Talk:John Titor

John Titor is much more well substantiated than Jesus

Maybe. But he's got a smaller fan club. --JGGardiner 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Previous discussions are archived in:

• Talk:John Titor/Archive-1

This article does not make a clear distinction between fact and fiction.

Is this so hard to understand? It says so in the top box, and we cannot have this in Wikipedia. Also, we cannot have weasel words that pretends there is a real controversy about this, and that it is something other than a phenomenon in certain internet subcultures, or possibly a spam attempt. -- Egil 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• surely the fact that people are still talking about it is a controversy of sorts. Also, how is it a spam attempt? Cryomaniac 01:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

in the current version, the "does not make a distinction between fact and fiction" tag doesn't seem to apply at all. Some in this discussion page seem to be arguing that the article shouldn't exist because (virtually) nobody takes Titor's claims, or perhaps even his existence, seriously. That may be true, but the length of the Links, Other media and Reference sections suggests that Titor is a valid subject for an article as a cultural phenomenon. KarlBunker 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It was larger but got cut down and is being rewritten, tag stays - Mike Beckham 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying the tag should stay attached to this version of the article because it applies to the content of an earlier version of the article? KarlBunker 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No because it needs to be built correctly again, and you dont want people screwing it up like last time.- Mike Beckham 17:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll buy that. KarlBunker 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Although it's disappointing, I don't think it's exactly catastrophic if this article doesn't clearly distinguish between fact and fiction. I agree that the current article (viewed 8 April 06) is biased to support Titor. But that certainly didn't make me believe that this man exists and has traveled through time! Likewise, those inclined to believe in time travel, future visitors, and conspiracy theories; are going to believe in this man no matter what. And I guess they might as well. I think it would help if this were clearly labeled, at the very least, as a hoax or possible hoax.

i tried...

I tried to make it more distinct, but there is only so far you can go. I don't see how this is important... there are articles here about Jesus, Buddha, and Muhamed... why not John Titor? No one can clearly make the distinction they are asking for... if we could we would not be editing some silly article about a "man" named John Titor. Roguenine2000 23 January 2006

The difference is that more people believe in Jesus than in John Titor, so John Titor is less important, less notable. Using the number of articles in major news media covering a phenonemon as a rough guideline for article size, and assuming the article on Jesus is 24 pages, than the size of John Titor should be zero. Nada. Even comparing to the flying spaghetti monster, John Titor should have zero. You can believe in as many fictional people you want, as much as you want, but unless your name is Madonna or similar, that fact is not notable. -- Egil 05:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because people don't believe something doesn't make it non-notable Cryomaniac 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Egil's point is not that it's non-notable because it's not a wide reaching phenonemon. [sic] --64.236.128.14 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Egil would be willing to point out another supposed time-traveller who is more well known or notable? Shouldn't John Titor's notability be compared to other supposed time-travellers and not religious figures? -- GIR 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A Brave New World

I agree that it is inane to have articles about supposed beings that "existed" (Jesus, Buddha, the flying spagetti monster, whatever), and not a purported time traveller. How do we know Jesus was able to do these things he's purported to do? We don't, but by faith and "account" in the Bible, we are to believe he was able to do all of these wonderful things. It's saddening that for a world that is trying to disassociate it's sciences from it's religions, we still come across this impasse (sp?) of sorts. If you can believe that a man can die on a cross, come back to life, and be able to turn water to wine, why not believe that a man (who some of his claims make sense) really existed (even though his origins seems more sci-fi than real life). In any case, John, if you're reading this (and if you exist) in a few years (if you've prevented to holocaust we "face"), go back in time and find out a way other than the internet to solidify your existence. Hell, sign the declaration of independence, and if it lies there on that page, then we know of your existence.

Brian Kovacs, Art Education, Penn State University

Truth alone does not make a Wikipedia article. There is a real Brian Kovacs but no page on him. --JGGardiner 02:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But could there be? --64.236.128.14 14:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You are free to create one unless you are Brian (no-autobiography allowed). But I think that you will find that WP has a lot of Devil's Advocates who would have it up for deletion quickly as a so-called "vanity article" (unless Brian has done something notable that I'm not aware of). If you are actually interested, see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and more importantly, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Well, there should be...

Okay, well, stick this in your pipe; Just because something is said doesn't mean it's true. Thanks for the update Tom Brokaw. But, that wasn't the point of my post. The point WAS that if people can believe in all of these religious icons having existed, why not believe in Titor's story. I was neither proving or disproving his existence, just that it's idiotic to believe that one being exists and not the other, whether they have an article in wikipedia or not. But there are books out there about John Titor and there's this other book (I forget the name of it, but it begins with a "B"). In any case, if you were validating what I was saying, thanks. If not, then take in al the wonderful sarcasm in the in the first two sentences. Oh, and by the way, there should be an article about me.

Brian Kovacs

Well I was trying to be light-hearted, not sarcastic, sorry. But my point was that there are several criteria that WP uses to decide if something should be here. One important one is verifiability. Because of that, this page is not about John Titor the man (or boy) but rather the Titor story. While John Titor, the person, may be real, it is completely unverifiable except for this story. Another is notability. I personally don’t believe in Jesus (although I believe there was a real Jesus) and I agree with you that it is no worse to believe in Titor. However, Jesus is not on WP because he was the son of God but because he has had importance to humans and human society on a far greater scale, deserved or not. True or not. I personally think Benny Hinn is the most ridiculous person on the planet just now but some people seem to believe him. I do agree with you that human societies and Wikipedia in particular have to much deference for religion and that religious topics may be included here where comparable non-regions beliefs are not. However, the scope of belief in religions is quite obvious. The problem with Titor(ism) is that it has not been shown to be a similarly widespread phenomenon. I’ve not seen proof that 1000 people believe him, let alone anything approaching even a minor religion. And of those that do, have any taken one action, even the slightest, to change their lives because of his “predictions”? Perhaps, but it is not presently verifiable. Has anyone moved from the city because of the war? Or left America perhaps? Has anyone even sold their tickets to the upcoming Olympics? I’ve never even seen one person attest that they believe him -- and attach their real name to the statement. As far as the book, I only know of the one mentioned on the page. It is just a compilation of the Titor internet postings apparently. Of course some people believe in him but people also believe urban legends and conspiracy theories which do not all have to be enumerated on Wikipedia. --JGGardiner

A lot of conspiracy theories do have pages here though Cryomaniac 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And so does Titor. I think that the page should exist. --JGGardiner 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to nostradamus

Titor's writings are much less vague than those of nostradamus, and give specific years for events, which nostradamus rarely did, so, in my opinion it is harse to compare Titor directly to nostradamus, I will leave a reference to him though. Cryomaniac 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We know who played John Titor?

There are admittedly some crazy people posting in this thread, but it appears that sane and rational people are showing John Titor may have been a character invented to promote the site. http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=18775&page=8&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all

To paraphrase this position,

Darby:

"Though Art Bell would have you believe that when [A David Anderson who is NOT the David Anderson who is pseudo-famous and has a Ph. D.] at "disappeared" he may have gone bye-bye in a time machine - he didn't.

He's running summer youth camps in Slovakia, Montenegro and Romania out of an apartment in Rochester, NY.

Honest!

There was no "work" done by him and there was no Time Travel Research Association. It was a P.O. Box in Smithtown, NY. He was running the operation from his home in Smithtown until the divorce came along and he had to move out."

I must admit I only looked at the first few entries there. It seems that those people have a theory about how the Titor story was constructed. If they want to theorize, I have no problem with that. However, the problem with speculation works both ways. One cannot speculate what Titor meant, nor can one speculate how the events happened. You can do that anywhere else but not on Wikipedia. Discussions of Titor are fine if you want to do that. But WP is not a discussion forum. It is an encyclopedia (of sorts). It's not that it's wrong. This just isn't the place for it. --JGGardiner 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are also various theroies on that site, such as the idea that Douglas Adams was John Titor, I think that the general concensus on that site (I post there occasionally, as Cryolemon) is that it was someone from either that site, or one of the others that Titor posted on. The article should perhaps have a section discussing the different theories of the identity of Titor, but i'm not really sure how to word it. Maybe I'll try later Cryomaniac 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Response

I see what you mean; however, this still seems worth talking about, watching and investigating for the sake of the future of the article. The reason for this would be that if better evidence appears, it may be worth documenting who may have played John Titor (at least, if there is going to be an article on JT at all). Right?

I agree. WP responds to the outside world. So things can be included if they become more important or obvious. Personally I think that we sit on the same general side of the Titor debate but I've been against inclusion of Titorist(?) speculation and we have to be fair. I wouldn't include that in the article but if you think that it should be in the links, maybe you should see what people think here. --JGGardiner 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the content

In the past month or so someone has removed a vast amount of content from this page. It would be nice if someone could make time to restore it. (If it needs editing that's fine, but don't just eviscerate the whole frikkin' page.) – B.Bryant 02:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Motion Seconded User:Lehi 5:50 (UTC) January 29, 2006

The page is definitely in transition. There seems to be some disagreement about the need for change but it has only been discussed in general terms. Perhaps there should be some discussion about what should (or should not) be in this article? Is there something specific that you think should be here that you don't see now? --JGGardiner 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly just a WP end-user, but Darn it all! I don't give a toss if John Titor actually existed or not. This page used to be a damn good resource outlining the important points of Titor's alleged predictions - better than any other on the net, and I used to reference it for just that reason. Now the entry's been gutted, and is no damned use to me. Seems to me that, no matter how NPOV this article is now, the decision to slice it into nothing was as POV as you can get. --Drjon

Support for restore. When I first read the article it was interesting and well documented. If most of its parts were deleted due to false/non precise information it could have just been wikified to NPOV instead of just erasing everything.

Now the article looks poor and ugly. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 14:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I only deleted one small speculative portion myself (two sentences) so perhaps I can't speak for those who removed more. However, I don't believe that most information was removed because it was false. Rather the article was full of personal thoughts about Titor backed up with a few selective quotes. It did not detail the Titor narrative very well and there was virtually no information on the phenomenon of "Titorism" which seems to be the most cited justification for the article. --JGGardiner 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Support for restore. The removal of content like this is inexcusable. The article's all but useless as is. Albrecht 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Support for removal. When I saw that the step-by-step evaluation of Titor's claims was removed, I said "thank god." This is an encyclopedia article, not a scholarly analysis, and the enormous amount of content made it too bulky to be readable for its intended purpose. I would suggest copying the removed material onto a private web page (it's GFDLed, after all) or, if it absolutely has to be on Wikipedia, into an article like Claims of John Titor. -GregoryWeir 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd rather not bold my opinion however. I prefer discussion to polls. I think that the worst thing that an article can do is argue with itself. I'm happier when I come across a vandalized page because at least that's easy to fix. The old article was, for the most part, a collection of Titor's seemingly falsifiable quotes which were analyzed. Something like "Titor said X which did not happen and almost certainly won't. However, X may refer to Y which has happened or most likely will."

I think that it has been a while since the article was cut down and there has been a debate, devoid of real content, asking only if the article should be reverted or not. I think that it would be more useful to say what should be there in specifics. Let's imagine that we are starting from scratch. What should this article be? What should it include? --JGGardiner 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It should include at least some discussion as to who people think Titor actually was, I tried to do that, but it kept getting removed. I may try and rewrite the section a little better. Cryomaniac 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Cryo. I'm just going to put that below.

Support for (partial) restore. The first time I saw this article (maybe 6 or 8 months ago?), there was a pretty complete listing of what Titor's claims were. I think that he's notable because of what he said, not because of who he may or may not be. A list of the claims is fairly critical to this article, and of course as it stands right now, the article discusses only his one prediction which has been proven false, and barely mentions a few others. It's basically, "There was this guy who said he was from the future, and said some stuff about the future, and most people don't believe him." What stuff did he say? What don't people believe? The point-by-point discussion probably doesn't need to be restored, as it could be very POV, but the points do need to be there. -- Wwagner 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The content should be restored, it's not important if it's all a hoax we should know at least what he said was going to happenZero cool1990 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If you find that interesting, there is plenty of links to places where you can find out all about the claims being made. Or you can invent your own time traveller. But this is Wikipedia, and it is all about notability - i.e. about things that matters. -- Egil 17:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The encyclopedia has a duty to be as informative as possible. By such a major edit, you destroyed what was previously an in-depth and interesting article.Lehi 03:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know (Who was John Titor?)

I'm going to try and write a section about who Titor was, if it's no good feel free to edit or remove it. I've put this here so people don't assume it's spam or whatever. Cryomaniac 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck. I'm always happy to see any good faith work. --JGGardiner 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Statistical criticism of Titor's claims

I think this section should be removed. I think it's rather pointless; it's also written from a first-person point of view, which is rather jarring in an encyclopedia. --Redit 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The argument is just fine but it seems to be original research and it was a part of the old problem page which was just the arguments of the two sides. --JGGardiner 06:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to have pointed out the obvious Lewis Carroll type message hidden in John Titor's name. John Titor is a time traveller who travelled back in time. If we reverse his surname we get John Rotit which is phonetically the same as "John wrote it" in english. A spoof writer will usually reveal themselves in a hidden way. -Aphanes 8 July 2006

Any believers?

I'm curious to know if anyone still believes in John Titor, that he was a real time traveler. I don't mean just here on WP, but in general. Are there any true believers? Everyking 06:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say very few outside of sites like [1], but of course there are probably a few. Cryomaniac 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that believers are so shy. If they spoke up it would be worthy of inclusion in the article. It would help to know how widespread a phenomenon "Titorism" is. --JGGardiner 04:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say really admit to being a hardcre believer per se, but the more I watch the news the more I become inclined to believe at least some of his claims. It scares me just how powerful (or rather overbearing and intrusive and illogical) the government is getting (e.g. domestic spying, near civil war in Iraq, etc.) as well as how many people in the U.S. (like me) are now so utterly against their "leader." All in all, I really hope what he said won't hapen, but I thnk he made some good points. Coincidentally this is a lot like a much rougher version of Nausicaa, which shows what can happen (on the ecological front and not having anything to do with nukes or Titor) and how bad it would be. My $0.02 Shadow demon 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with either Nausicaa but you mean the Japanese one I presume? I was actually struck by the similarities between the Titor story and the Turner Diaries (although the Turner diaries are rougher in a different sense). The old article mentioned similarities to the film Twelve Monkeys also but I haven't seen it. --JGGardiner 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

While I am not completely (there is a small molecule of doubt) convinced that John was the real thing, I don't see why he couldn't be. He explains that with string theory, all things and events have an infinite probability of happening. You're not traveling back through one single worldline that's impossible, or very highly improbable) but jumping from different ones to the next. Our worldline is about 2.5% different from John's worldline (http://www.johntitor.com on post date 1-29-01 at 3:48 PM). Assuming for a brief moment that John Titor was real, the dates and predictions provided are correct in his worldline, but have every possibility of not even happening in ours. No matter what he predicts, we can't be sure of its accuracy. Either way, each day that passes makes me think we're headed in that general direction, and while it might not happen exactly when he said it would, something similar might.Thebermudaboy 15:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point to take in to account when evaluating the reality of what John Titor has claimed, is that his very existence in our worldline will affect it, possibly in a very very profound way. If we are to assume that John Titor was telling the truth, then we can also assume that very powerful people would have taken notice. The fact that we are not in a civil war right now is not necessarily proof that John Titor was lying, rather it might be the result of those very powerful people attempting to affect a different course of actions to prevent the very civil war we were on our way to having. Everything that has happened since John Titor's postings might have something to do with John Titor himself. Perhaps even 9/11 is a result of that predicted civil war. What if 9/11 was created to "win" the civil war even before it started? I say all this not as a believer in the John Titor story, but merely to point out that the failure of certain predictions not coming true are not proof at all of the story being false. -- GIR 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You have stated the very point of Titor's criticism: his claims are non-falsifiable. - Sikon 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but not all of his claims are non-falsifiable. His claims on the nature of time-travel will be able to be explorered once our understanding of physics is advanced enough. In time the John Titor story will be shown to be true or false through the science of the subject matter. That his "predictions" about historical events are non-falsifiable do fit the reality of the nature of time travel as presented to us by John Titor. -- GIR 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thebermudaboy: I pretty much agree with you, even though some others believe it's just his way of eluding falsifiability. Either way, his stories were very ineresting and have been true enough to make me worried about our future.

JGGardiner: Yeah, I meant the Japanese one, sorry. It deals with a post-apocalyptic world in which nature is trying to repair all the damage of something like a nuclear holocaust. (Most of) the people still don't understand this and keep trying to pursue their selfish goals, screwing nature even more in the process. The manga (which I haven't finished yet) has much more room to elaborate and a large part of the story is about a war in that post-apocalyptic period, along with how poitless it was. But I digress, my point is that it it seemed similar to Titor's future because the one place that is shown as being a truly good/happy society after the "end of industrial civilization" was the small (less than 500 people) kingdom of which Nausicaa was a princess. This small kingdom's economy was based on farming, just as the place Titor described. Other small principalities on the periphery of a larger one were broadly shown to also be much happier than the huge militaristic empires busy fighting their wars.Shadow demon 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM interview of the Titor family attorney

On friday Feb 17th (and replayed again on the 20th) the paranormal radio show Coast to Coast AM interviewed an attorney (I forget the name) who claimed to represent titor's mother. There were a few interesting things said. Does anyone else who listened and took notes think it's something that should be mentioned? --Shinto 06:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear it. I don't think the fact that it happened is all that notable by itself because somebody already claimed to be Titor's mother to publish the book. But perhaps if s/he said something new? --JGGardiner 16:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the story to know if there was anything new. The lawyer spoke through the mother who didn't want to be heard *cough* but she talked mostly about her reactions when he first came to see her, and said they moved to Nebraska. --Shinto 09:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would look at the "Lawyer" and "Mother" as totally different issues. We should only focus on what Titor said that was recorded in transcripts. I could claim be to the lawyer of any of the twelve apostles, Leonardo da Vinci, or any other non-living, or disappeared person. Titor isn't around to confirm that the guy is really his Lawyer or that the lady is really his mother.Maccess 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As a strong Titor advocate

I think as long as it is reported that Titor is a self proclaimed time traveler, and all that he said is documented, and stated as works from Titor himself, I don't see the problem. I believe in John Titor, and I believe in Jesus Christ, and I don't see the problem on /reporting/ on what Titor has said and done. I am disappointed about the article being trimmed down and obfuscated in the way it has been, and I think it should be reverted to the older version, and revised if anything seems a bit touchy. Just because someone makes crazy claims that may be false, doesn't mean they should be erased from history. It is our job as Wikipedians to report facts on neutral grounds and let the reader decide. It is a fact that John Titor has claimed to be a time traveler, and there is no problem in reporting that. It is unprovable that John Titor actually traveled time, and that there is a video online showing his departure, but it doesn't mean that we cannot report that there are rumors of a video of him departing.

Titor is a socio-cultural phenomenom. I would go so far to say that his original posts have take a life of its own. If one argues that Jesus did not really exist, one takes the teachings of "Jesus" at a separate level. There is independent value in what he said, in terms of what is now called "Christian morality." Titor is not Christ, but the relevance of what he has said to today's situation is worth noting. The time travel aspect may be taken separately. Titor could very well be the creation of an individual, or a committee of futurologists, not a time traveller, but there is value in what he has said, and, I believe that, in itself is worth documenting, if only for the socio-cultural aspect of it all. Maccess 12:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Composition

I'd really like to see things work out a little more smoothly with this article. There has been a lot of polarized A or B (old or new) talk around here but I'd like to actually move on, to start from scratch with a basic outline of what this article should look like. So:

INTRO
TITOR NARRATIVE
LINKS

That much goes without saying. This outline is a stub. You can help me out by expanding it.

Cryo, where would you like to see the part about the "real" Titor? Should we have a section on Titorism and a section on Scepitcs, which might include that. Or maybe stand-alone. Or maybe if anybody has concerns, I think we should talk about that also. I hope that we can get some good collaborative work done here. Thanks for indulging me. --JGGardiner 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your time. Since I am one of the orginal posters, it is the science and the theory now thought of by real physicists of discussion between what Titor claims is his real theory mentioned by him in the postings he made and what real scientists think about parallel world theory nowadays. Titor stated that there are many parallel worlds that are the same except for minor scoring events like in sports game, but the general overall worldlines are not much different unless one diverges greatly until they are different. Scientists on the other hand claim that each parallel world line is different, but still they can not claim any proof either. Yes, Larry Haber the lawyer was on CoasttoCoastAM, but is working through another lawyer (not mentioned) for the mother that claims to be Titor's mother. The short segment of that show and interview is here: http://www.paranormalnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=6785 . Now, I am not sure how you would present this article, except by being a paranormal discussion. However, do the scientists think already that a black hole has been made -- yes, but it only lasted 13 million billionths of a second. That was on the BBC News and a report after the real physics paper about the Cosmic Fire Ball by Nortese, if I remember correctly. However I can look that all up. Also if I had to discuss Iran's posture on nuclear power, I think you can read the News. If I had to discuss Israel's posture going on lately, I think you will see that they are backing off, and becoming defensive. Both mentioned by Titor. Do I believe Titor? One can not believe Titor, until the science makes him real, and really one would have to travel as he claimed he did to even make an opinion on it. However, the original article had some items in it, that were just not correct. However, I will not leave my name, because it the debate can go round and round. I refuse to go round and round over it, and only discuss the difference between what scientists think now, and what Titor claims it is. However, I am not liberal enough to make a deterimination of what will happen in the future, but know this if I had to find it in The Bible I could, but it may take a bit of time. Simply put to me The Bible clearly states that when religion is used in the manner in which it is being used or argued about today with different religions, a war results, and it is clear in The Bible that it is not Armageddon, that it has happened all along history with Civilizations and that it happens every time. That is in The Bible, so there are many thought processes going on -- including last night -- when an older priest stated quite clearly that since religions are trying to blend together (Vatican Council II) that to him, that it can not happen unless one (here we go again) knows to be the Rock on which the Vatican was founded. I can not state how many people will not like that, but that Titor stated that religion was in the person, not outside somewhere else. Thus only an opinion can be formed, about any religion and whether the Devil is influencing what is going on today as stated by the priest on CoasttoCoastAM last night. You may delete this when I am done if you want to, for I simply state that there is a knowing, and I been going through it for a number of years. However that will not prove Titor anymore than anything else as of now. Titor however did not state that he was doing it for fun. He did state that at least however that if anyone was not comfortable discussing science, religion, and philsophy or politics of the day that perhaps he would be entertaining and at least posters could discuss something that would make you comfortable. He claimed his views and other posters claimed their views. However, he did state that it makes him a less interesting subject because to him (perhaps) there is no real way to prove he was a time-traveler. Sorry, world, but the world will have to wait until he is either made real in the future or he is verified as false. Pictures, videos, anything else except his postings can be falisfied or made-up and I also can show you a picture that has those suppose space-aliens on Mars in the picture since it is that good, until one looks at it very closely. What would you say about Project Serpo, since that is still going on today, and military people claiming that that story is true. It also has no real proof unless you believe them also. ?? http://www.serpo.org/ Now, Titor is the same way, except these people are still living today. But the claims? I since have not been following that story up to date, because whatever is done, only the testament of certain people with no affadavits signed belay the information. The difference between this Project Serpo claim and Titor's claim is however: a certain person is known to have made Titor's postings which are real. Thank you for your time, like anyone else, I do have other things to do, and I mentioned it all before it was all deleted by someone. I do not claim that I believe Titor any more than this Project Serpo, until the world goes berserk or crazy which may be only an opinon afterall. But Israel, Palestine with Hammas, or Iran's posture? I only state what The Bible to me says about it all: A war will happen because of these postures. I try and not have an attitude or posture about any of this religious philosophy. It reminds me of pedeophilia in a sense, and going to a Catholic grade school way back when, I had heard about that since the early '60's from others. It finally came out though lately about the priest, but how many others are there like that in the world. Selling women in foreign countries and slave traders and pirates still exist to this day. I simply state that in its present condition, I have no need to like this World, but hate -- well I been through that from others, and I did not like that either. If fact the opinion from many people is that the way the USA is going is like playing God also. However back to the Titor's page here, and what to actually do with it -- is up to one of yous, as I see it as a discussion about the way science, religion, politics and philosophy stated today, and what can occur in the future according to Titor, but not only that -- according to The Bible. The world is a mess, and it has been there before, we made it out of the Cold War, but again something perhaps call it Evil rears it ugly head perhaps again. However getting out of this mess that the world is in, may take more than praying, it may take a miracle. However proceed as any opinion can be stated, but that will be all I say about any of it.

Hamas only has one M. Lupine Proletariat 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to develop a standardized form for handling quotations from John Titor. Throughout the article, titor quotes are presented in different ways.

Ideally, the quotations should be timestamped with date & time Titor said it, so there is adequate objective context. There is a chronological archive of his quotations here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/the_john_titor_project.html Maccess 07:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This article does not make a clear distinction between fact and fiction

in the form in which it existed earlier today, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Period. To the degree this phenonemon needs mention in WP, it should be according to the WP guidelines. -- Egil 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There were not any fact vs. fiction problems in the part I posted yesterday, which was the "Criticisms" section. You should like the criticism section. Wiwaxia 12:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is. It seems the criticism raised against Titor is not for real, and at least certainly not notable. If there is any notable criticism against Titor, then that will be reflected in the notable media, and you will have references to show it. As it stands, the criticism seems like it may have happened on some obscure web site, if that. In which case it is not notable, and should not be in WP. I could not find anything in the material you submitted that was suitable for WP. Sorry. -- Egil 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Eirst you claimed the problem was that it does not distinguish between fact and fiction, now you're claiming the problem is notability. Pick one and stick with it. Also, a lot of the criticism sections in Wikipedia articles are gathered from the arguments people will typically make on the Net. Look at Nolan Chart for instance. Wiwaxia 13:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass Edits

We've just had another large edit (by Truthhere) that will no doubt be reverted by somebody else. And in the end it all gets us nowhere. If anybody is interested in discussing the composition or their preferred composition of this article, please give some feedback in the "Article Composition" section that I started above. I'd like to see some collaboration that might resolve some of the concerns behind these mass edits. --JGGardiner 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess Titor's not the only one who can predict the future. Seriously though, some collaboration would be nice if anybody wants to see any positive change. --JGGardiner 06:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wickipedia is not the place for a point-by-point opinon piece about predictions attributed to Titor. But neither is it a place for righteous "debunking" and wanton censoring of phenomena deemed, a priori, "impossible." There is good reason for the decimation of this entry (and it has been mangled beyond recognition or usefulness), and that reason is the contemporary political relevance of predictions attributed to Titor, the prescience that gives these predictions every appearance of "accuracy." Some self-appointed gatekeepers here may be defending Rationalism and reinscribing comfortable demarcation criteria for rational inquiry with their characteristic religious zeal; but I see the potential for a politically and economically destabilizing influence in the Titor material, an influence which will only grow as prediction after prediction pans out. And I have no doubt that others, whose job it is to keep track of these cultural phenomena, have seen the same potential. Here lies the paradox of the censor. If it's all BS, why not let time discredit the myth? On the other hand, where there's a wrathful censor with a fire extinguisher, there must be some kind of fire... Here, I'll put it in capital letters, to help it stand out (amid the debates about Jesus, etc): RESTORE THE SLASHED MATERIAL AND MAKE THIS SITE USEFUL AGAIN. And if this material seems ridiculous to you, what are you doing on Titor page? Do you really have nothing better to do than protect people from the consequences of forming their own opinions? -Dano 28 May 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.96.44 (talk • contribs) 19:59 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that typing in all uppercase letters is generally considered shouting, which is incivil. Please refer to the article Netiquette for further information. Thank you. — Nathan ^(talk) 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're referring to Dano. If you mean the material that was discussed above, it was restored weeks before your edit and has only been expanded since then. --JGGardiner 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

I've reverted the article to the state of April 2. All content added after this point seems to have the same problem as before. People may ramble and create controversies and theories about John Titor as much as they like, and the Internet is full of places where they can publish it. Material needs to fullfil a certain minimum standard of WP:notability to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia:

A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.

Material that does not fullfil this criteria, cannot stay in the Wikipedia. We are building an encyclopedia here, and we have to be careful about the content we add This is official wikipedia policy, see also WP:NOT.

So for any chapter to be added to this article, it has to be shown, by use of referrences, that the content is not original thought, and that the material dicsussed is indeed notable enough, for instance by being mentioned in major news media, in scientific studies et al.

See also the rest of the dicussions above. -- Egil 11:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

about the predictions summary, should we make specific links to what Titor actually said with a timestamp. The archive in abovetopsecret.com has timestamps but we can only link to each one of the 19 pages, not to the individual quotes. Maccess 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just felt a summary was better than having nothing at all and also better than having pre-April 2 content. I don't see much point in timestamping it, since it makes little difference in what order the guy predicted things. Keep it simple, conspiracy free, layman's terms about what is supposed to happen, and let viewers decide whether it interests them enough to look it up using the external links. Siraphec 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the predictions summary is a good idea. I like the page now. I've contributed to the earlier version, but I agree with some of the points above that it was becoming a forum with speculative elements. Timestamps are important as part of the documentation of Titor phenomenon, but not in the summary. I'm thinking of putting the whole Titor transcript in Wikisource so we don't have to link to an external site for citations. The transcript is in the public domain. Maccess 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "03:19, 24 June 2006 Michaelbeckham (its gone back to a terrible article again. hard to see whats real and not)" The only additions have been verbatim from the actual John Titor archives. The entries are listed under Predictions, how can it be miscontrued as "hard to see what's real or not?" It's a prediction and it's a fact that a guy calling himself "John Titor" posted these on the Internet. What is unclear about that?58.69.210.219 06:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a messy article with fact and ficion merged, main problem is the "predicitions" area. It is just pathetic that this article keeps being made less and less like a Encyclopedia article and more into fan ficiton even after people try and fix it. - Mike Beckham 07:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The predictions are labelled: Predictions Summary. They are quoted verbatim from Titor's statements. What's not objective about that? I've even removed some items there that others (and even myself) have posted that I did not find in the transcripts each time I reviewed them.

It's a fact that someone calling himself John Titor/a hoaxer/a conspiracy theorist/etc. made those statements, they are documented in the John Titor transcripts. There is no claim made that these are what will happen, or that these describe the future as it will happen, since the entry is about the Titor phenomenom, I don't see the issue with documenting what he said, as long as it can be found in the transcripts. Maccess 07:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrected a short bit. "Ship" and "timeline"

John Titor did not claim to have a ship. He travelled via a machine that was placed into a car. Also, Jonh Titor talks about "worldlines" which are different than "timelines." In his "theory" everytime you go "back in time" you are entering a new "Worldline." The difference between a "Worldline" and "Timeline" is that a "timeline" is contained within a "Worldline" and actual "Time" can not be changed. Everytime John would go "back in time" he would be going backwards, but would also be visiting very different "world" in which if he left, he could not revisit.

John was able to get back to his own "time" or "Worldline" by going backwards in "our worldline" to the point of before he visited "us." Once he goes back, he would be in a time that would unfold almost exactly similar to his own "worldline" but he explained that it would not actually be his real home, as there is always a slight variance.

Yes, it's confusing. I'm not sure what the deal with the constant editing of this paticular wiki has been and the battle to re-edit the page constantly, but I find this article is missing a large sum of accurate information.

I've only edited the "ship" and "timeline" parts, as they are EXTREMELY incorrect to "his" "biography" in the wiki. I've left a great deal untouched as I don't want to get in the middle of this constant edit battle. =P

IceSage 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Predictions Summary

I had created this section as a summary, people have done nothing but add to it until it now occupies the majority of the page. It now is certainly not a "summary" as such, and is becoming longwinded with uninteresting and very minor points being added. I realise that if you trawl though Titor's posts you will come up with a million and one details which he mentions, but this section is a summary of those, with only the most meaningful and notable of these details being mentioned.

Thus I am taking it upon myself to trim and delete large parts of this section every time I feel it gets too large and uninteresting. If you find that a point you added has been removed then don't bother adding it again since it would already have been judged as unimportant. If you have a problem or utterly must have something there, please post it here and it will be considered. Regards Siraphec 10:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but could you please cut it down so that it indeed becomes a summary. 5 to 10 lines would be more than enough - this list of predictions is only relevant in Wikipedia to the degree that the phenomenon is notable in the real world, and to date I have not found any evidence that it is. The fact that there, in the real world, exists some individuals who keeps adding all sorts of non-notable information to this article does not make the subject more notable - to the contrary, it is evidence that all of this is Wikipedia:trolling. -- Egil 11:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Five to ten lines is too severe, and does not highlight the main points of the "Predictions" Whether or not these events are actually happening/will happen is irrelevant since it is a summary of what the article subject has said. There needs to be some consistency in the Predictions summary and we can't just remove parts to meet an arbitrary limit. Just let Siraphec manage the Predictions Summary, he made it in the first place and has accepted additions form other members and has been quite reasonable in deciding what remains in the summary and what doesn't. Just for reference the original transcripts are 19 long web pages, so having that short summary that captures essential points is already an impressive accomplishment. Maccess 05:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. That's the other thing - the entire article is based around these predictions. Unless we could get the pictures and diagrams of the time machine on here (anyone?) that's all there is to this page. Let's get it on the front page this time. Siraphec 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Two of the pictures were actually removed because they had no copyright info. But the cutaway photo still exists.[2] It was removed by 70.68.228.208 on May 4, which was the wholesale revert to the original disputed version. --JGGardiner 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)