in the penultimate prophecy. The list ends with a pope identified as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will allegedly bring the destruction of the city of Rome, the Catholic Church and usher the beginning of the Apocalypse.[1]"

Do this deserve to be mentioned? Date 2013-? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This entry previously appeared in the article but has since been removed (I agree with the removal) - see Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events/Archives/2012/December#Date setting. Freikorp (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good enough. We´re talking about a span that could be decades, so it´s clearly not a date. Should dates appear, we can always reconsider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

September 2016 prediction

I don't think this belongs. There are no independent secondary sources attesting to the predictions - and that is the criterion which has been used for inclusion on this page in the past. The publishers all seem fringe, if not downright self-published. StAnselm (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

While there was a significant amount of public interest in the 2012 "prophesies," a significant number of unrelated individuals have come up with new interpretations since. Just because we have been inundated with false predictions doesn't mean that the existence of the predictions becomes irrelevent. It does however, mean that main stream media coverage of these events will diminish.

For example:

http://wakeupbabylon.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-2016-theory.html This is the theory presented in "Quenched Like a Wick" which uses both Biblical scripture as well as celestial events taken from NASA in order to arrive at the 2016 prediction.

http://www.whenistheapocalypse.com/genesis-synchronicity This is the content of the "Timelike Synchronicity" book, using modern literature to arrive at the same result.

http://biblefocus.net/notes/events/the-year-2016-time-of-the-end.html Another one, using dates in Daniel and the time line of the Papacy.

http://www.tribwatch.com/2016.htm Another one, arriving at September 5, 2016

http://www.survivingapocalypse.net/2012/09/nasa-scientist-says-the-world-will-end-in-2016/ Video of NASA Scientist, claiming 2016.

http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/2016impact.html Analysis leading to 2016, referencing the Mayan Calendar and Earth impacting asteroids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 03:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The very fact that there are so many independent calculations arriving at exactly the same month and year is astounding to me. I think its more than notable. Damonthesis (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But all those websites are self-published, and none of the predictions are reported in independent secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a page about fact, obviously. What's being discussed here is prophesy, and that subject matter is highly unlikely to be found in primary sources. It's understandable not to cover a self-published prophesy delivered by one person, as the page would be infinite. However in this case, there's a significantly sized group of people "discovering" the same result, and it happens to be relatively close. After 2012, this page might as well be permanently locked if we aren't going to cover something like this. I found 4 in about 10 seconds, and there are three published books on Amazon. It is, at least, significant to me. Damonthesis (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubts that within 10 seconds on google I can find four new people claiming to be Jesus Christ. That does not automatically make any of their claims notable enough to be included on List of people claimed to be Jesus. We are not removing this because we have been "inundated with false predictions", or because we think it will not come true, we are removing it because it is has no third-party coverage. It is my belief that any sound person, Christian or non-Christian would of been able to tell that Harold Camping was, quite frankly, an idiot, even before his last 2 predictions failed. But the press jumped on his 2011 predictions because (whether you like it or not) he was already a person of moderate notability within Christianity in America, and many people not only believed in his prediction, some did extravagant things in preparation for the end. Accordingly his prediction attracted considerable media coverage. It doesn't matter whether you can find 6 of 60 people reaching a conclusion that the end will occur in september 2016. The issue is none of the individual claimants, nor their claims, are considered worth knowing about by the mainstream press, which is a reflection of how popular the claimants are and how many people are taking them seriously.

Also I think you are incorrect about your belief that "main stream media coverage of these events will diminish", if anything I think coverage is going to increase. Apocalypse sells, but that's just my opinion. Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you can find one other year that has been presented by more than 3 people as *the* date of the Apocalypse, and it's not already listed here, I'll agree with you completely. It's the simple fact that there are so many people concluding the same thing, at the same time, and using scripture and celestial events to come up with it that makes it significant to me. There's a significant amount of third party coverage on the internet, my point is that the mainstream media doesn't pick up on these things, just as they didn't with Camping, until just before the "supposed date." In his case it was due to a massively funded advertising campaign, regardless there seems to be a significant number of people relaying these predictions all over the internet. The Facebook page for the "Ministry of Forbidden Knowledge" has over 20K followers. The Wake up Babylon blog has over 3K subscribers. The point is that mainstream press coverage isn't really a good determination of noteworthiness, things like statistical significance are. We have here the same claim being made by preachers, computer programmers, NASA scientists, all over the country; who have absolutely no correlation to each other, and completely different methods of calculating the exact same thing. The purpose here isn't to present a concise picture of what the press covers as a novelty, it's to "list dates predicted for apocalyptic events." Did you read through any of them? The presentations are somewhat interesting, and the fact that a number of them contain references to verified celestial events which are specifically noted in the Bible also seems significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Most years won't get predictions by more than 3 people predicting, but for some reason 1999 and 2000 got scores (Must have something to do with triples in the date, lol). Check out abhota.info. That website compiles pretty much all mentions of the apocalypse (though it hasn't been updated since 2011); it's criteria for inclusion is much lower than this wikipedia article. Abhota lists about 50 predictions of the end in 1999 [36] , this article has determined only 9 of those predictions are notable enough for inclusion. Abhota lists about 60 predictions of the end in 2000; this article only has 14. Do you see what I'm getting at? Our standards for inclusion at this article are consistantly much higher than just self-published sources. Your observation about different groups of people all concluding September 2016 - yes I personally find that interesting, you've made a good observation. Perhaps many reliable sources will comment on that a week before the predicted date (like they did with Camping), buy until we get coverage from one source that meets WP:RS, I will not support inclusion.

Your sources are books from the publishing companies "Ministry of Forbidden Knowledge", "Wake Up Babylon Press" and "Prophetic Quanta Press". As you can see from the redlinks, even the publishing companies themselves have not been deemed notable enough to have a wikipedia article. I should have specified that by "mainstream press" I also meant mainstream publishing companies. If you can find a reference from a notable publishing company, that might be sufficient. Freikorp (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you think? I'd suggest we change it to "generic" 2016 also. Damonthesis (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I found more published books:

2016 a Prophesy 2007

Hidden Truth from Prophesy 2012, published by Thomas_Nelson_(publisher)

Ishmael's Prophesy 2010, Xulon Press

And news articles:

NPR article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/21/167775746/apocalypse-not-seems-like-it

Guardian UK article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/climate-change-fossil-fuels

Indian Country article: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/article/after-we-survive-purported-mayan-apocalypse-what-future-doomsdays-await-us-146450

What do you think of adding some of the sources above, and changing the description to:

"A number of independent authors have predicted the year 2016 as an apocalyptic date. These uncorrelated predictions use a variety of different methods to arrive at the date, utilizing everything from Biblical analysis, to a pattern of celestial events, to hidden codes. The presentation of a single prediction from multiple sources in this manner appears to be a distinction from past predictions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The 3 references currently backing up the september 2016 prediction need to be removed, of that I am certain. The '2016 a Prophecy' reference listed above also appears to not be a reliable source. The Guardian article is stretching it a bit, it does say '90 months and counting' however it doesn't specifically say "September 2016" nor even "2016"; I don't think it's good enough. The two books from Christian publishers might be ok - I haven't gone searching through them for exactly what they say nor do I intend to myself. The NPR article only gives a brief passing mention. The Indian Country article is a bit better.

Discussion on this talk page have previously agreed not to attribute modern predictions to "Various", on the grounds that if the claimant is not notable then the prediction is not notable (exceptions have been made for ancient predictions and for modern predictions if the prediction is so notable that it has it's own article, such as the Heat death of the universe or the 2012 phenomenon). I am only going to support inclusion if one of the claimants is either notable enough to have a wikipedia article, or be a figure of high ranking within a group that is notable enough to have a wikipedia article (i.e Lee Jang Rim, one of the articles claimants doesn't have his own article but the church he founded (Dami Mission) does. The Indian Country article only says that Dr Sal claims to be a ex NASA scientist, so it certainly isn't a reliable source that Dr Sal was definitely a person of high importance at NASA. The other claimant according to Indaian Country is a "Professor Lloyd Cunningdale", though it doesn't even say which University he is a professor at, just that he is from Salt Lake City (interestingly the article hyperlinks the professors name to a forum discussion at schizophrenia.com [37]. Neither of those two claimants are notable enough in my opinion. I am waiting to hear the opinions of other editors. Freikorp (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I've given ample evidence that the prediction merits standing. I'm not concerned with which citations are used, though the phenomenon of a number of individuals making the same prediction is exactly what makes it have merit in the first place. I think that statement is worth mentioning, while making an attribution to a "single famous person" makes sense if that's the reason for inclusion, I don't think it should be the only grounds for inclusion her, nor the status quo for how it is attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes but as the NPR reference has only a brief passing mention that isn't attributed to anyone, and as you haven't specified what the 2 books from Christian publishers you listed above say, you currently have only produced one reliable source that only states 2 people have reached the conclusion. One article from a little known website listing two claimants is not considerable coverage of a "number of individuals making the same prediction". Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So considering the references currently used in the article fail WP:RS and there has only been one reliable source submitted attributing the claim to individuals I intend to remove the prediction unless considerable reliable coverage of individuals predicting September 2016 is submitted in the next couple days. Freikorp (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Duffuses on Jul 1999 Nostradamus

I study and trascribe Nostradamus books, originals ( UCLA,) and 1 st copies from around the world. The ref. X/ LXXVII ( c. 10. q. 72) has no mention of the end of the world. Perhaps one should say, people without abilities to read early modern french and are "NOT" schooled at a major university interpreted this poem to be the end of the world. No scholar who commented upon this poem ever claimed it mentions the end of the world. Just a clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.37 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Franz

The in-text link for "Raymond Franz" leads to an article on a person born after the supposed prediction made. There is some sort of contradiction here. 174.71.26.161 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well spotted. Not sure what the story is here. It's an offline reference too which makes this all the more difficult. I'll try and look into this as time permits, but if someone else knows whats going on here help would be appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

John Hagee

John Hagee has apparently made a prediction for "between April 2014 and October 2015" in his book "Four Blood Moons." I fail at citation and wiki code. [Guest] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.67.32 (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Dates to add

Can 2010 Sep 3-10, 2011 Jun 27, 2013 May 19, 2013 Dec 19-31, 2014 Nov 21, 2015 Oct 6-7 be added?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why these dates in particular? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

2010 Sep 3-10 Weatherbill7 made a failed doomsday prophecy for the US west coast (the greatest earthquake ever; http://ww3prophecy.org/, http://qwakeup.org/ , http://youtube.com/weatherbill7); 2011 Jun 27 someone (http://godlikeproductions.com said was the date of the destruction (or commence of destruction) of Satan's Kingdom (also on http://countdown.rchma.com/predictions.php); 2013 May 19 was Ronald Weinland (Google it; also it's on WP); 2013 Dec 19-31 is people saying doomsday from comet ISON (Rapture+Galactic firework(the G. firework info is from Benjamin Christen) (Google it (a good source (imo) is robert lyte on youtube); 2014 Nov 21; 2 people made this prediction; Benjamin Christen (http://fr.scribd.com/bench76) claims the bible reveals this, the other (I) got extreme signs of it (Can't say exactly what will happen, but definitely the End if it happens); 2015 Oct 6-7; Ebiblefellowship says this (and http://may21-2011.com ; will upload what ebf says about it).--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Are each of these predictions mentioned in reliable sources? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Judge for yourself (more to come).--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So far I'm not seeing a lot of reliable sources. The source actually should not be the organization or person making the prediction. A reliable source would be something like a mainstream news organization or a book published by professional reporting what other people say. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, after all. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)