Talk:John Titor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg John Titor is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Stupid topic[edit]

Why include an article on such a profoundly stupid topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.204.67 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Because, apparently, it is notable stupidity. If you like put it up for another AfD. My !vote will remain for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the reason is that it's notable stupidity. However, another nomination for deletion would be unwarranted right now since the article hasn't changed since the last one. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes nothing has changed. Of 28 references 2 are WP:RS this article remains of highly dubious notability. Simonm223 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm with the rest of you that this is pretty crazy, but isn't there a mistake here? The article says that CERN didn't make some discovery with miniature black holes, so what's with the Hadron Collider then? Is it possible that he simply made that claim after CERN had made an announcement? Also, someone was telling me that he predicted the Iraq War and also predicted that no WMDs would be found. Any data on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.160.4 (talkcontribs)
The Hadron Collider has nothing to do with discovering minature black holes. He didn't predict the Iraq War, or anything about WMD's in Iraq.158.169.131.14 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is stupid and worthelss, and if wikipedia rules do not allow to vote (again) for its deletion, even those rules are stupid (after all, voters change everyday...) --Lo'oris (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There are no rules that prevent another vote, but nothing the article has changed since the last vote so you probably won't find a different result. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Noteworthy internet cultural phenonomen. Well worth documenting. Cry moar if you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.252.60 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
It being "stupid" is a matter of opinion and irrelevant. It unquestionably fits notability guidelines. The phenomenon attracted a great deal of attention and has had significant cultural influence. The quantity of cited information in the article and of acceptable references attests to that. There's been a book, a play, and an entire Japanese franchise inspired by/based upon these events, and it was examined at length by media and academia. It's a noteworthy event, no matter how stupid you may find it to be.
I think the Pig War of 1859 was pretty stupid, but it's still a notable event. The2crowrox (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Under "problems with the story" ... clarification[edit]

Due to the fundamental basis on which this situation is built, the Everett-Wheeler "many worlds" interpretation, it would stand to reason that an infinite number of John Titors could be sent to an infinite number of pasts and of course an infinite number of worlds containing no John Titors, as well as an infinite number of worlds containing a John Litor... and so forth, may exist. Given this conclusion, problems of consistency could be explained within the logical confines of the story by the possibility that more than one John Titor have concurrently visited this instance of the world.

68.98.122.107 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but we're talking about how to improve the article. This isn't a forum on the topic itself. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 05:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating[edit]

Everyone, I believe this article needs some fresh information, there are a few documentaries on the Identity of who was posting as John Titor and I believe they might be valuable to add, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerd4U (talkcontribs) 19:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, really? What are they? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 19:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The only documentary I could find (as opposed to fan videos on Youtube and what not) is "TimeTravel_0" by Skucci Films, now available on DVD and apparently it won some prizes at various festivals. Not sure what it would add to the discussion. 158.169.131.14 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Amateur Sci-Fi[edit]

I have a degree in creative writing and his story has a very creative writing feel to it. He uses minute details (like the 5100 IBM) to give the story a sense of authority, but if he was really a time traveller that was concerned with our future he would have had a deeper sense of urgency in the tone of his messages, and would have included far more precise details. Instead the he writes with a sort of smugness about how everything is going to hell and back and in a very fortune cookie kind of way. Ipunchouthorses (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And you know how a time-traveller would write because of your extensive experience with time-travelling? Is that another one of your degrees?
"but if he was really a time traveller that was concerned" Would it kill you to edit yourself?
Newsflash - it's not "creative writing" it's performance art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.85 (talkcontribs)
We can't really put your analysis in the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing the Point[edit]

I think a lot of the criticism of this article and the article itself are both missing the point. At this point the single most important aspect of the John Titor story is not the content of what Titor said or its accuracy, it's the impact it had on culture. Each month, John Titor related content increases. More people become more interested in it - both those who believe and those who don't including teams of people leveraging social networking tools to create a public record of their attempts at identifying who posted as Titor and why. I lack the time and interest to approach adding or referencing the monumental data on the cultural impact of Titor (the generic entertainment value of the Titor story to the influence this story has had on later internet events of this nature) but, I'd really like to encourage those of you who do actively participate in updating this article to consider including this much more valid and interesting aspect of the topic. 24.188.213.121 (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the brain-addled teenagers on 4chan's paranormal board really qualify as "culture."173.61.213.87 (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, it isn't just 4chan's /x/ board, it's an international phenomenon, as demonstrated by its use in the Japanese production of Stein's Gate[1], and Lawrence Krauss's using the phrase "A John Titor Style Universe", suggests it has indeed become a cultural reference, even in scientific circles...

...Granted, I am of the opinion that no article should ever be removed from Wikipedia based on "lack of relevance". The search engine is sophisticated enough that low-priority articles aren't going to signifigantly impact it, and if we're only going to retain "relevant" articles, then we're no better than Encyclopedia Britannica. Leave the pick-and-choose style of information gathering to those guys. On Wikiepdia, you should be able to find anything and everything - which is, specifically, what sets it so far above and beyond the classical encyclopedia design. 99.42.81.32 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing detail[edit]

The supercomputer units are of the Trilogy model. Also,

  • An EM Well-compatible generator.
  • Phenom pressure manipulator.

It's conjecture that Titor died within the 2001 Witness Event, with the unidentified male in the adjacent tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.240.183 (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing Facts[edit]

No mention of the 1997 chatroom. Or the Warner Bros interest in making a film. Loads of missing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.32.194 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Problem with those facts would be the lack of verifiable sources backing them. If you happen to have them you can try expanding the article and using the verifiable sources as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.103.70.147 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"John Titor is the name used on several bulletin boards during 2000 and 2001 by a poster"

The article begins with what is likely an unintentionally false statement. "John Titor" is the name that the s/he used on but one BBS - the Art Bell "Post-2-Post" (P2P) (www.artbell.com now defunct) forum starting in January of 2001 until March of 2001. There is no evidence that the poster, as John Titor, ever used that name on any other site. S/he did use "TimeTravel_0" on www.timetravelinstitute.com starting on 2-NOV-2000 and had previously used the same moniker on a UK IRC site once during October of 2000 (see http://www.anomalies.net/object/titorirc.html for a copy of the IRC log submited by Yariesa who also participated in the IRC discussion). Again, there is no evidence that John Titor/TimeTravel_0 posted on any site other than P2P and TTI. S/he didn't post on "several" BBS sites. The mistake here is taking as true the assertion of the author "John Titor" in a post that s/he had posted on several sites when the evidence indicates otherwise.

Another problem is the use of the "John Titor" logo. Though it has been passed all over the Internet it is, in fact, copyrighted by the John Titor Foundation. It may be a quibbling notation but it is technically correct. (see US Copyright Office for TXu001126005 / 2003-10-27). The logo is contained in the copyrighted book.)

The article leaves out most of "the problems" with the story. Problems such as the entertainment attorney Larry Haber handling the account as general manager for the John Titor Foundation and the fact that the story originated in Celebration, FL where Haber then lived and that the story first appeared on www.timetravelinstitute.com (aka "TTI") at a time when the owner of TTI was also the SysOp and SysAdmin of Celebration's community BBS (www.34747.com - now defunct)TTI had a hotlink to www.34747.com on a deep back page of its site. The Celebration BBS had a hotlink on its homepage to the TTI site. The owner of TTI was not involved in this - the notation is simply pointing out a link between Celebration, FL and TTI. What the article misses entirely is that the John Titor Saga was nothing more than a largely unknown topic popular on but two BBS forums prior to Art Bell's closing down P2P in June of 2001 (TTI & P2P). Thereafter it remained a relatively unknown and fading topic except on TTI and Anomalies.net (which took over the Titor thread "I Am From 2036" from P2P) until the summer of 2003. In August of 2003 the John Titor Foundation (JTF), a Florida Limited Liability Company, during a single night, made thousands of spam posts all over the Internet using the moniker "JTFan" to pump and promote sales of the John Titor book "John Titor: A Time Traveler's Tale". Had it not been for the JTF spam posts the topic would have remained nothing more than a fading blip on TTI and Anomalies.net.

My comments are obviously not appropriate for inclusion in the article as they are much too POV; that I know and understand. I've been a participant in this "episode" since the day it started and my comments and criticism are well known by followers of the meme. But in all fairness to the general community that might want to discover information about this Internet meme, the article does not do justice to the topic.

DarbyII (Admin, Anomalies.net) Anomaliesnet (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Invalid wiki debunking[edit]

John Titor made it very clear that there is no way of telling if the future events that occurred in _his_ timeline will occur in _our_ timeline. Titor made it clear that he was not making predictions, but merely stating what occurred in _his_ timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.149.55 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, he said very clearly that his meddling with our timeline by his posts were likely to change our timeline. That's why you can't speak of any "predictive failures", only of ultimate infalsifiability of his claims, which can be the only criticism directed against them. Also, when he mentioned visiting his parents he stated that John Titor was not his real name, which is why it's not surprising that no individual of that name can be found. --79.193.52.194 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
So, he claims that his claims are meaningless. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but please remember that this talk page shouldn't be about the subject, but should be about the article. And the current state of the 'predictive failures' section is a self-contradictory and should be improved: it starts by detailing why Titor's many worlds story can't be falsified simply by observing a different timeline, but ends with: "....the 2010 Winter Olympics refute this claim." - Unlike Titor, this article doesn't have the luxury of being self-contradictory, and the predictive failure section should be made self-consistent (and consistent with Titor's lore). This is doubly essential because the entire section cites no reliable secondary sources (it resorts to citing a 'blog post' example) and should probably be ruled out of WP:SYN bounds, even if were a logically consistent argument. --Wragge (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean However, per WP:FRINGE, we shouldn't discuss "Titor"'s claims as if they could be confirmed or refuted, if we cannot find reliable sources which say they could be confirmed. Perhaps, if it were rewritten to indicate that, even if it were real, it would be fictional.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone edit this article to add references perhaps if adequate.[edit]

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26132/?ref=rss

Astronomers Find First Evidence of Other Universes

Above is not the reference, below are the science papers from arXiv.org that are:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995

First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation

Stephen M. Feeney (UCL), Matthew C. Johnson (Perimeter Institute, Daniel J. Mortlock (Imperial College London), Hiranya V. Peiris (UCL) last revised 12, Jul 2011 (this version, v3) pages 1-5

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

V.G. Gurzadyan, R. Penrose Submitted on 16 Nov 2010

pages 1-8

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBeat (talkcontribs) 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

None of this mentions John Titor, which means it can't be used on Wikipedia as it would violate our policy on original research. --Daniel 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The "change history" inconsistency[edit]

In the online story, Titor stated that a part of his mission was to prevent the coming world war by changing history. Yet during an IRC chat in October 2000, a month before he began posting, Titor was asked if the future could be changed from his prediction, and answered "It's too late. I just wish things didn't have to happen the way they will."

This argument is weak.

A much better example of this inconsistency is that if the multiverse theory is true (which Titor said it was) then changing history is by default impossible because it would change nothing in his timeline, and if there are a practically infinite number of universes, any stoppable tragedy would already happen on 10^100000000000000000 other universes in the multiverse and are already happening a trillion times per second as we speak. WW2 and mass death is happening in another worldline right this second!

You can't change history on all of them, so what exactly is the point?

Either way, the existing paragraph in the article is weak because it's not a contradiction if someone's intent to change history but later realize it's too late.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you suggest rewording it? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You've already heard my suggestion. Make it something like "John Titor at first claimed his reason for coming was to change history but this is contradicted by his later posts explaining the multiverse theory is correct and that there is no grandfather paradox, which would make this purpose useless as it would change nothing in his timeline as he would later admit."
Honestly, this inconsistency has implications which invalidate a lot of the shit he said. For starters, if hes not really traveling back thru time but traveling to a different universe with a 2% divergence of what his would be in 2001, how does he travel back without that same divergence rate? Would he not be going again to a different timeline that already has a John Titor? He would be officially gone from his original timeline and his family as well as his boss would lose him, the machine and never get what he was sent to get back. Pretty useless pursuit.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not mention his name?[edit]

Even Wikipedia redirects from his real name, John Rick Haber. Yeah, I know about biographies of living persons; that policy doesn't forbid naming hoaxers, to my knowledge. Thedoorhinge (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source? (Also, that redirect doesn't exist.) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. It exists, but it's showing as a red link. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The article does mention John Rick Haber, but doesn't endorse the conclusion that Haber is Titor's real identity. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 14:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Identity.[edit]

What ever came of this video, of some dude claiming he is John Titor, is calling Coast to Coast, and has documents and evidence proving beyond any doubt that he is who he says he is and wants to apologize for the hoax?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkmPiK6Pmw

Seems legit. But that was back in 2011. I'm not in the US, so I have no idea if he ever did contact the media about it. Can someone please follow up on this? The identity of John Titor is an extremely relevant element missing from this article; in fact I would safely say his identity is the most important piece of information, and it is missing from this article. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Trademark[edit]

An anon, recently, has been adding a trademark. We cannot use it without a third-party secondary source commenting on it, although it might very well be relevant. My apologies if this is mentioned in the archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Predictive failures?[edit]

I just wanted to state that by traveling into this alternate reality he may have stopped his own predictions. Or even by stating them out to people enough people, or the right people read it and this alone stopped his predictions, could even be the meaning behind the prediction. At least we can't be sure that it was meant to be that way and that is why i find it a bit "so-so" to call it failured. Only in this reality the war didnt happened, and only in this reality he was and changed things (leaving out the part that he is or not from the future). 80.153.142.71 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem be writing in an alternate version of English. That being said, time travel and alternate time-tracks play havoc with grammar, and I could see justification for his predictions not being "failure"s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
He traveled back in time to change things. Some of them could even be a lie to stop bad things from happening. That is all i wanted to tell. 80.153.142.71 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
(I'm another IP.) In other words: It's kinda NPOV to call his predictions failures, and those failures as evidence that it was all a hoax, within the context of time-travel logics within a mutable timeline.
Now, I know that we have no proof of time travel being real or even feasible, but it's a bit like with extra-terrestrial life: We can, at this time, neither prove nor falsify the existence of (intelligent) extra-terrestrial life. That's why we cannot instantly say for certain whether somebody is telling the truth when they say that they have been abducted by a UFO, whether they're consciously trying to start a hoax for whatever reason, or if they're suffering of a mental illness or only had some very bad acid. It's not very likely, to be sure, that these people really *WERE* abducted by a UFO, but in the field of pure logic, there's nothing we have to really disprove the existence of extra-terrestrial life and whether some highly-advanced alien race could have the technology to cross the vast distances of space to reach us and molest some unsuspecting hillbillies with anal probes.
It's the same with time travel and whether we live in a universe with a mutable or with an immutable timeline: With the data we currently have, we just don't know. What we do know is that we have time-travel theories of mutable timelines, and that according to those, a time traveler can prevent their own predictions from coming true (and even obliterate their entire future) simply by uttering them in the time and place that they're visiting, and the probability for that to happen significantly rises if they do so publicly (such as on a web forum) and their predictions become a rather widely-quoted urban legend. AFAIK (it's been a few years since I've been to those Titor-crazed websites with the material), the entity John Titor itself said exactly that in advance: That by revealing these things, he could be obliterating them from our timeline. And we don't only have his own word for that, but he said so in accordance with current time-travel theories.
That's why the fact that things didn't turn out the way a web forum account naming itself John Titor said they would is no instant proof of a hoax, which is how this article is having it now. All we know is that we don't know, and claiming that we do, and claiming that the fact that things didn't turn out the way this John Titor account said they would would be definite proof of the entire story being a hoax, is blatant NPOV. All we do know for certain is that some forum account called itself John Titor and made statements x, y, and z which included claims of time travel and predictions regarding what was then the future.
There are other ways of calling out a hoax, and that's not by misrepresenting current time-travel theories, but by actually going out and doing some good ol' investigation work the way newspapers and the media do, and it's only Wikipedia's job to cite such media. For example, some reporters or authors could publish the confession of one or several people behind the hoax, or gather enough information. Such as by trying to track down the original IP, maybe an internet cafe, and talk to people who know what was going on with the internet account at the time those forum posts were being made. AFAIK, the Wayback Machine was already in operation back in early 2001. Maybe the IP or internet account would lead us to people we know that are or were trying to make a profit out of the whole story by publishing a book on it.
Those would be much more efficient and acceptable ways of calling out a hoax, rather than by misrepresenting or ignoring current time-travel theories. And no, the fact that an investigator found no registry for a John Titor as currently cited in the article is no good evidence for us either way, for AFAIK (again, it's been a few years since I've been into the whole thing), Titor also stated explicitly that John Titor was not his real name. Not sure, but could be he said that was actually an anagram of either his own real name or of his mother's maiden name. (I think some people went and did some garbling with the letters that way, and for some bizarre reason got the name of Mikhail Gorbachev's mother or somesuch.)
And the article is stating it rather conspicuously that there was a John Titor Foundation. AFK, that's not really conspicuous in itself, because the Haber brothers had either published their book on the Titor story by then, or were working on it, and/or were even working on bringing the story to some other media at the time (I think whatever they were doing, their attempts at the time were affected negatively by the bad press they were subsequently getting as "the people behind the hoax"). We would be a much broader leap forward towards proving the whole story a hoax if we could somehow connect the original John Titor forum account to the Haber brothers, but that's not what the investigator did. All he did was find out there was a John Titor Foundation and concluded from that the people behind John Titor must be one or both of the Haber brothers. Who knows, maybe the Haber brothers were the people that "saved" Titor's forum post in the first place when the original forum so mysteriously got "corrupted"? We don't know (yet), but I think that would be a much more solid road towards proving the whole thing a hoax than misrepresenting or ignoring current time-travel theories and pointing at some "failed predictions". --2.240.65.162 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)