Talk:2011 end times prediction

Can we say it didn't happen today?

Or would that violate Wikipedia:NOR? --2.26.74.8 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but it's not 6 o'clock where it was predicted yet, is it? --2.26.74.8 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hung/Hanged

Horses are hung, men are hanged. Good day. 72.25.192.4 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and I have reverted the change. "Hanged" refers to execution on gallows using a noose, as in "hanged by the neck until dead". The standard usage (except in very archaic translations) is that Christ "hung" on the cross. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mel is right. Men can be hung or hanged: The Christ hung on the cross. John Holmes, inter alia, was hung. John Wilkes Booth was hanged. — LlywelynII 23:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth wasn't hanged.. Crk112 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

Good day seekers of Bible truth. It was refreshing to see Wikipedia's recent article on the major controversy underway worldwide concerning the purported Rapture of the 'ELECT' on May 21, A.D. 2011. KUDOS for calling attention to this very significant event in the TIMELINE of human history. There is a myriad of websites on the internet to research & study to determine for oneself if this 'phenomenon' is in fact TRUE. Please remember to line up any suggestions or terminology with the entire Holy Bible & not just one verse taken out of context~! This user believes the Holy Spirit opened his spiritual eyes some years ago to the TIMELINE laid out in the Holy Bible & has been diligently announcing this belief acting as a 'messenger' or 'watchman' since physical time as we humans understand it is so short. Indexme (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually please remember to reference anything in the article from multiple reliable sources whenever possible. The Bible (and its many versions) is a reasonable reference but need not be the only one used. Discussion of this event is being covered widely in the media, those articles can make excellent references. Lets also be careful to remember Wikipedia's neutrality tenants and avoid judgement on those who believe or dont believe.--RadioFan (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation for deletion

Dear wikimods: delete this article. I see no reason to cause mass panic over a crazy mans invented math based on an old fiction novel. this is stupid, and I hope he's arrested and charged for a count of assisted suicide for every person that kills themselves over this stupid joke. 174.29.68.196 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC) 1LogicalThinker

Well, there's a procedure for that, but it's a lost cause: it certainly meets notability criteria. I don't think there's much mass panic, however, esp. since he's already been wrong once before. — LlywelynII 23:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, and I think that most people would not panic over it. Anyone who would actually kill themselves as a result of this, well, I should withhold my opinion about the death of people so lacking in common sense. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been alot of suicides/deaths because of this nutjob that much is no joke http://www.californiality.com/2011/05/may-21st-suicides-worldwide.html Pyrolord777 (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

These poor fools will have been swayed by what he said and his followers, not by this article. If anything, this article is helpful because of the material contradicting his views. Besides, we can't censor an article about something just because people have killed themselves over it. (that something, not the article) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Title

Is this title appropriate. Phenomenon seems a bit strong here. While the billboard campaign and reach of the Family Radio network has reached North and Central America, Africa and limited parts of Asia, the audience subscribing to these beliefs is still relatively small. Dont get me wrong, the topic is notable and needs to be covered here but the word "phenomenon" is treading into areas of neutrality.--RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Both strong and non-descriptive; there will be many phenomena in and surrounding 2011. "2011 rapture prediction"? (Or "...forecast"?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree you were right for changing the article name. I couldn't quite think of what to call it but I knew it needed changing. Thanks for this. Justmeagain83 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's start here: How would you identify this phenomenon to someone who had never heard of it? You would not say "Have you heard about the 2011 end times prediction?", as it is not widely known by that name. You would say "Have you heard about Family Radio's end times prediction?", or "Have you heard about Harold Camping's end times prediction.". Since these concepts are so tightly intertwined, I think this whole article would be better off as a section of Family Radio.

I propose to replace this article with a redirect to either Harold Camping or Family Radio, with subsections on "Project Jonah" and "Societal Impact" (if any should be noteworthy). Silence is consent. Phildonnia (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so you don't feel ignored, I fully agree, and would push for the Harold Camping redirect. While the Family Radio article is quite clear, the name itself could sound like a station or network in any country with a "nice" theme. Camping is unique. No doubts about what he is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should either be a redirect or simply be merged with the articles on either Harold Camping or Family Radio. I don't think the prediction is prevalent enough beyond Camping's own narrow base of followers to merit its own article, yet the title of the article (which doesn't mention Camping or Family Radio) makes it out to seem like a phenomena which exists apart from his followers--which isn't true. If a large number of other churches, religions, or organizations outside of just Family Radio start predicting the rapture in May 2011 then perhaps an article about the general idea of apocalyptic predictions in 2011 would be merited, but as of this moment Camping/Family Radio are the only people making such claims. Also, the article itself gives no new information that is not already covered in the other two pages, so there's really no reason for it to exist separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.40.127 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a title like "The Rapture Prediction (2011)" as this more clearly states the nature of the article, and allows (should someone feel like it) for variants for other years (past and future) to be created in a similar format. Lucanos (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, what are most of the RSs calling it? Best to go by the common name. The current one doesn't seem very good atm. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Does this really need a separate article or can it be merged with Harold Camping and/or Family Radio? Phildonnia (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. This movement has taken on a life of its own, and would almost certainly continue in full force even without Camping. Quite a bit of detail could be added about how this date was arrived at, which would be excessive in Camping's biographical article. If we could somehow get this article to Featured status in the next two months or so, it would be a great WP:TFA for May 21. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Won't we all be too distracted by the rapture to bother with TFA that day? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we will, because it will happen. Justmeagain83 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has a lot of problems the least of which is POV. I'm working on May 21st, 2011 doomsday prediction right now, and I will merge/redirect this page to that one when it is slightly more expanded. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 21:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not redirect this article to your article until you achieve consensus from the editors here. If you want to attempt to address your concerns about this article within this article, then do so. If you wish to move this to the problematic name you cite (is the date you pick Doomsday -- or Rapture?), then please achieve consensus here first. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. As I mentioned over there, that title should be pointing to this article, not the other way around. Discuss here, before creating any more WP:POVFORKs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, if it still needed saying. — LlywelynII 23:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 end times prediction → Harold Camping Rapture prediction — There is general agreement that this name (2011 end times prediction) is not particularly good, and the one I suggested seems somewhat appropriate. Harold Camping End Times prediction may also be good. (I think "End Times", like "Rapture", should be capitalized.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See #title above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Camping reference is both specific and very unspecific, as this is not the first time Camping has predicted a rapture and it may not be the last. I prefer the title as is; I don't know of any other 2011 end times predictions that it needs to be disambiguated from. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Against: Moving from an page with a title which is easy to find to a page with an obscure title is not a particularly encyclopedic thing to do. You will just confuse the general reader. I have nothing to do with editing this article and only found your request when I was checking to see if I could get another article moved from an equally obscure title to a more easy to find one. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (Your votes on the move request would be easier to count if you start them with For or Against. Regards.) Trilobitealive (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be some sort of a vote, than that should be made clear somewhere; I thought that this was supposed to be some sort of discussion meant to achieve consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the reason that someone has tagged the talk page, for a straw vote on whether or not the article should be moved, specifically to: Harold Camping Rapture prediction and to discuss the reasons why that move should be approved or disapproved. I came upon the article when I nominated another article to be moved and I saw this move request and I thought, 'gee these guys are so close to their subject they don't know just how much difficulty general readers have finding articles named after a person.' So I voted, thinking that the usual editors knew what the tag meant. Then I added my other comment. My only reason for coming to this talk page is that I like to see articles which are generally accessible and not too obscure that no one can find them. I mean, what would happen if they changed Airplane to Wright brothers' flying machine? Nobody could find it.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another and actually more common (though I think sometimes it may be more confusing) way of doing it is using Support or Oppose as in Talk:Traffic (film)#Requested move or Talk:Jurassic Park#Requested move. The important thing is to clarify the opinions for whoever is counting the "vote" or "poll". Hope this helps. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the current name is ambiguous because what does "end times" mean? Additionally, the date May 21st has been widely publicized as the prediction day, so that should be included in the title. The only reason I named the new article May 21st, 2011 doomsday prediction is because that's the most common google search phrase relating to this subject. Also, "doomsday" is much clearer than "end times." I suggest May 21 doomsday prediction or May 21, 2011 doomsday prediction or May/October 21 doomsday prediction. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"End times" is the common Christian terminology for what is being predicted here. What is being predicted is not a single day, but a period, beginning with the rapture (May 21) and ending with the end of the world (Oct 21). I cannot find Camping or his people using the term "Doomsday" for any of this; "Rapture" and "Judgment Day" for the May 21 date, yes. Search Engine Optimization is not the goal of article titles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be considered in this case though, because I searched for an article on this subject and couldn't find anything, which is why I started my own. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a fine reason for doing a redirect from there to here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted. MacMed^talk_stalk 19:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Original Proof"

Camping has had 2011 for a while now. As documented in Time Has An End (2005), he saw a strong link between the Flood in Noah's day (a picture of Judgment Day), which occurred in 4990 B.C., and the end of the world. From II Peter 3:8, we learn that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Going back to Genesis 7:4, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Because Christ, who is the Word of God, spoke in parables and without a parable spake He not unto them (Mark 4:34), we can look at this spiritually: namely, that the waters of the flood represent God's judgment on the wicked of the world, while the ark represents Jesus Christ, who alone can protect us from the coming judgment. (Noah and his family are a picture of God's elect.) Taking all this in, we apply one day as a thousand years -- 7 days = 7,000 years -- and we see that God is telling us that we have 7,000 years until the world ends. 7,000 years after 4990 B.C. is 2011 A.D. To further lock in this proof, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month in the Hebrew calendar, which is the same day that the Flood occurred 7,000 years ago (See Gen. 7:11).

This proof was known prior to the 722,500 day proof. If you read the tracts that Family Radio is giving out now, in the first one, "Holy God Will Bring Judgment Day on May 21, 2011," Camping goes through this proof. In the second tract, "God Gives Another Infallible Proof....", then he goes over the 722,500 day proof.

I will grant you that based on the SFGate article, you are correct, it does give that impression. But by no means is that article exhaustive or as precise in its language as it could be. But I do thank you, Ashershow1, for adding the "Arguments in Favor" section and working on this page. --Jeremiah3131 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've edited the page per your suggestions--just out of interest, are you a believer in the May 21st rapture? --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 02:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That question is irrelevant and rather rude. This is not a forum for editors to share their personal beliefs and they don't play any part in out process.--Adam in MO Talk 00:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's irrelevant to the process, hence the "just out of interest." I don't think there's anything rude about that. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wplswger17 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hate to be picky, but according to this Julian Day Calculator, April 1st 33AD was a Wednesday. According to all sources, the Crucifixion was on a Friday. Mesdale (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The calculation seeming completely ignores the lost days in the Julian to Gregorian change. If I am right with the sign, the rapture will occur 13 days later. Oh well.

if you do the math properly -4990 (because it was BC) +7000= wait for it.....2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.109.200 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Treating 4990 BC as -4990 fails to take into account the lack of a year zero (1 BC was immediately followed by 1 AD), an error which Camping did not make. If you can find a reliable source that faults the calculation of the time span, please provide it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

and if you take what you said into account you would have to take off one=2009

No, you're adjusting by one in the wrong direction. 4990 years after 4990 BC is 1 AD, then 2010 (i.e., 7000 minus 4990) more years is 2011. And again, if you want to make calculation error a part of this article, you'll need a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that everything in Genesis is hogwash (as is in Exodus for that matter), I am not sure the second Adar (extra month) was added in the Hebrew calendar at the point the book of Genesis may have finally been written (possibly 700 BC or later), so the years they used would be shorter (again leaving aside the fact that if the event did occur, it would have been written down over 4.000 years after the fact, lol). If this is the case, has anyone in a reliable source pointed out the fact that their shorter years used in the Bible would throw a monkey wrench into his calculations? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

3 million?

I would be curious where they support the claim that 3 million people (actually the article says 200 million people, about 3% of the world's population --MelanieN) or so will be raptured. The book of Revelation lists only 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel or 144,000 total, note that all of the people listed are ethnic Jews. Eav (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. It seems un-Biblical, and I thought these people were Biblical literalists. However, since the people promoting this are mostly not ethnic Jews, it's understandable that they might reinterpret Revelation to include themselves in. As the Church Lady used to say, "Isn't that convenient!" --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It is whoever agrees most with their ideology as always, but that should not be included. As a Jew, I don't plan on getting raptured without my B.A. in archaeology first ofc. It doesn't matter where the guy is getting it from, just that he is saying it and that it is properly sourced. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thank you for considering my recent request to add material to the article. I appreciate all the very prompt responses and understand now the consensus is to keep the article brief. I wasn't sure how to remove the material as you requested, so I just deleted everything. Hope that was OK. I just went to the library to make sure everything was removed. Looks OK. Thanks again. —Wplswger17 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

When the rapture doesn't occur, can we nominate this page for deletion on May 22? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE - do not delete this page - because the fact that Harold Camping said it was going to occur on May 21st 2011 - notwithstanding that he was incorrect - is worthy of note. --Justificatus (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on my observations of similar but failed, earlier predictions, there will be an announcement from the proponents that God has decided to give mankind another chance. Appropriate Biblical sources will be given to explain this. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You can, of course, nominate a page for deletion at any time. I don't think it's likely to pass, then or now, as this movement has been significant enough to generate public attention. And in any case, I think we'll have interesting stuff to add to this page on May 22nd... although we may (or may not) lose a few editors before then. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would love for this to be the main page featured article on May 22nd, although it doesn't look like there's enough support to build this article to featured status that quickly. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea. As you say it can't possibly make FA by then, but I just suggested it to be an "in the news" item on May 22. Wikipedia:In the news/Future events/2011#May 22 --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just been wondering. Which time zone has God scheduled this for? By the time it's May 22 in the USA, we Australians only have around 6 hours left of that date. At exactly what point can I feel let down? HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm told by a friend who occasionally listens to Camping that the end is supposed to begin in New Zealand - right there in your neighborhood, HiLo. (Apparently the Biblical prophets, who didn't know the world is round, nevertheless understood about the International Date Line.) Looks like we Americans will have plenty of warning. How nice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Biblical prophets didn't know the earth was round? Let's look at Isaiah 40:22: It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers.... That's from about 700 B.C. --Jeremiah3131 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"circle": Your geometry teacher would be so proud of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.75.68 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Any reason for sarcasm or...? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the sarcasm is underscoring the fact that the Earth isn't a circle, but in fact a sphere. Maybe you were distracted by the whooshing sound as it went straight over your head. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

God is obviously trying to keep this quiet. We've never had more than 50 page views this month! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you type "May 21, 2011" into Google, you will find it has gotten quite a bit of coverage all over the place. --Jeremiah3131 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Coverage by the same fools that created this page and everything else one can find on it online. It's simply a vanity remark, nothing more. You'll be so ashamed to have given your time and any value to this lunatic with his radiostation come May 22. 146.50.227.64 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't realize that a Washington Post editor created this page. Good for them. We actually won't be ashamed to have documented these events that have already happened, nor for giving him any value because we didn't give him any value. It's not our job at all to assign value within an article. All we do is report on the facts. I'd suggest you find a better use of your time than repeatedly displaying how little about Wikipedia you understand. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Camping is only claiming rapture takes place in May. Since this event is spiritual, even if it never happens, camping will still claim he himself and others ascended to mid air etc in spiritual form. This buys him another 5 or so months until his October prediction of the end of the world. By this time i bet he will have revised (extended) his date. Its all a con. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The rapture is NOT a spiritual event - it's a physical event. You will know it if every born again Christian in the world disappears. But regardless of whether it actually happens on May 21, I don't see for the life of me why this should have its own article as opposed to being merged in with the guy's biography and/or the ministry article. And if it really needs its own article, this title is absolutely terrible and not consistent with Wikipedia standards. The title is just hideously bad .... --B (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources seem to support this being carried on its own, as coverage doesn't always lead with this being a Camping thing; it gets coverage as its own topic. As for title, if you have a better suggestion, please put it forward for discussion! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

While this may be Grade A B.S., it is notable and being widely covered (as yet another embarassment to our country). Even after these guys wind up with egg on their face, it will still have been notable and so there will be no reason to delete it. Just laugh and wait for the next prediction. I'm all for this being featured or having some presence on the main page on Sunday! \o/ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The validity of the Camping's claim isn't the point of the article. The point is that it was an international event that attracted by all reports many, many followers and a lot of media coverage. It was the lead story on at least one of the American network news shows this morning (May 21). This makes it notable in the same way that other hoaxes and crusades by other religious charlatans throughout history are notable. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to pass judgement (no pun intended), but to create articles in an encyclopedic way from a neutral point of view about things that happen on earth. Camping's movement, no matter how crazy it might seem to most people, was a notable event. There is no reason to delete the article. --Crunch (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that isn't exactly a feat, to have your story as a lead on 'at least one of the American network news shows' now is it? Some of those network news shows are desperately looking for useless and inane stories everyday all year round. There is every reason to delete this article, since its being there approves the validity of a lot more nonsense similar to this. And frankly, I've seen wikipedia moderators delete many a page that to many of us would not only be more useful, but also worthy of its availability in wikipedia. The moral boundaries set by having this page here are really strange, inconsequent, inconsiderant too if you see the many truly informational and valuable pages I've seen being deleted by the same wikipedians that want to have this one remain. It's ludicrous. Why not post every optional event the bible poses as truth then? 146.50.227.64 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to put it up for deletion at WP:AfD, you are welcome, but it will get speedy keep pretty quickly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

May 22

When this doesn't happen on May 21, can we have an agreed form of words for the article, less this descends into edit warring? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We can talk about it, but we cannot know yet what reliable sources will be saying on the 22nd, and whatever we agree now might set some consensus, but that can dissolve with whomever wants to be editing on the 22nd. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, preparing what we're going to write "when it doesn't happen," is taking a POV. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 20:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Which isn't actually a problem, as we are all allowed to have a POV and in fact can't avoid having one. I agree that we need to use reliable sources, however, so preparing something is pretty pointless. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly if it is not yet time for God to call the faithful home on that date, I imagine the sources would be mocking that he was wrong again. But if he's right there'll be no need to argue over it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I trust in the Lord to provide a good citation. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That falls under the category of you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. --B (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle this, should the event remain historically important afterwards (of course assuming it doesn't happen), would be to convert the article to the past tense, and detail any notable reactions both within and outside of the Christian community. --DUMBELLS (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true that we can't write the material now - it will depend on what Reliable Sources say. But we can discuss where to put it. I would suggest adding a section to the article called "Aftermath". Of course, if the skeptics are wrong and Camping is right, a more appropriate place to discuss this might be at Wikipedia:Last topic pool. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:POV, you're allowed to have a POV ofc. You just can't let it get into the article. It is smart to plan, but how do you do it without speculating? We must act as if there is a chance this fruitca... I mean radio pastor is right. (at least until nothing happens) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It probably won't take much more initially than performing a copyedit to change future tense to past tense. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that if a group of people still think it actually occured even if it didn't to the rest of the world, the "event" could become part of an article on the doctrine of that group (sourced, of course :) 66.11.179.30 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction of other groups, and the introduction

We've gone through several iterations recently on claims of reaction of other groups, currently "These predictions have not been embraced by other Christian groups. Most have ignored them". These statements remain unsourced (the source at the end I chopped off of the sentence is to an example of one group not ignoring it). As such, I'm adding a CN flag to that, much as similar statements have had CN flags in the past.

Also, we have a ton of stuff in the introduction section which is not in the article itself, which is against WP:LEAD - most of the lead should be moved into the body of the article. (I'm suffering from intermittent internet problems at the moment, or I'd do it myself.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point about the lead. I have created a new section "Reactions" and moved the relevant material there. As for "most have ignored them", I was the one who put that in, but I don't know how to source it (kind of like trying to prove a negative) so I took it out again. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, thanks for taking care of the lead. I did slide one paragraph back into the lead, as it served as partial summary and intro for the "controversy" section... and what that left in the "Reactions" section was more how the prediction was being promoted, so I relabeled it "Promotions". (My internet is working a bit better this evening, still flaking out at times.)

Sourcing a negative is conceptually easy, if we rely on secondary sources (as we should when possible.) If Time Magazine has an article that says "most churches are ignoring this theory", then voila! However, I'm not sure that the claim is even true - not to suggests that most churches are actively supporting or opposing this prediction, but many may simply not be aware of it. I may ignore the loud drunk in the restaurant, but I'm not ignoring the one in the restaurant two towns away. FamilyRadio may be big in certain circles, but there are many different circles to Christianity. I did still flag the remaining claim about how most churches are reacting, simply because it's still unsourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, if the RSs say they're ignoring it, let's put it in. It doesn't matter if they're not even aware of it in actuality. It just matters how the RSs characterize it. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Time mention above was not an actual quote, it was just being used as an example of how one could reliably source such a statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still how it should be done. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I came in to point out the "most" in "Most Christian groups have not embraced Camping's prediction" is so weak as to border on violating NPOV, but it's sourced. Then again, it's sourced to an obscure content-farming website.

Alexa provides:

Relijournal

Rank:130,156

Keywords: burqa, hannuka, burqa in turkey, "you are the antichrist", muslim

Ehhh... This is really a reliable source? How about replacing it with citations of any Christian group that has embraced his predition? — LlywelynII 23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote from the book,"1994?"

I notice that in part of this article, it says that he predicted September 4, 1994 was the date of judgment day according to Harold Camping, and i understand some sources have this date and that date and sometimes they can be a few days off. In page 533 of Harold Camping's book, "1994?," He makes this statement, "When September 6, 1994, arrives, no one else can be saved. The end has come." So i thought you would all take that into consideration as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.132.139 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't access that book, but I found another source that says Sept. 6 - even though several previously listed sources said Sept. 4. So I have included both dates in the article, saying the date has been "variously reported as...". --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thedayaftermay21, 15 May 2011

Please consider posting reference to alternative view to 2011 end times prediction. Perhaps in the external links and a brief note that majority of believers do not follow this teaching.

http://thedayaftermay21.com

thanks.

Thedayaftermay21 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks like just another criticism of the prediction, with the added feature of acting as if the prediction has already failed to come to pass. I don't see how this adds much to what we already have. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, inappropriate for inclusion here; looks like a COI attempt to drive readership to the web page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also self-published. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording change and/or deletion

The 2nd Sentence, 2nd Paragraph use of a Christianity Today article is misleading. The Christianity Today article is discussing a previous bit of controversy where Camping told people to leave their churches. The wording in the Wikipedia article would lead me to believe it was discussing the 2011 end times prediction. 68.254.173.126 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Jim Lind

Good catch, Jim. I have excised it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I put the article back, but in the paragraph about "flee the church". Turns out it was written in 2002, in response to a 2001 pamplet by Camping. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that paragraph should be there; this is an article about the 2011 prediction, and that controversy is not part of it. It would, of course, be reasonable on the Camping page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all part of his "end times" predictions; people are supposed to flee the church because the Tribulation has begun. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Order of sections

I have rearranged the sections in what I felt was a more logical order. However, this left two separate sections called "controversy" and "criticism". I am not sure if they should continue to be separate or if they should be combined somehow; they are not quite the same thing. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would merge the two sections together under the "criticism" heading. Controversy is a very vague word. Criticism accurately describes the responses to Camping's prediction. LegalSkeptic (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

You've sunken real low to have this as a wikipedia entry. I mean honestly, come on, if we'd have a page dedicated to each and every religious nonsensical prediction by self-appointed intelligentia, you might as well hang your credibility as a reliable source of info to the trees. This is shamelessly ridiculous, everybody knows, and worst of all: Nobody cares about this allegedly important man that has invented this 'special day' of his making. Grow up already! 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC) +1 for immediate deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.66.131 (talk)

We don't have entries of every religious prediction - but this has gotten major media coverage, and is thus notable... which is the guideline for things that should be included in Wikipedia. (And if nobody cares, why are you here reading the article and commenting on it?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Alleged man"? Do you want to see Harold Camping's long-form birth certificate? LegalSkeptic (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say, this page RULES! I can't wait for May 22, 2011 (the day AFTER the rapture). Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

NatGertler said it best. I also wish all of these predictions would stay obscure, but between the ubiquitous billboards and the caravans you can't miss this. The media are giving it front-page treatment (literally the front page on Slate this week); Google News finds dozens of stories in the last few days. This is going to be one of the hottest pages on Wikipedia over the next week; daily hits have gone from a few thousand a day up to now, to more than 20,000 a day currently. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What a load of crappy excuses. I agree that this is not worth a page in wikipedia (and we all know it isn't). It will pass by like every other day, with the exception of some obscure radio-voice telling his obscure follower cult about their ludicrously silly 'calculations' and sad excuses for why nothing close to a 'rapture' took place. This page is by and for retards, period. And me noticing the fact that this exists does not imply me being among those retards, something NatGertler apparently assumes, meaning that the way his mind works is telling us he probably believes in BS like this. 146.50.227.64 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

These aren't excuses, they're Wikipedia policies, which you don't seem to be very familiar with. A page doesn't get kept or deleted based on whether you agree with it, but on how notable it is. The prediction is worldwide news whether we like it or not. You're making a number of unwarranted assumptions about the contributors to this article. Much of the article consists of criticism of the prediction. I'm an atheist and found the article lacking in secular criticism, so I added the Richard Dawkins quote. I agree with Dawkins that this topic is silly. But it's notable silliness, so it deserves an article. LegalSkeptic (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First, let me note that if you wish to insult me and state your assumptions about me, the more appropriate place to do that would be on my talk page; the link for that you will find at the end of this message. This page is for discussing the editing of the article. If you wish to see this article deleted, the appropriate process would be to list it as an Article For Deletion; you will find instructions on doing so here. If you wish to argue it based on the belief that there is no legitimate interest in this topic, then you'll have to face the fact that this page is being read tens of thousands of times a day... including apparently by yourself. No matter what your protestations, you were for some reason interested enough in the topic to come to the page and to post your comments. The article does not exist solely for believers in the prediction. Wikipedia carries pages on many religious beliefs, including those that may no longer be held by anyone, or those that are only held by people whose very beliefs prevent their accessing Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop trying to blame your own twisted (and faulty) mindset on other people's responses to it. You're all behaving like pathetic long-toed whiners with too much time on their hands. And you know it. This page is inane nonsense (yes, inane, not insane). To even have to discuss that is even more ridiculous. 146.50.227.64 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to WP: AFD its not productive to the article, nor is it the proper venue to propose deletion. Also this is not a forum to criticize Smitty1337 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Passages Opposing Camping's Prediction

According to the “Camping Prediction”, it should be assumed that May 21st will be Insignificant if you’re not a Christian. Here’s why. Christians already believe that Jesus will spectacularly return as King (second part of the Messianic Prophecy) and the world as we know it, will eventually end. Setting a random date to these events doesn’t really change the Christian’s point of view. Neither does it work toward spreading the good news of the Gospel. These predictions only serve to honor and promote Mr. Camping, not the returning King of Kings.

Since Non-Christians don’t usually read the Bible, they probably wouldn’t know that Camping is really stretching with his prediction. The Bible is clear that no man knows the date or hour. Because God wants “faithful” followers, setting a date would be counter-intuitive. Just like you wouldn’t purchase life insurance today if you knew for certain you wouldn’t die for another 20 years. What’s the point? Jesus told many parables about the “Return of the King”. And in each one, the idea of “surprise”, “not knowing” and “sudden appearing” are all prevalent. Jesus quoted the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) countless times. But never once, in all his quoting, did Jesus mention anything about calendar dates embedded in the Old Testament. So why are we listening this Camping guy again? HBCALI (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your suggestion for improving the article? -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As the post states, why are we listening to Camping and promoting his agenda? Who plans to take the "heat" when his prediction fails? Himself, his church, his radio program? Article should state. Also, there's no intuitive sources refuting the claim. As editors, we should plan on what to do with this article after May 21st. Just a thought HBCALI (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as editors we should not plan anything. The only thing we should do is report on things that have already happened and have been documented by other sources. At any rate, there is already a section on this page discussing that very idea. As for who "plans to take the heat," if you have sourced information about that, we'd be glad to include it. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Fyrefly , IMHO that's the problem with the article. No one "intuitive" is willing to comment on this guy. That should send us a clear signal. I mean, who's "onboard" with Camping? Can we find any significant names within mainstream Christianity to agree with him or validate our time editing this article (thinking Swindol, Macauthur, etc)? What's our plan on deleting this article after the May 21st deadline? Is it even worth updating if the prediction is bust - think it would be obvious at that point...

No offense, but I don't think you quite understand what this article is about. This article is about the prediction for May 21, not about an event that may or may not occur. Absolutely nothing about the article will suddenly become invalid, regardless of what happens on that date and so there would be no reason to delete it. Camping cannot unstate his predictions and the media cannot unreport them. The only thing that will happen to this article on the day after will be a change of tense, and most likely the inclusion of some people's notable responses and reactions. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Fyrefly , No offense taken. I may not understand it from a Wikipedia editorial perspective (which is what I think you're referring too). But I clearly and concisely understand the premise of this article and the subject of Camping's prediction. No question. That said, see you May 22 for the clean-up / revision! Cheers.HBCALI (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an article on this prediction because of a general belief that it is accurate. (There have been some editors of this article who hold faith in the prediction, but the general vibe around here suggests that they are in the minority.) Rather, we have an article on it because it's notable -- it's getting significant coverage in the media, indicating that it's a subject of interest. The existence of the article is not an endorsement of its accuracy, as Wikipedia has plenty of article chronicling the propogation of falsehoods - hoaxes, cons, erroneous science, and so forth. If and when this prediction is shown to be false, we should then be covering its failure and the effects of its failure as represented by coverage in the larger media. (If it's shown to be true, of course, those of us who are still around may have bigger things to worry about than Wikipedia.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? There is at the most a group of less than 0.00000001 % of wikipedia readers that buys into this idiocracy. You're one of them. How can one possibly "hold faith in the prediction" ? Based on what exactly? It directly opposes what wikipedia, to my knowledge, stands for. Nothing about this prediction is verifiable, ergo it should not even exist as a page. 146.50.227.64 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The prediction itself is verifiable, check the sources, the prediction exists - Harold Camping made it. Saying we shouldn't have an article on this widely covered prediction of the end times because it isn't going to come true is like saying we shouldn't have an article on Lord of the Rings because it isn't verifiably true... If you believe the article should be deleted you can always open up an AfD. Delusion23 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

146.50.227.64, you apparently didn't understand much of anything Nat said and also don't seem to have the right idea of what wikipedia stands for. As we keep saying, the accuracy of the prediction is completely and entirely irrelevant, as are the beliefs of the editors involved. The fact is that the prediction has received some media coverage from places like MSNBC and the Washington Post, as well as others (as shown in the article), and is therefore notable. And as I said before, on May 22nd, absolutely nothing in this article will become wrong. All the article does is document that someone made the prediction and the coverage it has gotten, which can't become not fact. -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add my 2p on this. What I think is that YES, the rapture could indeed happen on the 21st of May but then again it could equally be tommorrow or 21st of December 2012. Who's to say? It will happen when God says it will as He's the only one who knows when it will be. I'm not saying I'd refute Campings guess but I'd not shell out £86,000 to warn people of a major city nor pay for a post-rapture pet sitting service while they wait for the Armageddon while their owners are with God. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, we are not discussing whether the prediction is right or not! As it says clearly at the top of this page, this is not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. Technically, we're allowed to delete any comments that don't pertain to editing the article and I think I'll be doing that from now on. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may offer other examples on similar hypotheses having articles (just to hammer home the point): Ancient astronauts, Cottingley Fairies, Creationism, Jesus Family Tomb, Location hypotheses of Atlantis, Shroud of Turin. What do these all have in common? They are not accurate or true, but they have articles solely because they are notable, not if they are true or not, but because they exist and are known about. Wikipedia's purpose is not to prove or disprove anything or anything like that, just convey information about topics. The weight given by the sources will usually help to tell the reader how much stock is put into the subject. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Date discussion

There is a discussion going on at Talk:May 21 on whether a link to this article is appropraite on May 21 some more opinions would be nice.--RadioFan (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather nice AP article chock full of info

Here's a nice AP article that was linked on MSN Messenger [1]. Some of the highlights include: Billboards in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, Unrest among the Hmong of Viet Nam. Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a good article, but we probably have enough. I have passed up, in the last week, multiple articles including one saying the billboards are in more than 40 countries ranging from Russia to Zimbabwe. (I couldn't resist the one pointing out that all the Christian leaders interviewed said they were scheduling services as usual for Sunday, May 22.) The hype is so huge at this point that we could have doubled the references of the article in just the past week. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to tackle it tonight, but I actually think that the stuff about the Hmong in that article should be included here. In covering the prediction itself as an event (rather than the event it predicts), we should include the repercussions. If the prediction comes true, we may be able to speak of the prediction having moved people to find the sort of belief which qualified them for being among the Rapturees (having the Rapture occur will not be primarily covered in this article - it would seem better suited to the Rapture article itself, which will require a major rewrite); if it proves false, there will likely be coverage of the damage to lives, of people who spent their life savings and burned various metaphorical bridges in support of the campaign which surrounds the prediction, as well as impact on the Family Radio network. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I both admire your dispassionate open-mindedness and simultaneously find myself quite amused by the idea ("if the prediction comes true") of Wikipedia editors spending their last few months before eternal damnation making sure that the end of the world is covered in an appropriate encyclopedic manner. That is devotion. =) Wickedjacob (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are those who would argue that eternal damnation may involve spending one's days attempting to rid Wikipedia of errors and insufficiencies. Sisyphusipedia, of you will --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone would be passing up good articles to include when there's so many primary and unreliable sources being used at the moment. -- Fyrefly (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What are examples of those unreliable sources, Fryael? I'll see if I can replace them with better ones. (IMO primary sources are acceptable for the "rationale" section, or for documentation of the group's actual claims.)
LOL, Wickedjacob, yes, that is devotion! Maybe we are trying to win the Wikipedia:Last topic pool. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir William, your article turned out to be just what I needed to verify that his predictions are "numerology" so I used it for that. As for the Hmong unrest, I couldn't confirm that the unrest was related to this prediction. This article in Bloomberg says the purpose of the gathering (if it's the same gathering) was to agitate for a Hmong kingdom. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Other sources linking Hmong event to prediction [2], [3] --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are Reliable Sources so let's go with it! I'm wondering if we're going to need a new section called "reaction" or something? Currently the actions of believers are in the "promotion" section. Or should we rename that section? --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me take a first stab at a "repercussions" section. Promotion deserves its own section, although it might be reasonably put as a subsection of "repercussions". As a more general note, as it may impact processing of other information that may come up: one does not need to be a follower of a religion to invest in an emotionally-loaded prophecy (as this one is) derived from that religion. That may seem counter-intuitive, but, well, the people I've seen propagating the idea of the supposed end of the Mayan calendar ain't Mayans. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I like your gathering of these various items under "Impact". I added a couple of things I have been looking for a way to include - such as the commercial offerings based on the prediction. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted those - while those services are getting more attention because of the prediction, they are not services that were created due to this specific prediction. They've been around for years, and I only find one specifically noting a recent uptick in business. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad the article was helpful. MSNBC often likes to write on silly stuff as well as doing serious news. I think Reuters has a similar section called bizzare news or something. Surely there are a few more RSs on this topic. I have asked my girlfriend to contact me if goyim start disappearing in Israel btw. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Numerology

Quite a few people (see Google search results) label Camping's predictions numerology. I don't know if this particular classification is technically correct, but either way should it be noted in the Criticism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.5.210 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is numerology in my opinion, but none of the Google hits qualify as Reliable Sources. We would need a Reliable Source (like a newspaper) calling it numerology if we were to add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that Sir William's article, cited in the section above, called his proofs "numerological" - so I added it to the article. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Time recalculation

Given that the Rapture is (according to references) to occur at 6pm local time, I have altered the predicted times in line with the international clock here: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

It's also worth noting that Christmas Islands does not have a Daylight Savings Time change, where as New York does. It's unclear whether the prediction takes this into account. UTC/GMT is currently London time minus one hour, so 6pm in the Christmas Islands (UTC+14) is 4am UTC and in New York (UTC-4) is 10pm UTC. --Gordon (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would edit the time change thing to have this as the reference instead: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/a_conversation_with_harold_cam.html There is a first hand conversation where he says it will happen at 6pm in each time zone. The other reference is simply someone else "paraphrasing" which leads to all sorts of conspiratorial "Oh he just put words in the guy's mouth" arguments. (I know, because I started one exactly like that... Fortunately, a friend pointed me to the actual source.) 69.200.230.14 (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Zombie Apocalypse not related to this article

This sentence "The related searches "Harold Camping", "May 21 doomsday", "May 21 rapture" and "zombie apocalypse" were also represented among the top 10 positions." I propose we remove the part about "zombie apocalypse" since that is almost certainly unrelated to this man's prediction and rather it is a result of the CDC putting out a joke zombie apocalypse survival guide on May 16th a few days prior. It can be viewed here http://emergency.cdc.gov/socialmedia/zombies_blog.asp its funny, and has been in the news for a few days now. Smitty1337 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. The zombies have now been slain from this article. We can breathe peacefully, and start rebuilding civilization. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The zombie apocalypse is mentioned later on in the article as being relevant to the rapture prediction as an official response. Looks like we're not safe yet D: Delusion23 (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed that one. How in the world did it sneak in? -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

While there are reliable sources which will tie the "zombie apocalypse" stuff to the Rapture prediction, they seem loose; barring some direct comment from the CDC, I'm wary of citing this as an "official response". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it may be funny, however, the purpose of the article is not to entertain, rather to inform. Besides, I think the subject itself is already entertaining on its own. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Has the Era of the Church Come to an End?" or "Has the Era of the Church *AGE* Come to an End?"

A simple Google count seems to suggest that the title of the pamphlet was "Has the Era of the Church Age Come to an End?", not "Has the Era of the Church Come to an End?". Please research this if you can and correct it if necessary. -- 77.187.55.206 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I've fixed it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion necessary????

I am making a request that this Article, 2011 end times prediction, get nominated for Speedy Deletion due to various contrivesry.--68.202.56.108 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Various controversy" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may want to review that list; it's a handy one to know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I now know why I want the article speedy deleted. It is because there No indication of importance. --68.202.56.108 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Either launch an AfD or read one of the numerous rebuttals of your position on this page. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The non-Promotion portions of the Impact section cover its importance; this is an event that is having an impact. Even if that were not the case, failure to indicate importance only applies for speedy deletion reasons A7 - which covers articles on individuals, animals, organizations, and web content - and A9 - musical recordings. The criteria page specifies that "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category" is not a criterion for speedy deletion (you'll find it listed in the "Non-criteria" section.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NYPD Statement not cited

Under "Official Response" there's a quote from NYPD... (We don't plan any additional coverage for the end of the world. Indeed, if it happens, fewer officers will be required for streets that presumably will be empty)

The article that citation links to doesn't say what their official statement is and certainly doesn't quote them as saying that. Either we should find a cite that DOES show their statement.. or remove the statement from this article.

Thoughts?

Crk112 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I checked their official website and found nothing under press releases. NYC.gov NYPD search and NYPD Press Room The statement is dubious as it is well-known that our police dept. lacks a sense of humour anyway. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check video in that article. In the end, there is that statement.--89.173.20.32 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It also came up in this kiwi news article someone posted earlier. [4] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

it's time to delete

the date of may 21st 2011 has already came and yet nothing happened i believe its safe to assume nothing will happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicrulesreturns (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The existence of this page is not reliant on the accuracy of the prophecy. (Also, it has not yet hit the significant time.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The prediction says it will start at 18:00 on Kiritimati/Christmas Island, and it's currently 16:02 there. I don't believe it'll happen, but there's still time. Atheuz (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

2 more hours to go before whatever happens, huh? 198.151.130.69 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (with Aussie accent) Crikey.

Even after that time it's still not a reason to get rid of the article. The prediction itself is obviously a noteworthy event in itself due to the unprecedented amount of global coverage it has received. Delusion23 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

-

Camping has generally said "approximately" to the time, so, well, more or less. So let's not jump on things just because two more hours have passed and we haven't noticed anything happening. Better to rely on reliable sources announcing that things have either happened on schedule or failed to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that if the world ends, it should be noted on Wikipedia and in the Earth article. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And most likely the "oh, hell" and "we're all gonna die" articles too? Delusion23 (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could add a "current event" tag. --John Nagle (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's for event-related articles that have three or more edits a day or something. Its sole purpose is to warn editors they might hit edit conflicts though, it's not for reader's benefit. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a tremendous amount of press attention. It's the top story on Google News right now. --John Nagle (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Donald isn't the Last Trump. He has kids, after all. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Gather your families & pray!

You have time to change, bibular studies of faith say all believers of God shall be called, others will live then soon parish in grisly deaths and will go someplace else. You have time to believe, and change your faith. Do so now.68.96.45.210 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bibular"? Is that the biblical equivalent of titular? 198.151.130.69 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

believe, you must believe. I am the one sent to spread the message from the heavens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.45.210 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this user is either trolling or thinks he is actually a prophet. Either way, this stuff is irrelevant. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kiribati

I'm watching it live, I don't see any rapturing happening. Safe to say this guy was wrong (again) then? Sellyme^Talk 04:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there's rapture in Jurassic Park. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No big rush. We're an encyclopedia, not a daily. An "Aftermath" section may be appropriate around Monday or so. --John Nagle (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But what if there was just some horrible traffic in heaven and God hit all the red lights? We might not get a chance! (Damn these Apocalypse jokes are fun). I think this may discredit the 2012 theory a bit, as well. In all seriousness though, we need something in the article saying it didn't happen, very bluntly as well. Sellyme^Talk 04:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait 50 minutes. It's supposed to happen at 6PM Saturday local time in each area, and 6 PM Saturday comes to Tonga in less than an hour. --John Nagle (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 6:16pm in Kirimati, Kiribati right now. No rapturing. Sellyme^Talk 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's remember folks, the 6pm thing is not part of Camping's prediction. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Then where did the 6pm thing come from? A crackerjack box? 198.151.130.69 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Either that or the bottom of a bus station toilet seat :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.194.245 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Money

It has been reported that Family Radio has made $100 million USD as a result of its end of the world prediction, and that a lot of its followers have sold all their belongings and donated all of their money either to charity or Family Radio. I think that should be incorporated into the article. 75.118.250.122 (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Figures.... what's to keep any huckster from doing the same thing and making a doomsday prediction himself? 198.151.130.69 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Integrity. Czolgolz (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind finding some RSs to back this up? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Most recent revisions

Why aren't the last few revisions to the article listed under "view history"? 68.117.7.179 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears there is a delay. Never seen that happen before... 68.117.7.179 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No rapture activities?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. until a reliable source anywhere in the world reports that there is no rapture activity, we should not be reporting on the lack of reports of rapture as proof that this is not occurring, especially in a "failed prediction" section. that would be original research. since we WILL have news reports within hours either way, just wait for them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor is correct imo, we do want to be balanced after all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Especially wrt to earthquakes (see below). StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely support the removal of the 6 pm local time negative earthquake report as well. however, it will be interesting to see how earthquakes in the last hour in hawaii and the solomon islands get used in this context. again, i dont think we can directly report on these earthquakes here, but be aware they likely will be mentioned by a RS.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful, folks

Let's remember that WP:BLP applies here, people. There is a lot of unreliable things being said now that this story has been picked up in the worldwide media. For example, how do we know that Camping has predicted earthquakes? Just because the New Zealand Herald says it, it doesn't mean it's true. So the failure of the prediction based on a lack of earthquakes doesn't belong here. I'm removing the paragraph based on WP:GRAPEVINE - the way the article is constructed, it will look like Camping's prediction has failed to come true. StAnselm (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional reference added. How many more sources need to quote Camping saying that there will be "rolling earthquakes" before that becomes an "official" prediction of his? (Note: I do agree that absence of evidence about rapture-like phenomena--whatever those may be--is not evidence of absence. For now.) Loren ipsum (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a horrible feedback loop in place. Can you quote a primary source on this? I would have thought that Camping's view is that the earthquake will happen on October 21. Anyway, some followers have obviously mentioned it, and I think news reports have picked up on that. But it doesn't mean they are reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Camping himself has predicted earthquakes at 6 pm in each time zone. For example, see his own words in this interview with New York Magazine [5]. --Amble (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Yes, I'm happy with that. The other reports were so obviously secondhand, but this is a clear prediction of earthquakes on Camping's part. At "about 6pm." StAnselm (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The bit about Kiritimati does seem to be an inference based on what Camping has said, rather than a specific claim. Also, I believe he has presented only the date itself as a certainty, and the 6 pm timing as less definite. --Amble (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a break from this. For the record, though, I have cited primary sources on Camping's claims. Are they reliable? They seem to be. Do I need to certify the reliability of the New Zealand Herald and the International Business Times before I use their quotes of Camping's?Loren ipsum (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Failure of predictions section removed

Why was this section removed? I think it was a very important part of the article. And it did cite a reliable source, the Latest Earthquakes in the World website which is run by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.144.63.3 (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mainly because it was original research. And also because Camping hasn't actually predicted earthquakes. No doubt there will be a similar section put back in once reliable sources report on the lack of rapture. StAnselm (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I also added citations to Camping making the claim that earthquakes were part of his prediction. The lack of earthquakes implies that he was wrong in at least part of his prediction. How is citing the New Zealand Herald and International Business Times "original research"?Loren ipsum (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, thankyou for your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.144.63.3 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

StAnselm: The sources consistently report the earthquakes (at 6 pm in each time zone) as a prediction of Camping himself. See for example his own words in an interview with New York Magazine. [6]. In fact, by implying that the earthquake prediction was made by others than camping (without a source to support this), your edits are treading close to original research. I appreciate the need to be careful with sourcing. Let's improve the article by improving the sourcing as needed rather than by hedging its factual points in ways that may or may not be accurate. Of course, you are quite correct in removing "failed predictions" material that's based on synthesis and original deduction. --Amble (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely original research on my part - the Slate article says "the Camping position on the timing is not totally clear—by one account, the Rapture, like the New Year, is supposed to make a circuit of the globe, time zone by time zone. A new batch of the saved will ascend as each set of clocks strikes 6 p.m." So the NY Mag article clears up a lot. StAnselm (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Hmong propaganda in Article

The report regarding the Hmong gathering in the hills of Vietnam for the return of Jesus Christ is likely anti-Christian communist propaganda. Indeed, it seems the Harold Camping end-times predictions is being used by the Vietnamese government to justifying attacking the partly Christian Hmong. They are, according to Scoop NZ, using attack helicopters to fire on Hmong fleeing into Lao right now. From Scoop.nz:

"Some Vietnamese clerics with ties to the Vietnamese Ministry of Interior, and secret police, have joined Vietnamese government officials in declaring that all of the Hmong protestors are cult members and irredentists, a theme often repeated by Hanoi’s state-run media, and parroted by the official propaganda apparatus, to justify the use of armed force against ethnic Hmong-Vietnamese and Vietnamese Christians who have previously joined peaceful Catholic and mainstream Protestant demonstrations, including demonstrations in Hanoi in previous years for religious freedom and government reforms."[7] --Diamonddavej (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While I don't think anyone would doubt the unscrupulous nature of the government of the People's Republic of Viet Nam, we need a better source I am afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My friend in New Zealand wasn't raptured

I'm not a reliable source, just a heads up. 68.117.7.179 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand is clearly filled with heathens of course. Notice no editors from the Christmas Islands has said anything. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We Kiwis do appear to remain entirely unraptured. I'm sure at the very least some American missionaries ought to have been raptured up.

118.90.27.254 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the sin from the surrounding populace tainted them so much that it was not possible. (Man, it IS easy to make this stuff up.) =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Very easy. And not the purpose of this page. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know, I was just fooling around. We need to wait until the majority of RSs make note of the fact that no one vanished. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well of course you have to bear in mind that time is an artificial construct, it doesn't really apply to God so for all we know God could do the whole world at once rather than in each time zone at a time. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)

Yahweh will do what he does, but we need RSs to confirm whether he in fact does it or not. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

When CAN we declare this prediction a failure?

A few edits have pointed out the the rapture is not happening, but have been removed by no doubt well intentioned editors as being not appropriate yet.

Well, exactly WHEN?

And exactly what evidence WILL be enough to demonstrate that Camping was wrong?

I hope people aren't waiting for US-centric proof.

HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We are waiting on a reliable source to report on it. Once one has done so, I'm sure someone will add it to the article. 50.54.215.70 (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, USGS is a pretty reputable source, and they show no increase in earthquake activity anywhere on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.242.168 (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a mention that the USGS in fact did not report any unusual seismic activity, itself, is a pretty good way to phrase things while being accurate and avoiding any appearance of gloating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.64.199 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Moar like an apocakynot! Amirite guys? --173.215.225.135 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! It's come true! All my family have disappeared! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.101.196 (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

-

For us to say "the USGS reports no earthquakes, therefor the prediction was a failure" would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Worry not, reliable sources should soon be specifically reporting the occurences and the fallout. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely the front page of the New Zealand Herald time stamped Saturday May 21, 2011 6:23 PM NZT will do. (From my perspective, the less space spent on this rubbish, the better the source.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For those wanting confirmation, here it is. StAnselm (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. as i said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. we wait for a headline which says there is no rapture, not headlines which dont report on it. when a major news source reports on various regions lack of earthquakes and raptures, then we report that. since, in theory, all the anointed christians could live in the last time zone to enter 6 pm local time, no one can accurately pronounce this a failed prediction until that time zone goes through 24 hours. god could be waiting till the last minute, after all. the earthquake predictions will be less ambiguous. (ps 2 earthquakes in pacific...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You do realise, I hope, that you are asking what we want to treat as a quality source to give attention to religious garbage, when such attention actually lowers their standards? HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP is covering it because it is covered by reliable sources. If WP starts drawing conclusions that are not clearly indicated by other sources, it is no longer an encyclopedia. If that means the article can never say for sure that the rapture didn't happen, so be it. We have to wait for sources to say it first. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey look, the NYPD statement is in that article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/05/new-zealand-earthquake-christmas-island-harold-camping-may-21-rapture-doomsday.html -- But|seriously|folks  06:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The earthquake was only ever a peripheral prediction. We don't report election results until an opponent has conceded defeat - maybe we should wait for Camping to admit he was wrong. StAnselm (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Or give a reason (excuse) explaining it, like that God gave us an extension or something. He'll think of something. It's unlikely he would admit he was wrong. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to declare it as failure once there will be Sunday all over the world (therefore, May 21th will end) and nothing happens.--89.173.20.32 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

When have end of the world predictions been true? Unless it becomes true, it should be declared a failure :-) 66.233.156.32 (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It will be failure if it won't fulfill. As long as it can still be fulfilled is neither failure nor success.--89.173.20.32 (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion before you edit

I would suggest that anyone who finds themselves smiling over Camping being incorrect is probably not the right person to be editing this page right now. Let's remember this is an encyclopedia -- not a newspaper, editorial page, or gloating room. I mean no accusation, just a caution. There are many people who will be able to accurately digest the reported information into an appropriate encylopediac article. The ones who are particularly chomping-at-the-bit to do it may be the ones who need to calm down and let less impassionaed parties deal with it. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since 99.99999% of the world's population is probably pretty happy to be not in the throes of Rapture at this point, that would only leave the suicidal among us (who now need to find another way to take care of business) left to edit this page. Plus of course Camping's presumably non-smiling followers, although there's a definite WP:COI problem there... -- But|seriously|folks  06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the point being made is that any edits should be made to reflect the truth, not to use the article to gloat over him being wrong. There's a difference between stating that nothing happened in New Zealand and saying something like "Ha ha! He was wrong! What suckers!", but that's basic NPOV. Kansan (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't mean people who desperately wanted him to be right should edit it. I meant people who were able to keep themselves from becoming emotionally involved through out this entire episode. Personally, I found the whole thing absolutely hilarious -- and thus I stayed far away from editing. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear . . . while everyone would certainly have an emotional reaction to the actual end of the world, I am sure there are editors who are not overly invested in either support nor decrying Camping. Those editors are the ones who should leadership in this article. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Aww, I was just being a pedant. Your point was a good one (except for the smiling part). -- But|seriously|folks  06:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Verb tense

The lead currently has the phrase "Camping suggests that it will occur at 6 p.m. local time, with the rapture sweeping the globe time zone by time zone, while some of his supporters claim that around 200 million people (approximately 3% of the world's population) will be raptured." At some point, this will probably have to be changed to "Camping suggested that..." and "some of his supporters claimed that"..., to put it into the past tense. When would it be best to do this? After 6 pm passes throughout the world? Now? Something else? Kansan (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How about when there sources say that they have stopped making said claims. The non-happening of an event does not automatically stop a person claiming it happened. These people will publish a new theory soon enough. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Current Event"

I've removed the current event tag. This article is about the prediction, which was made years ago. Willing to be WP:BRD'd if someone can justify why it should be there however. Pedro :  Chat  06:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Press coverage has been heavy enough to justify a "current event" tag. But it will be old news by tomorrow night. An "Aftermath" section would be appropriate, as reports come in of what happens to the people who believed it would happen. But give it a day or two. --John Nagle (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the "Current event" tag is (perhaps unintentionally) hilarious for now. Worth keeping until the furor dies down, in any case. --Elonka 13:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow

All of this article will be pointless. Yay! - Another n00b (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it's now 7:43 UTC 21 May 2011. it is now 7:43 PM 21 May 2011 at the International Date Line, and Camping's deadline, which predicts Armageddon at 6 PM local time, has now expired without anything happening, I think we can can put this one to bed now. -- Chronulator (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's pointless, because it's of historic value to be able to point to an event in modern times when a group of individuals preached a dooms day prediction and the word took notice (if only to giggle at them). Chloroleaf (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See, this is what happens when you base your prediction on a bunch of old legends without doing further research - you muddle it up and most likely get it wrong. Agnostics 1, Doomsday Prophets 0. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"A civil engineer by training, ..."

The sentence: "A civil engineer by training, Camping states he has attempted to work out mathematically-based prophecies in the Bible for decades." does not need the qualifier at the beginning. Nothing in the sentence requires his abilities as a civil engineer. And if you want to get technical, the mathematics he uses for his argument is from highschool at most. I propose the new sentence "Camping states he has attempted to work out mathematically-based prophecies in the Bible for decades." Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Why the spin-doctoring of Camping's claims? He stated quite clearly that "when we get to May 21 on the calendar in any city or country in the world, and the clock says about — this is based on other verses in the Bible — when the clock says about 6 p.m., there’s going to be this tremendous earthquake that’s going to make the last earthquake in Japan seem like nothing in comparison. And the whole world will be alerted that Judgment Day has begun. And then it will follow the sun around for 24 hours. As each area of the world gets to that point of 6 p.m. on May 21, then it will happen there, and until it happens, the rest of the world will be standing far off and witnessing the horrible thing that is happening."

This makes the recently deleted references to news sources quite relevant. -- 202.124.74.125 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. - Another n00b (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Tribulation - & why do some believers say they will be left behind

Should the article clarify what is supposed to happen after today? Does everyone not taken up get killed? Why would believers say their children will be left behind? [8] "say their children won't go to heaven". I don't know how we'd source this but it leave me pretty puzzled. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could add in a reaction or two from King-Mayor Michael I (seen standing in front of a portrait of King George III for some reason.(not sure how I recognised that))? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does clarify this - for those who are left behind, the world continues for five months before it ends on October 21. These parents evidently do not believe their children are saved. The Left Behind books, however, adopted the view that all infants are raptured, but not unsaved teenagers. StAnselm (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that all who are left behind (in Camping's view) to to Hell? Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thhis [9] is a source saying even devout believers may be left behind, that should probably be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means we all go to Hell after Yahweh permabans the Earth. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

why does wikipedia have an article on this?

Can someone explain this to me? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply because everyone's talking/laughing about it (except the suicides ofc and the others taking it seriously), and so it is quite notable. That is why. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Because its in the news WP:INTHENEWS 94.175.88.108 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. --Crunch (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are circular logic. Nobody was yapping about it before it was IN wikipedia. You've taken this way too seriously, giving it way too much value and time. And because of that others starting to take it more seriously. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Article written in past tense, but time not quite reached

I noticed that the article seems to conflict with itself. It says that the rapture is to occur May 21, 2011 at 6PM. It is now 7AM EST. I'm not familiar with all the time zones, but unless it's already reached 6PM in another time zone, it should not be past tense. Personally, though, I'd like to slap the people who believe in any form of "The Rapture". Sounds more like a movie title than an actual event. The new movie "The Rapture" will be in theaters May 21st at 6PM! 66.233.156.32 (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that when ALL time zones are after 6PM can this be declared an official failure. Which is in like, 2 hours. Not like anything would happen then. I'm just glad this will be over with by tomorrow. - Another n00b (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm in EDT and it is only 07:11 here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in BST (UTC+1). Only 5hrs 43mins 'till everyone stops believing this bullshit! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 11:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone believe it in the first place? If you do silly things with numbers, you'll get a silly thing 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some foolish people apparently put themselves in financial ruin and others killed themselves. So yep, some people did in fact believe it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the man did say Earthquakes would happen across the world, all at 6pm local time, usually in thier own time zone. It's pass 6 p.m. already in a lot of areas, so in answer to the original post, yeah, unless you meant something it's already after 6 p.m. in a few areas.66.19.160.3 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some parts of the world where Saturday already passed. However, mind word "approximately" - as long as it is Saturday anywhere in the world, we shouldn't declare theory as failure.--89.173.20.32 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Several Reliable Sources have now stated explicitly that the prediction has failed, so I added it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article!

Let this article pass and be enjoyed by people in the future, while proving that Harold's prediction isn't true but yet he predicted it.

Oh yeah, he doesn't even care about the end of the world, since he himself is 89 years old... SonicMasterEX (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not Article for Deletion discussion up on this, and even if there was, it would probably close because of WP:SNOW (it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its not going to be deleted. Where have you got this idea from? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 11:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd venture a guess that it was all the topics calling for deletion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was from the people who are nominating this for deletion, or even, speedy deletion. SonicMasterEX (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Title suggestion

May 2011 judgement day prediction. I know that Camping also predicts the "end of the world" in October, but the high profile claim is the one for "judgement day" today. This is basically the only part of Camping's prediction anybody talks about, and the one that all the money has been spent to publicize. After nothing happens today, it's a good bet that nobody will care about the other prediction. Staecker (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the old drawing board

Well... its the big day (actually, in Kiribati it's already tomorrow... as I write it's 2:45 AM on the 22nd). No massive earthquakes or disasters are being reported. Looks like Mr. Camping needs to recalculate (again).

On a more practical note: At what point do we change the article to past tense (do we need to wait until nothing happens in California or Hawaii, or can we make the call now)? I would expect a lot of vandalism postings though out the day (as 6:00 PM comes and goes in various time zones with no major disasters)... changing the article to the past tense now (and noting up front that the prediction did not pan out) may alleviate some of that. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would wait until 6pm has passed in the US west coast. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we don't have a WP:DEADLINE. On a more philosophical note, I've always wondered how to handle past-tense if the sources are written in present tense. Does changing something to past tense violate WP:V or WP:OR? Or does it count as simple math exemption under WP:OR? Or am I being too anal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

6PM is claimed as approximate time. Therefore I would wait until 21st May ends all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.55.78 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, 6PM may be approximate... but, May 21st isn't... May 21st has already come and gone in a large part of the world, especially in Kiribati (which the prediction said would start things off with a massive earthquake... that earthquake did not occur). The prediction (or at least a significant part of it) has already been proven to be incorrect.

As for Quest's confusion over how to deal with tenses... we should leave any direct quotes in whatever tense they were written in, but things in Wikipedia's voice can be changed to past tense without violating V or OR. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is now the 22nd in part of the world, and the 21st is in the past. Wikipedia's voice could now use the past tense although I'm not convinced we wouldn't still see editors reverting it. I do worry about 3RR violations going on. So long as everyone is civil about it it's ok perhaps, but ... Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW... I don't mind waiting... I simply thought we could preempt a lot of grief if we did it now. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite 8:30 am in California, we probably have editors from there for hours. I don't really care either way. If you think it will be easier, let's do it now. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the past tense should wait until the 21st has expired in California (where Camping is) and Hawaii (pretty much lights-out for a given day). It's only 10 AM in California right now. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Australia

In Australia, it's currently 10:45 and everything seems normal. Everyone on all social connections are speaking of survival.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.75 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who were raptured wouldn't be around to say so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that if even one person had mysteriously vanished then it would have been all over the news. On the other hand - Australia. Orpheus (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

People go missing all the time. The question is whether there's an inordinate amount of missing persons reports filed today. Is there any truth to the notion that you have to wait 24 hours to file a missing persons report? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See Missing person#Legal issues for an unsourced statement that the police urge missing person reports to be filed immediately if there is any suspicion about the disappearance. http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/11/17/met_483813.shtml appears a reasonable source that, at least in Augusta, Georgia, United States, missing person reports may be filed immediately. Perhaps I'll take care of that, later (if there is a later). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And the official word from Australia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to wait for missing person reports. If people were suddenly vanishing, then the witnesses would be talking to the media.--RaptorHunter (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've added the item to our List of common misconceptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, you actually believed that it was going to happen?... The world won't end on May 21, October 21, or December 21, 2012... In fact, it won't end for about another million years, nobody knows when it will end or "expire", so just stop believing this stuff and stop commiting self-suicide when you think it will happen. Personally, I used to believe the world to end on December 21, 2012. Please, just listen to me and some other smart people: The World WILL NOT End this or next year. -- SpongePappy (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For the article reaction section

If you think there's room for it, this might be good in a new reaction section to the event not happing: TV scientist Professor Brian Cox tweeted: "I think we should all pretend the #rapture is happening so that when Harold Camping gets left behind later today he'll be livid."[10] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if that is IRL trolling or regular trolling, but it's from Twitter, so it shouldn't be included. Also, who is he? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is cute, though. I'd give this one credit if referenced in mainstream news media. We're not reporting on accuracy, here, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it could be included here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist) 189.78.208.38 (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting to include some "how people spent the day" examples (who spent the day praying in church, hiding in their basements, out partying in bars, etc.) in the reaction section.... However, we need to insist on reliable sources to support anything we added. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Multiple news sources have reported that Camping's deadline has expired without any noticeable events at 6 p.m New Zealand time on 21 May 2011."

What gets me is not only that it is mentioned but that someone thought it'd be ideal to add not 1, but 2 sources confirming it. The reader of the article is alive and well after the date and time has passed. Isn't that enough proof for you? Maybe you need a rule that says "Common sense is common sense, no need to cite it". Though I guess you have it but ignored it. --195.74.251.172 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Who is "you"? You mean the random editors who pop in and out of this talk page? Still 10:42 here mate (EDT). =p Though it is a most beautiful day here on my deck with all the birds chirping and barely a cloud in the sky. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(from California) Perfect earthquake weather.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We should not focus on "it didn't happen"... we should focus on the fact that the prediction was considered notable enough for the media to report that it didn't happen... with that in mind... here and here are two sources for "it didn't happen" reaction in NZ. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of prediction

I am not particularly familiar with the sources here, but something that should probably be added to the lead of this article, is when Camping made his prediction. Not the "end of the world" date, but the announcement date. Did he first announce it on his radio broadcast, or in print? Thanks, --Elonka 15:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not even that is being mentioned in the article, which is quite telling to be honest. Apparently nobody knows when he spouted his lies on his vanity radiostation. So it should either be removed for being incomplete and unproven, or be killed because it's made up by a raving lunatic suffering from delusions of grandeur. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is currently 5771 on the Hebrew calendar

How can he possibly use the Hebrew calendar for his theory when he claims the Earth is older than 5771 years old? 184.96.235.28 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see an RS examining his math more closely in an historical context. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also there is only 1656 years from Creation to the Flood. Actually read Genesis and do some math. I really do question Harold Camping's "engineering" and "numerological" abilities. 184.96.235.28 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, given the amount of coverage this is recieving, someone has surely checked his silly math. Best to find an RS for it. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL mathematicians, particularly those who have senior moments, and LOL the Hebrew calendar. It's been tweaked who knows how many times before it was finalized perhaps 1200-1500 years ago. And even then it could use a bit of tweaking. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I actually am somewhat qualified to talk on that subject. The relevant book, Genesis, was written down, at the earliest, in the 700s BC. So it would be the Hebrew Calendar as it was at that time, which screws up his math even more as no one would have recalculated the years in the 1.000 years after to the time the Pastor was talking about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard from a butterfly that the earth is 4,521,912,052 years old. Prove me wrong ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made up that number, but I reckon it's a lot closer to the earth's actual age than anything the biblical young earthers come up with. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but that is why no one takes the Young Earth hypothesis seriously. No RS has tackled that as it is so obvious. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Web Of Trust and the External Links

I happened to notice that most of the external links show up as red or yellow for Web of Trust, the security addon for web browsers. I'm curious as to whether the sites are an official threat to computer safety, a threat to persons of gullible nature, or if it's the work of trolls. --24.15.248.79 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have that add-on installed. Seems to be the work of trolls. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind filling the rest of us in on this so we know what to look for? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, WoT assigns a rating to something based on its Trustworthiness, Vendor Reliability, Privacy, and Child Safety, as determined by the users of the program based on their experience with a website. This picture should explain why I was a tad concerned. http://oi52.tinypic.com/15g5wts.jpg (Changed link to make it easier to see the picture) --24.15.248.79 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Must be the work of some skilled trolls if they managed to influence the system. Either that or the dudes who made it are trolling. If the latter is true, my reaction is: Lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Only 30 mins to go (for Britain) 'till we all shout "BULLSHIT!" Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an exciting time that's for sure. If he's correct, then a lot of people will have gone if he's not, so be it and there'll probibly be a BBC source saying so. Then again maybe God will do it all at once at 6pm US time. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

US Time? We do have more than six timezones last I checked.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, The C of E. *starts ranting like an arrogant litte brat* Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Only 5 mins left to go 'till we all say "BULLSHIT!"! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

6PM, he's wrong. Not time for the rapture yet. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Web of Trust community often rates controversial sites in such a way. The bad ratings in this case is not related to the computer security, but mostly to the following: Phishing or other scams, Ethical issues, Hateful or questionable content, Spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0101 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

BULLSHIT (for GB, that is)!

BULLSHIT! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Green Bay? It's not 6 pm in Green Bay yet. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

GB = Great Britain, also This was a triumph... Crisis.EXE 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe best to just say UK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Or not have it at all. It's kind of a WP:FORUM topic, even with GLaDOS I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Page view statistics

Page View Statistics won't load - either for the article or the talk page. I think Wikipedia has blown a fuse or something over this article. The main article had gone from 20,000 to 80,000 to 200,000 as of yesterday; I wonder if it will go over a million? I was also curious about this talk page, probably (today) the most active article talk page I have ever seen. If anyone is able to get the stats please post. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for the future of the artilcle

Thinking about the future of this article: I think the article will need a fairly complete rewrite over the next few weeks... it's more than just a need to change tenses; we will need to reassess how much weight to give various bits of information. Things that are very important to mention in an article about a prediction of future events may be less important to mention in an article about a prediction that did not come true (and things that were of less importance may now be fairly significant.)

As part of that re-write, I would suggest changing the current May 21 developments section to "Media anticipation and reaction"... this will give us a place to discuss the brief media frenzy about the prediction as a complete phenominon... allowing us to discuss as a unit both the "Prediction says world to end on Saurday" reports that came out during this last week, and the "Prediction was wrong... the world did not end" reports of today/tomorrow.

No sense in doing this now... it is obvious that people want to be able to add "It didn't happen here either" type comments as 6:00 comes and goes around the world, and the current section gives them a place to do this. We can clean it up later, when people's attention moves on to other things. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)