Talk:Harold Camping

Vandalism in first line

Edit request for removal of vandalism in opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smazza (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this with the Mr.?

Someone or some people keep on going onto the page and changing "Camping" to "Mr. Camping." I can't tell whether this is because the person or people doing it are trying to laud or insult him. Would whoever is doing this explain why here? In Wikipedia we don't refer to people in biographical articles as "Mr." or "Ms." or any such title. Jeremy J. Shapiro (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for the edits but I think I can guess why someone might have done so. Camping's last name is also a gerund. Someone may have thought that made some sentences confusing to read. (E.g., a sentence like: "Camping has been repudiated by most mainstream Christian churches.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.252.50 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, viz.: - "Camping (being outdoors with some buddies in a tent under the stars) is fun", but "Camping (the president of Family Stations Inc.) is not much fun" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.98.224 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on Calvinism?

The article makes the statement:

 "Camping's theology is based on Calvinism, consistent with his Reformed Church upbringing."

But the claim is not supported anywhere else in the article or by an external reference that I can see. IMO, this sentence should be removed, as it could be read so somehow "blame" Calvinism for Camping's distinctives, or indicate that his theology is logically derived from Calvinism, which most Calvinists would dispute.

-- Bshow (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Should one refer to Predestination, a Calvin doctrine, and read the content of the entry addressing Harold Camping's theories _ one may hardly see them as doctrinal _ we will find that he is opposed to the Predestination doctrine, thus disassociating his theories with Calvinism thus _ Departing from Calvinist doctrine, Camping teaches a relatively free will for humanity, that humans are not utterly depraved, that salvation is unmerited (not to be achievable by good works (alone) or prayer) and, is a pure act of God's grace; to which idea Camping subscribes. (This portion of the original article, this contributor edited for ease of reading.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GandpaRol (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Church was teaching predestination more than a 1000 years before Calvinism was invented (see: St. Augustine). In any event, this conversation is irrelevant. This claim needs to be sourced, not deduced. Find a source or delete.PStrait (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You could simply use Camping (disambiguation) instead of Camping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.22.223 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Are We Being a Bit Unreasonable?

Certainly I understand and agree with the need to maintain certain quality standards on Wikipedia. But the case of Harold Camping is a rather unique one in which, if too strictly applied, the guidelines may actually reduce the factual value and accuracy of the article.

Harold Camping is a nearly 90-year-old Bible teacher. For most of those nearly 90 years, he was little-known outside of the Evangelical Christian community. He sat by his microphone every weekday evening and took phone calls from (mainly) Christians who called in with questions, usually about Bible passages or moral issues.

Practically no one outside the Christian community had any idea who Camping was until he declared the organized churches apostate in 1988, predicted that Christ would return in 1994, and again predicted that Christ will return in 2011. In fact, had Camping not made these statements, it's doubtful that there would even exist a Wikipedia article about him. He simply wouldn't be that important or prominent a figure as to warrant one.

The fact, however, is that he has made those statements, which are quite controversial within the Christian community, and are of considerable esoteric interest to many outside that group. But let's look at that for a moment: Harold Camping is a man whose primary reason for prominence are his own unique eschatological teachings, the product of his own exegesis of a book whose newest passages are about two thousand years old.

In consideration of the above, does it really make sense to complain about the fact that self-published sources were used? I think not. In fact, I think in this instance, self-published sources, especially those written by Camping himself, are the best and most accurate sources available. Again, this is a man whose primary basis for prominence is his own unique religious teaching, which he has explained in great detail in numerous publications -- all of which happened to be self-published.

Similarly, does it make sense to complain about the lack of third-party verifiability with regard to a religious figure whose main "claim to fame" consists of his own peculiar doctrinal teachings? What is there to verify? We're talking about religion, whose essence is faith, which by definition means that it can not be verified.

I suggest that we consider these factors, and perhaps back off a bit. This is not your typical sort of biography. 98.14.50.29 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the anon comment above. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, in theory. However, let's remember that we have rules here that should be applied universially. WP:IAR as I understand it, is to be used on the rarest of occasions. Although the above comment largely gets it right, it neglects to mention the fact Camping will likely cease to be of much interest to many come May 22nd. Will he still be noteable enough for an article once May 21st has come and gone? If the answer is no, then he shouldn't be noteable enough for one now. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

History suggests that he will remain notable for a long time to come, and that "Campingism" will continue and even thrive long after he's gone. Think of William Miller and Charles Taze Russell, for instance. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on size of community and whether there are auxilliary "prophets" like Ellen G. White of the Adventism, and it's generally hard to esteem because that many apocalypse preachers are forgotten or almost forgotten like the Irvingites, a European independent counterpart to the Millerism. Some fools will ruin their lifes because of indiscriminately listening to garbage as being the final truth. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

I was going to weigh in on an edit in this section anyway, and noticed someone tagged it for discussion but there's no discussion on the talk page for it. So now there is one. I took out the statement about a particular heresy (that Michael the Archangel was crucified in place of Jesus) because it didn't have a good source. I don't know whether this particular heresy is even preached by Camping (he would not be the first), but because of a lack of verifiability I am taking it out. First of all the source being used to support this assertion is this article, which is an attack article from a somewhat anonymous and fringe source. But even if everything in the article is gospel truth, the article basically infers a belief about the crucifixion without giving any quotations or citations pertaining to the crucifixion. The source of the claim is supposed to be from a page in one of Camping's books, but the quotation says nothing about the crucifixion. I think it would be better to go to the original source and see what it does say and work from there. That is basically the standard we are working by on Wikipedia. I think too a doctrine like this is usually central to a cult and not something that is encapsulated in one statement on one page of one obscure book in the plethora produced by it. There would be more explanation of a doctrine like that, especially since it is different to what the mainstream would be familiar with. In any case, it has to go. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the user talk page of the editor who tagged it, who mentioned a couple other phrases that prompted the placement of the NPOV tag for that discussion. Those phrases are gone now, and per their permission (as well as the changes you made), I went ahead and removed the tag. There are still tags in other sections. Kansan (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

His website (www.familyradio.com) states that 'The Bible Guarantees It', that is, Judgement Day. Elsewhere on the website, it states that Judgement Day WILL BEGIN on May 21, 2011. If none of this happens, it would seem that there are not any guarantees based on The Bible. Given this degree of confusion, how can any of this information be truly verifiable?

He made such prdications before also and later said it was calculation mistake, so what is a gurantee that this time there is no calculation or any other mistake. He will have some other reason on 22nd May 2011 when nothing happens...in that case what should be punishment for him for scaring so many people...??? Worldly Wise 123 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

His prediction of the Rapture has officially failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KayaSadao (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Rapture and end of world

Unfortunately not enough time to clean up to satisfy the tags, but one suggestion: a stronger distinction should be made between "Rapture" and "the end of the world", which are or were used synonymously in several places. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Errors in Haorld Camping's Signs Preceding Judgment Day

On the Family Radio webpage, in the article "Facts about May 21, 2011," Harold Camping wrote that one of the signs of the coming of Christ is the "complete disregard of the Bible in all society." Were this true, then Mr. Camping, as a member of "(all) society," would also have to disregard the Bible. His calculations for the end of the world cannot be checked, because there is no date in the Bible for the Great Flood. Mr. Camping references Thessalonians and Matthew the most as the basis for his arguments, but repeatedly states how many passages and words "can be interpreted as". The arguments by Mr. Camping do not include real problems to consider as signs, such as the recent periods of massive destructive weather and attacks by terrorism as part of the breakdown in modern morality, but are argued from the generic "born again" perspective, not without contradiction, which focuses on the establishment of Israel in 1948, rampant immorality by those who are not born again, negativity towards homosexuality, and how those who are born again are saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csoderlin (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe! If you can find an external source making this kind of criticism, it might be usable in the article, otherwise: who cares, really? Literalists maybe? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, literalists. They say they are being literal, that the time can be predicted. Of course it is literal. That's what "Mr." Camping has been saying all along with his timetable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.20.242 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC) If you had read what the writer stated above, the statement about "all society" is in "Mr." Camping's own writing. What outside source is needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.217.242.92 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I'm glad I'm not Mr. Camping. I would rather be focused on life, instead of death. I think there is still way too much to be done on this planet before God starts sending us messages that it is all over with. Life is so much more important than quitting out based on predictions not adequately based on the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.96.4 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

He made such prdications before also and later said it was calculation mistake, so what is a gurantee that this time there is no calculation or any other mistake. He will have some other reason on 22nd May 2011 when nothing happens...in that case what should be punishment for him for scaring so many people...??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.183.1 (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course he will discover a "mistake" in his calculations... and his followers will buy into the next date he cooks up. They guy's a crank, plain and simple, and the only reason he's gotten this much attention is because comics and snarky bloggers are having so much fun with the foolishness of the man and his followers. This page need not be more than a paragraph or two in length. 68.173.53.167 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Numerology plus a little arithmetic constitutes "mathematical predictions"?

Were I not anonymous, and therefore able to edit the article, I would change "mathematical predictions applied to the Bible", in the first paragraph, to "Bible-based numerology". --63.81.2.130 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Wedding!

Mr. Camping may be right about this Saturday or one coming up, but he did not include a very important point about the Royal Wedding and "marrying and giving in marriage," see here (the domain name was about the last one I had left over and I know it's not completely appropriate): falseintelligence.org

Missing word

Quote from article: "In 1958, Camping joined with other individuals of Christian Reformed, Bible Baptist, and Conservative Christian Presbyterian to..."

The word "background" is missing before the final "to". Please fix it. I can't since the article is locked. -- 77.187.47.3 (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

done --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Please explain how this section is NPOV and belongs into a non-sectarian encyclopedia:

However, a specific prediction of the year and month of the Lord's return is not necessarily precluded by these verses. Although it would be very much outside the Christian mainstream, a person would be Biblically compatible to say: "I predict the Lord Jesus Christ will return during the year [fill in the blank] and the month [fill in the blank]."

-- 77.187.47.3 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly unencyclopaedic and WP:POV. I have removed it. --Wasell^(T) 18:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

1994 prediction

He was wrong Duhhhhh

• And he's wrong again. Nobody will listen to him next time, and knowing America, he's likely to be sued to smitherines by people who took him at his word and thus made financial and business decisions on the basis of not being here (or someone else not being here) on and after Sunday. Darcyj (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gmanfan2005, 21 May 2011

we should not be promoting someone who is trying to get rich and cause world wide havoc

Gmanfan2005 (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be specific on what you'd like changed in the article? I'm afraid I can't tell by reading your request. Sorry, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 05:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't get raptured? Bummer for you. Those pearly gates sure are shiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.60.53 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Deadline now passed

Since it's now 7:47 UTC 21 May 2011. it is now 7:47 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 now start reporting the non-event. -- Chronulator (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Worry none, there will be *yet another* declaration of mathematical error (or possibly a special TZ where it's never past 6PM May 21st). Anyway, regional declarations of non-events are/will be reported; after 6:00 AM, May 22nd UTC (6PM at GMT-12) they could be cleaned up into a single declaration "on May 21st at 6 PM, nothing notable happened" (which will be later deleted as non-notable ;)). 89.176.109.220 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

at what point do we add he was wrong?

so it was suppose to be 6PM local time. much of the world is past 6pm now, 9AM EST. in fact some of the world is in may 22nd. when do we edit to say his prediction was incorrect, again? Overseer19XX (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/case-of-poor-judgment/story-fn7x8me2-1226060289339Overseer19XX (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we can probably nail it for good and all once it is no longer 21 May at any point in the world. I wonder what Camping is going to do for an encore? -- The Anome (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on. Not that I have any sympathies with this guy's predictions, but it's just 5 p.m. even in my part of the world (Germany). California has ten more hours to go. ;) No encyclopaedic changes before that time please. (Of course, you might argue if this guy is right, nobody will be reading Wikipedia after 6 p.m. anyways...) --Anna (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0521/Apocalypse-Not-Harold-Camping-wrong-again-about-The-Rapture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/21/apocalypse-not-now-rapture-fails-materialise

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/21/preacher-harold-camping-gets-doomsday-prediction-wrong/

--76.190.246.166 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is (1) when May 21 is over and done with around the world; and (2) when it is verified that 3% of the world's population has mysteriously disappeared today. (Camping and his staff don't count, as they might well be hiding.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We should probably also update Unfulfilled religious predictions at that time, too. -- Chronulator (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But maybe we should add a disclaimer that maybe it DID happen, and readers might be in some weird limbo where they didn't get chosen for the rapture and the gods didn't want to hurt their feelings? It's possible!!!! Codenamemary (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's uncited, it's speculation and it's wrong. Sorry. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But wait...I was right! New article says: << But Camping said that he's now realized the apocalypse will come five months after May 21, the original date he predicted...Saturday was "an invisible judgment day" in which a spiritual judgment took place, he said. But the timing and the structure is the same as it has always been, he said. "We've always said May 21 was the day, but we didn't understand altogether the spiritual meaning," he said. "May 21 is the day that Christ came and put the world under judgment." >> See, last Saturday was just the INVISIBLE Judgment Day!!! It says so right here: [User:Codenamemary|Codenamemary] (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I always thought religion and church was boring, but this is a new low. Does Jesus plan on ending the world by boring us to death? Jason Gradin (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be a tormentation indeed! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Too Early to Evaluate

"But, contrary to his words, nothing happened to the world in 21st May 2011."

I'm not defending Mr. Camping's predictions, but I think it's a bit premature for the above-added critique. May 21 is not over yet, so whatever our thoughts about his "knowing," it is not very journalistic nor encyclopaedic to post this unprofessional garbage until at least the next day - not to mention the fact that the paragraph containing this section is written as though nothing above it had been written; it repeats facts and gives nothing new to the article except conjecture.

BlewJ (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's not 6 pm Camping's time yet, at least wait until then before adding this. Even tomorrow, that paragraph will need editing for style. Internet nobody (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not like it matters if we prematurely post that he was wrong since if he turned out to be right, Wikipedia would basically cease to exist anyway. :) TheGary (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding. Rapture is not "the end of the world", it's "the beginning of the end." So the analysts need to determine if 3% of the population has suddenly gone missing. I wouldn't be surprised if Camping and his staff suddenly go missing, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right. We still have five months. It may be safe to assume that Wikipedia is not going to be part of the Rapture, so we can go on until October 21. ;-) --Anna (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Cubs have managed to win the National League pennant at that point, that will be a sure sign of the Apocalypse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's 6pm here in California now. I don't think anything has happened but I doubt anywhere here would be "saved" anyway. Still no earthquakes. :D TheGary (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What about his radio stations?

I'd be curious to know what plans this guy has with his radio stations after May 21. It would not exactly comply with his beliefs to have anything in store to broadcast on May 22, would it? Or is he planning to carry on for the "unraptured" until October 21? Anyone happen to know (or happened to listen to his radio programs after the date has passed?). Just curious... --Anna (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, he will probably have millions of new listeners on May 22, wondering about exactly this question. Have we all fallen into the trap of a gigantic advertising campaign? ;) --Anna (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This has potential to go down in history with Evel Knievel's Snake River Canyon jump, and Geraldo Rivera's unsealing of Al Capone's vault. The difference is that Camping has done it twice now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Oldgreycat, 21 May 2011

The lede needs to change as it's clearly someone's opinion. I recommend returning to the original lede "...is a Christian radio broadcaster[1] and president of Family Radio, a California-based religious broadcasting network that spans more than 150 outlets in the United States as well as a website."

Oldgreycat (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering how many Christian leaders think he's full of baloney, "fringe" seems like an understatement. However, I removed it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Liar and crap?

The article begins: "Harold Egbert Camping (born July 19, 1921) is a liar who says the world's going to end to make more money but is is a peice of crap."

This is neither an educated statement nor civilized. Regardless of one's opinion of the man, this looks a lot more like libel than academia and I feel has no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srearnst (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been taken care of. GB fan (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality in lead section

"His followers—utterly unflagging in their loyalty and permanently brainwashed—eagerly await his new recalculation for the Rapture, as once again his predicted date has failed to produce any supernatural events whatsoever." Is it me, or is this not NPOV? ConconJondor _talk ^contribs 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's already been zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That said, I would be interested to know what effect the failure of his prediction has on his followers. Obviously we would need reliable sources for this. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

[1]. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"False Prophet"

A number of folks have added the pejorative "false prophet", which is a characterization most would agree with, and some sources have actually printed. A number of us have undone this edit. There's no way this passes NPOV. SJFriedl (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Issue 1: The source is only a single apparent editorial.
• Issue 2: We're implying Wikipedia takes a side and endorses some people as "true" prophets.

So, certainly not in the form currently presented. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the term "false prophet" should only be used in this article if sourced multiple times, as it means a lot more emotionally than "a prophet some of whose predictions have failed to occur", which in some form is appropriate to add, as its a more neutral statement of fact. WP cannot distinguish between true and false prophets, only between fulfilled and unfulfilled prophecies when taken literally.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Camping being a "someone who predicted some future event that didn't happen" is obviously properly sourced. Camping being a "false prophet" simply can't, just like "Al Gore is a religious zealot" never can. It's just an insult. (notice that Gore's predictions are way more clever than Camping's. You can't prove Gore wrong as any event fits, almost by definition, in Climate Change's most important dogma that "something will change for worse, or doesn't change for better, and that can and should be attributed to Climate Change caused by Satan's ecological footprint". There are three things to learn about making money of predictions: Vagueness, vagueness, vagueness.) Joepnl (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me a fucking break. Anthropogenic global warming is a scientifically sound theory based on tons of peer reviewed evidence. Then again, what the fuck does global warming have to do with this? Oh wait, you're trying to create a false dichotomy. Whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I must admit I was trolling a little, but I thought I made that sufficiently clear by using a very small font. Though I'm still convinced I'm right about "the other thing" this is probably not the place to argue about that :) Anyway, insults like "false prophet" should not be in this article, even though it's already May 22nd where I live and I'm still making edits. Joepnl (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. As for "false prophet", well, from my standpoint, there are no prophets, so kind of hard for me to see a false one. So all in all, that fails WP:BLP on several levels. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, even the Bible considers him a false prophet:

• Deuteronomy 18:22 (CEV): "You will know, because if the LORD says something will happen, it will happen. And if it doesn't, you will know that the prophet was falsely claiming to speak for the LORD. Don't be afraid of any prophet whose message doesn't come from the LORD." (emphasis added) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

He predicted the end of the world twice and twice it did not happen if that is not enough to list him as a false prophet your all idiots. Besides even in the Bible it says that not even Jesus knows when the world will end which furthers what I said. Pyrolord777 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

He may be very clever, in that he gathered a lot of followers who no doubt assisted him to live a very comfortable life. HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@Pyrolord, that is your interpretation of what the bible says and the events. That is original research. OR does not belong in the article. GB fan (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't fair to compare Jesus to Camping. Camping's predictions comes from his exegesis of the bible. Jesus never had access to a Christian bible and may have been illiterate as well. So with all due respect to Jesus, he's no Harold Camping when it comes to bible interpretation. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all pleased about the events leading up to this event, the event, and the aftermath in which this man vanishes after all that has been said and done. Is he a False Prophet? Maybe. Are we God or are we editors of Wikipedia? Do we have the right to pass judgment on this man? Every mainstream religion has its "kooks" and "troublemakers," but we all must admit that this one event has gone entirely too far. Camping went out of his way to cause a crisis of economic woe worth millions of dollars, and people lost everything. This goes beyond "The War of The Worlds." I will not participate in some of the nonsense I have seen and read here, but let's uphold the policies we all agreed to follow. If we don't, we're no better than this man is. ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryteler (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What economic consequences? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "false prophet" is too easily used as a pejorative. Even if I agree the shoe fits, it should be made clear by the context that it is a source labeling Mr. Camping as one. Liberal Classic (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This site seriously needs shut down, all you ever seem to do is spread false information and lies while squashing truth as "original research" if the bible is "original research" then so is this entire article. In the bible it clearly states that no man, angel or even god's son will know when the day or hour in which this would happen. If you do not believe me then look for and read Matthew 24 in the bible. Pyrolord777 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pyrolord: The other editor was not saying that the Bible is "original research". The point was that for you or someone else to quote a Bible verse and then argue on the basis of that verse that Standing is a false prophet is "original research" (in the way that term is used in Wikipedia). Wanderer57 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all Christians agree on the matter. For example, advocates of praeterism might disagree with your view. In any event, Camping isn't a prophet at all in a literal sense. A prophet is a person with a special connection to God, who spreads His message. AFAIK camping just claimed to be a dude who noticed a message or pattern in the bible, there for all to see. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pyrolord, go look at the Encyclopædia Britannica or MS Encarta some time. A statement like "the bible clearly states" is just not in the encyclopedic style. Something like "mainstream Christian denominations reject the such-and-such doctrine" is more detached. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What is all this incivility? All these personal attacks? O_O This is a Wiki talk page? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Offensive comments

There are currently some comments on this talk page that are more than pejorative. Most of us probably agree that this guy's teachings are pretty ridiculous. And everyone here has a right to their own personal opinion. But that is no reason to use downright insulting language here. Can we get rid of these comments in some way? --Anna (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for page protection. In the interim, feel free to zap any comments that are purely BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant the talk page right here. There are comments here that, to me, seem inappropriate even for a talk page. Does the talk page get page protection too? Or is it o.k. to edit the talk page and delete other users' comments? --Anna (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere within Wikipedia. If the information is negative/contentious and unsourced, you can remove it from this or any page within wikipedia. GB fan (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any text on this page that doesn't adhere to WP:BLP? Joepnl (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So you would feel that #20 is an appropriate comment to make on a living person? --Anna (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If the shoe fits...TheGary (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just gave that particular shoe "the boot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Baseball Bugs.

@TheGary: We are talking about a living person here (or so I would assume even on May 22 ;) ). We may all have our private opinions on this guy, and probably most of us agree on this issue. Still, public libel is not something we should be tolerating on Wikipedia.

Another good reason not to get too insulting here (or anywhere else, for that matter): We would not want to give this guy or his followers the gratification of feeling they are being made martyrs, would we? --Anna (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really serious and I don't care one way or the other on the matter really. Words are words and only have what power you give them. TheGary (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.194.98.147, 21 May 2011

75.194.98.147 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Created mass panic and has yet again been proven wrong in his end of days predictions.

Do you have an edit to the article you want made? GB fan (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance

News sources are claiming that Camping is nowhere to be found after his doomsday scenario failed to materialize and nobody has been able to reach him. He basically has disappeared. Maybe that should be mentioned in the article? (I personally think he took the money and ran, as was his plan all along). Karrmann (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Aimee Semple McPherson, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

He is probably hiding because he was wrong in his "prediction" again. I can Imagine how many people would want to kill him after that. Pyrolord777 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss him, this is the place to discuss how to improve the article. 12:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 End Times prediction article notes that Camping's current whereabouts are not currently known. I think that should be mentioned here at some point, that he has basically disappeared after his prediction failed to materialize. Karrmann (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Until he's seen again, alive or dead, we can't say for sure that his prediction was false... at least in regard to himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course we can. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "we" can't say anything. Reliable sources can, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think his family is going to file a missing persons report on him, and in California that requires 24 hours from the last time he was seen or heard from. (Stryteler (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

I think it would improve the article if we had (reliable, of course) follow-up information concerning the aftermath of Camping's latest erroneous prediction. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV - Be especially careful

In the last section "2011 end times prediction", I took out the line: "Come May 22 the Rapture failed to materialise." for its sarcastic tone. I thought it blatantly so, but then realized it's possible it was just a mild bias showing through, as it's very difficult to write with true NPOV with all this when his prediction is/was so widely mocked. Even just saying "The rapture did not occur" sounds mocking because it's so rhetorical. Still, I respect the general purpose of mentioning something about May 22, especially following the mini-cliffhanger that he wasn't reachable on May 21. Someone might be confused about what precisely the prophecy and prediction involve(d), for instance; perhaps he had left a small chance of it not occurring, hence maybe the line could be "By May 22, the prediction was considered fully nullified by most of the Christian community." That sounds perfect, only I don't know if it's true or not, as May 21 was only to be the catalyst of his longer-term prediction. Any talk of May 22 would generally serve this purpose, but again, what news is offered or omitted is another way to let bias show through.

This is a tone issue with this article I think should be especially mentally noted. Squish7 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest, perceived intentions in the tone aside, such a statement (if properly worded) is (though self evident) a valid item conclusion to include in the article (besides for the connections you suggested). After all, it didn't happen, and this subject's notability is virtually solely because he predicted it would. In being an encyclopedia, it's a valid conclusory statement on the matter. Perhaps you can come up with wording that you do not believe shows a bias? Also, perhaps a better location for the sentence would make it fit better? I'd try to write up something, but there's a reason I spend most of my time fixing speelings, reverting vandalism and welcoming users. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, only the 2% was a little too much. May be just Camping got into Heaven, and the rest of us will have a hard time October 21, 2011. I don't think this article really needs to spell out that the rapture didn't happen, just like Genesis doesn't have a criticism section. Joepnl (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the point you are trying to make - but I do not think it's a criticism. It's simply a fact about the erroneous nature of his prediction. I think you may be using an overbroad interpretation of the word criticism. As an example, if an article (or subsection, or whatever) were to be posted about the Jets playing the Giants next whenever in the Superbowl, we'd most definitely post on either/both pages that "Team A" won and "Team B" lost - and it would not be considered criticism. It's simply the results. In this case, the results were his prophecy did not happen. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I do see a difference between Team A winning, where leaving this information out would urge the reader to use Google to find out what happened and a prophecy that implies that the reader should be dead by now if the prophet was right. Pointing out that the prophecy failed to materialize is probably conceived by the reader as "why is WP telling me something I obviously already know" and can only be understood as making fun of Camping. Which is fair in blogs or twitter, but not here. Joepnl (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You proceed under an assumption which displays a point of view that you hold. There are numerous (as is actually citable) people who still believe it has begun, and we need to wait until Oct 2011 to see the end of it all. This was even mentioned in the NY Channel 7 interview. Thus, I'd hope you'd re-evaluate your opinion on the matter since it's based on your point of view and assumption. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I do have a POV which is that Camping was wrong. I also argue that the article should not say "Camping was wrong", which is obviously the complete opposite of my POV. Except that my POV also includes that WP should be neutral. What exactly should I re-evaluate? Joepnl (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, as noted above, you proceed from the false assumption that all people think that the rapture has not happened, or is not happening right now. Nor, anywhere in Wikipedia, is "the event didn't happen" construed with bias or sarcasm. As a for instance, numerous inventor pages, on subjects both well and little known, will clearly indicate where such people are incorrect, or where such events did not transpire as predicted. That brings us back to, since it's perfectly acceptable all over Wikipedia, what other reasons there are for removing such a sentence? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromise and possibly more suitable wording (as I already indicated above was what I saw as the solution to this). Perhaps instead of the removed sentence, it should simply be noted that the predicted events have not taken place at the noted times? I'd leave proper wording to someone more skilled than I at such. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, you say there is disagreement over whether "it" did or did not happen. That is an even better reason not to say "It didn't happen", isn't it? Unless of course there is peer-reviewed literature with the final answer whether it happened or not. I see no problem at all to let the reader decide. I also don't see a problem in an "aftermath" section, quoting the probably numerous articles about Camping being wrong (or right). But WP saying that he was wrong is not only original research, but also a mockery of the man. Joepnl (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

First you misunderstand. It does not matter whether people think it did or did not happen. It does matter that every reliable source there is states the events did not happen. Second, the editor who removed it ignored a forming consensus by taking it upon themself to make this change when it was being discussed (and leaning towards it's inclusion) right in the section above this - I am presuming they simply did not note this was part of the discussion. Nor does it matter if reality isn't nice. Or nice to include in an article. Or even if it will hurt someone's feelings. It only matters that BLP guidelines and policies are followed.

Regardless, on the fact alone that this was already being discussed, Squish7 may have jumped the gun in deciding to simply do what they wanted while ignoring the discussion above. That's something else to consider. There's nothing anti-BLP in the sentence. If it were me, I'd undo the the removal until the discussion above is completed. Now, had there not been a discussion in progress, I'd view that differently. But again, that's just my interpretation of the rules when there's content discussions or content disputes already in progress (ie: not "changing to my preferred version" while the discussion is still taking place). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is getting silly, and not heading in a constructive direction. I suspect my lack of ability with content creation may be the cause, and for that, I apologize. What I am suggesting, which should be brought up (perhaps as a subsection) in the section above where this discussion is taking place is that something akin to this be put in the sentence's place, to ensure each side (hopefully) finds it suitable:

While the precursor events, such as global earthquakes have not taken place on May 21, 2011(cite USGS Worldwide Earthquakes map from the 21st), there are (those)/(some)/(insert appropriate phrase) who believe that the events may not be tied to May 21, 2011 and instead may take place at any time during the six month period commencing on that date.(various RS cites)

I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to propose. As I said, unless I spend a lot of time, I'm not the best at content creation. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP specifies what you can't do, not what you should do. I agree that this discussion was leading nowhere, and I'm still not sure which side you're on. :) Anyway, the proposed sentence is fine with me, because it adds new information and doesn't take a side which "it didn't happen" obviously did. Joepnl (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

LoL, that should hopefully tell you exactly which side I am on... none actually. I'm trying to end this matter of "sides" by coming up with something that adequately and fairly addresses both the content matter and desires (well, I hope everyone desires it) to make this balanced and NPOV. I've not viewed your contribution history, so I've got no idea if this is too much to ask, but perhaps you can make the final version of the proposed edit, and we can find sources and take this from there. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

First ref. With a little bit of digging around on how to create a historical list so soon, I have come up with this: [2]. An archived list for the 21st probably wont be created until over a month has passed, but as indicated on the script result, I've chosen May 21, 2011 (start and end), worldwide, any intensity. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad solution. All we need say is that ge was widely mocked when his prediction failed to come true. Anything else is OR or FRINGE. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Kitty, Please check all the sources on Camping, so you may note that he himself, over the years, as well as his followers, have indeed claimed this is a 6 month event, as well as (though it's changed) that some of these events such as ge may take place during any time in that 6 months. I see no reason to bring up that he's been widely mocked unless such can be very seriously supported. Sure, it can be proved he was mocked - but widely? This way is actually intended to be balanced of his beliefs (both by him and others), and actual events. None of that is OR, unlike assuming he's been widely mocked. There are plenty of people who simply seem to feel sorry for him. One other note. I am pretty sure WP:FRINGE does not apply in the way you think it does when the topic is WP:FRINGE. Otherwise, this entire article and the article on flat earth and numerous others would not exist.ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK - Internationally mocked. Clearly you are a better editor than me. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Kitty, apologies if I said something you thought deserves such sarcasm. (20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)) Regardless, your proposal already deeply fits within the realm others want to stay away from. Secondly, as I know you know, the statement you have in mind shows one aspect of certain people's feelings on the matter. Internationally isn't a proper descriptive to use either, especially on this BLP. Let's not try to write/prove what you, I or anyone else feel about his actions. We're not here for that. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it's a moot point. Camping pretty much covered it all in his statement. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't do sarcasm. You owe me no apology. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, in that case, I do owe you both an apology, and a thank you for the compliment I misinterpreted. So, thank you, and my apologies for misreading your comment. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I removed "both of which passed without incident" as still being a bit too sarcastic to be NPOV. The sentence now reads that Camping "is notable for twice having used Bible-based numerology to predict dates for the rapture" full stop. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

With current events, there's probably a far better way of putting that in - especially since he's now said as much. Sadly, the sarcastic tone no longer applies (if worded accurately) due to his own statements saying as much. But, I still think extreme care should be used in wording the new information. And folks, one reminder: hurting someone's (ie: his) feelings in this matter is not a BLP violation if it's simply stating well sourced facts (in this case, his very own words which can be heard via audio in his very own voice). So... build a good, accurate addition. Of course, do not make a mockery of him or his actions or beliefs (or insert your own) - simply note the bolded "if" section of my previous statement. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert, the absence of the apocalypse is so self-evident that I do not believe it even needs to be addressed. IMO, it is sufficient to describe his notability and beliefs. I would probably leave his revised prediction out of the lead paragraph for now. It is still kind of current-eventish, there is already an article dedicated to it, and chances are the newly adjusted date won't be as much of a news-maker, anyway. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Liberal, you misunderstand what I am saying. The relevance of his current statements is that in them, he claims (a) judgement day did happen, (b) he was wrong about the cataclysmic events, (c) he re-assigned a date for them to happen (all at once) on Oct 21, (d) things are still on schedule for the end of the universe, (e) they are his own words - not someone else's interpretations of what did or did not happen.

To be entirely balanced and in proper context, one must keep all the relevant information - otherwise, it does not properly explain the context of his continued predictions and statements. And, in this particular scenario, his only notability are these prediction. Thus, to include anything about the ongoing events/new predictions, one probably should, to be balanced and keep things in context, indeed mention that the non-event on May 21st (per him) is no indication that the end days have not started as scheduled. Thus, my point was, whether anyone thinks it makes a mockery of him or not is irrelevant simply due to the fact that he actually said as much. It's how it's worded that determines if it's intended to make a mockery of him or poke fun of him - again, keeping in mind his statements are very relevant to the article especially due to it's only point of notability. Hence, I suggested extreme care in wording it. If he were notable for something else (let's say rocket science), then one should stop and evaluate relevance as well as the notable nature of his statements before including it. But, these statements and predictions are relevant as they are the only things making him notable. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I see in the latest source that you're correct that Camping now claims the judgment did come:

Through chatting with a friend over what he acknowledged was a very difficult weekend, the light dawned on him that instead of the biblical Rapture in which the faithful would be swept up to the heavens, May 21 had instead been a "spiritual" Judgment Day, which places the entire world under Christ's judgment, he said.[3]

IMO, we should distill the lead down to the fact that his notoriety is derived from his end-times predictions, and leave discussion of what he predicted and when for the body. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, his notoriety is derived from his FAILED end-times predictions and the huge amounts of cash he's accumulated through making them. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fergus, he is notable for his predictions and his following. Quite a few people believed them and spent their savings taking his advice and spreading his beliefs, he himself has made money off of them, and reactions to his predictions were themselves newsworthy. All predictions of the end of the world have been a failure. If one was correct, now that would be news. :) Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would actually also include some reference (and of course text on the page to warrant it) of his own actual statements to the news, to ensure it's not all second hand. But I think that's a great start. As for the lede, don't look at me. I'm great at content creation - if I take a couple weeks... I suspect a bunch of you would have something up and refined long before I did. On that note, just remember the need to balance the lede[4] with the amount of text in the main (yeah, there's actually a suggested ratio), and remember that it should have mention/summary of each of the sections in the main. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to "protect" him from his own statements when they are very relevant

Liberal, you seem to be trying to protect him from his own statements with your recent edit[5], which leaves out relevant information. Why is the end day Oct 21st? Is it because God spoke to him and said he'd postpone it? Is it because it started off with smaller events? Is it because the first sign was the eruption in Iceland? Or is it because he was (self-admittedly) in error on the date for the destruction? Again, one cannot simply leave out relevant facts. If I knew little on this topic and read he changed the date to Oct 21st, I'd want to know why. And since it's his own words and admission, it's not gossip, speculation or attackish. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert, this is not my intent. According to the article cited, he seems to have decided that there wasn't a physical rapture on the 21st, but a "spiritual" (quotes in the article) instead. In this sense, he is claiming that he was right all along about the judgment, but wrong about the particulars. The destruction of the world is still scheduled (in his belief) for October. Liberal Classic (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good point. Here's[6] a link that may assist with that to some minor extent. I'd prefer a better one or two. The actual full statement is on videotaped news, which I have yet to be able to grab (dont even know if the stations put such things online). Anyway, I asked the editor who has been changing it to come here to discuss this. My message was simply "Hi, please visit us on the Harold Camping article Talk Page to provide your input.[6]"(link) so as to ensure it was not taken as a request to support any particular point. Hopefully that will avoid an edit war, or a mangled article. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to remember WP:FRINGE here, and bear in mind the facts that the Earth is going to be around for at least 5 billion years and the universe for several hundred TRILLION. There is no need to allow any possibility at all that Camping's claimed (and quite lucrative) "predictions" are valid. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. I don't think any of us were suggesting that in the article. But, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV, and not WP:FRINGE, as this article is about WP:FRINGE which exempts it from not being able to talk about Fringe stuff. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another article (from the NYT) that discusses the “invisible judgment day”: [7] Liberal Classic (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice cleanup so far... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear I am trying to protect Wikipedia, not Harold Camping. I personally do not believe there is any way Camping's prophecies are valid. However, I think the apocalypse is so conspicuous by its absence that it is unnecessary to reference it. It is true that his prophecies were wrong, that judgment day(s) passed without incident. However, I suggest that we don't really need to drive home the point that the world didn't end. It is too easy for the article to become non-neutral. This is BLP, so we should tread lightly. And now we have the unprovable (and un-disprovable) claim that the rapture really did occur, just not in the expected way. IMO it is best to say he is notable for his predictions (because all such predictions are false) and that he is notable for his following and reactions to his predictions. That's what I think would be NPOV. Liberal Classic (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please (LC & FM) let's not get into an edit war over this. I see no problem with using the word "failed" in the sentence as it currently stands. Wikipedia often states the obvious (heck, numerous articles would disappear if it didnt). Regardless, before more reverts, start a section asking for comment, and await a consensus please. And not a 2 hour "we talked about it" consensus, but give it a couple days for others to respond. Please. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I don't want to give the impression that I am edit warring. I'm willing to let it sit for a few days and see who else can contribute. I don't have a problem calling his predictions wrong. However, he has now "reinterpreted" his prophecy such that they are impossible to prove or disprove, in that judgment has been passed down from on high with no physical signs. (At least until October anyway.) Also, if his latest prediction of the apocalypse is a failure, it stands to reason that his previous predictions of the apocalypse are also. It is my opinion that hammering that point home makes the article non-neutral, and there is plenty of discussion of his prophecies in the child article. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification, don't take my stance on it as "leave it this way". You both have done a lot of good for the article tonight, and (knowing there are admins who have it on their watchlists), I don't wanna see 3RR warnings given out. I'm happy with it either way until a discussion and consensus can be reached, regardless of my opinion (hence I haven't changed it either way since you two dug into the article). Also, check out the new talkpage section I started below... the lede still needs work. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've published a fourth of any particular edit, but it's late and I may have. Liberal Classic (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently He's Been Seen

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/22/BAKO1JJIK7.DTL&tsp=1 TheGary (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just removed the sentence, "His location is currently unknown." That was too blow-by-blow for an encyclopedia anyway. Yopienso (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He changed the date now. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-05-23-camping-apocalypse-october_n.htm TheGary (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apparently what we just went through Saturday was The Invisible Judgment Day / aka Invisible Rapture. I am glad Mr. Camper is keeping us informed on all these developments; we'd be very lost and confused without him! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43140373/?gt1=43001 Codenamemary (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cdeonamemary, please be careful that your attempts at humor do not slide into what can be considered an attack on an LP. That's generally not permitted, even on the talk pages of the BLP. I'm not saying that you have... just suggesting you don't walk closer to that line. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Codenamemary (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing in the Lede

Hey gang, the lede is now a little too short, per MOS. See here[8]. It needs to be 2-3 paragraphs, and it's two sentences and a paragraph. Also, the lede incorrectly portrays the events. He predicted the end of the world would begin on May 21st, then revised the prediction. Citable accuracy is vital in any BLP. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Need some mention in the lede to “Project Caravan” and "rapture parties". Both have been widely sourced in the mainstream news. Liberal Classic (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read to the bottom of the article yet. Just remember that those need to be discussed in some decent level later on, if you wish to include them in the lede. So... if they aren't there and you add them to the lead, that means creating more content in the main section... which may mean expanding the lede some more. Nice Catch-22, eh? Of course, if they are already in the main section, then no worries. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

FergusM1970

FergusM1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

OK, there's this editor who's putting his own spin and editorializing on things in the article. One that caught my eye was changing "virgin" to "young woman". However, that's not the wording used in Camping's calendar, and since the calendar is the source, the wording in the source has to be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Addressed on his talkpage. On the other side of the coin, he's (with Liberal's efforts as well) helped make the recent changes more balanced. So, hopefully this will be resolvable simply by providing a better understanding of how sources and related content get used. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. At present, it appears his judgment might be clouded by insomnia. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm ready for another cup of coffee... :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He has now supposedly gone to bed, and won't be swayed by the fact that he's violating OR rules. Someone should fix the article to take away his personal editorializing and interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it all got reverted anyway. :) Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is currently at Baseball Bugs' last version, which is as far as we (you all) agreed to. I've asked the editor who reverted to come here to help build the final consensus on the edits we are all working on, and hope s/he does. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to sound like I'm whinging. :) I read some Wiki entries on other folks notable for making predictions, such as Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, William Miller and O. R. L. Crosier. The general tone when dealing with prophecy seems to be to describe the claims and to document their reaction when their prediction doesn't come true. Good examples of this are the articles on Robertson and Miller. Both of these articles cover how the prophecies did not come true as well as the aftermath. The Lindsey and Crosier articles don't go into quite this level detail. Even the article on Benny Hinn shies away from calling his prophecies "false" despite him being notorious for prophesying. In his article "fabrications" are referred to specifically in the context of an undercover investigation with hidden cameras, though he does get good coverage in Unfulfilled religious predictions. Granted, Camping's notoriety centers around one dramatic prediction that didn't pan out. Nevertheless, I don't think WP:NPOV or WP:BLP are served by having too many terms such as "failed" or "false". Liberal Classic (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect (including the whining part - content discussion isn't whining). Here's an example, and perhaps now you can see how (and the only time when) I think such wording is relevant.

When a terrorist attack failed to happen in 2007, Robertson said, in January 2008, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us."

Note how it's a lead-in to his explanation why, just as I was suggesting such wording be used here as. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 09:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This one (Robertson article, section: 2008: Worldwide violence and American recession), states he was wrong too (though worded differently), as does this one from Lindsey "The book was quietly taken out of print in the early 1990s, possibly due to the failure of Lindsey's apocalyptic predictions to come true during the 1980s." and the Miller one names it The Great Disappointment[9]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

On a note I actually think is unrelated, you removed "both of which passed without incident" which actually doesn't seem sarcastic or anything else. Think about it from a "bigger picture" standpoint - not just about whether his predictions happened or not. No riots in the streets (happened in the past, albeit the "ancient" past), no mass suicides, no looting... a few parties, and his followers spending time with their families - inotherwords, the dates passed without incident. Just a thought on that one. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, it's late... my thoughts are kinda disjointed. It is not POV to state fact. His predictions failed. He admitted he was wrong. There's no POV but his own in that (the part about him being wrong - the rest is simply fact), which is permitted. It's our POV that's not permitted. Discluding a word that simply states fact and concurs with both numerous sources and his own words, simply because you have an opinion on it, on the other hand, is POV. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 09:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert, First let me say that I have no objection to anything you've written. Reading what I wrote, however, I really should have specified that I was talking about the lead-in paragraph than the body of the article. I hate to sound like I am backpedaling. For the record, I do not object in general to the word "failed" or phrase "failed prediction". I don't want to get hung up on that. Earlier revisions tonight read like "failed" "failed" "failed" and I thought that was not neutral enough for the introduction. Taking the Robertson article as a good example, it factually states when he was wrong and what he said afterword. It also shows him re-evaluating his position when confronted by the facts. Camping has (sort of) done the same thing by reinterpreting the judgment as being purely "spiritual". When I read the introductions to all these pages I get a sense of what the appropriate tone of the lede should be, and the Camping article did not have the same tone earlier tonight IMO. I'm happy to support something like "May 21 passed without incident" so long as the rest of the language in the lede is neutral. Liberal Classic (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also recognize that a large part of his notoriety comes from having been wrong. That should made clear in the lede, but a catalog of his failed predictions belongs in the body of the article. Liberal Classic (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we just have to summarize it all. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 11:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed "radio station" at the top to "radio station group", because that is what it is. Radio Sharon (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Money

There are several mentions of money in this talk page but none I can find in the article.

This source (one of those referenced in the article) includes the following paragraph.

"Camping offered no clues about Family Radio's finances Monday, saying he could not estimate how much had been spent advertising his prediction nor how much money the nonprofit had taken in as a result. In 2009, the nonprofit reported in IRS filings that it received $18.3 million in donations, and had assets of more than $104 million, including $34 million in stocks or other publicly traded securities."

I wonder if more information is available about the financial aspects of these "predictions". The case of a non-profit organization with over $100 million in assets must have been reported in more detail somewhere.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, not yet. Much of the information out there is simply speculation due to the filing dates that his np has to abide by. We probably won't have accurate, reliable, sourcable information for another few months to a year. Though, if you could find something... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is not Camping's date for the crucifixion (Friday 1 April 33) self-inconsistent?

In the subsection "Biblical calculations" Camping claims that the date for the crucifixion was on "Friday April 1, AD 33." Is not this date self inconsistent since 1 April 33 was not a Friday but was rather a Wednesday? The Friday of that week was 3 April 33, not 1 April 33 according to my own electronic calendar. This is consistent with the date (mentioned in this same section) by Hoehner. Can others please confirm that 1 April 33 was not a Friday but rather was the preceding Wednesday? If Camping's date is self-inconsistent, should not this fact be mentioned in the article? -L.Smithfield (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that 1 April 33 was a Wednesday. Mark314159 (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

1 April 33 is a Friday in the Gregorian calendar but a Wednesday in the Julian calendar. Camping does mention "our modern calendar". Furthermore, he stated that date was Nisan 14, which is correct in the modern Hebrew calendar for 1 April 33 Gregorian, but not for 1 April 33 Julian. Both the day of the week and the Hebrew date confirm that Camping used the Gregorian calendar, not the Julian calendar. See Calendrica. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Then is it not the case then that both Camping and Hoehner actually agree on the date of the crucifixion (one using the Gregorian calendar and the other using the Julian calendar respectively)? In that case the article, as it stands, is actually incorrect, or confusing at best, since it appears to state that the two men are in disagreement rather than actually in agreement. Further, my own little hunt for the date seems to actually have many (if not most) scholars supporting the 3 April 33 Julian date for the crucifixion. So it appears after all that Camping's date seems to actually be fairly non-controversial -- if not even in the majority. At least the article should be clarified to show which calendar each man's date is on. -L.Smithfield (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a false statement in Wikipedia; they are both the same date. Camping calculates that the date of the crucifixion of Christ was Friday Gregorian April 1, AD 33.[18][29] (stupid contradiction by Wikipedia submitter = Not all commentators agree with that date.) Hoehner argues for Friday Julian April 3, 33 A.D.[33]which is exactly the same date. Those that disagree with that date use another year such as 30 AD as death. While others use a literal full days from death to resurrection such as death on Thursday to Sunday, or Friday to Monday, instead of Friday to Sunday; but this too is only a one-day difference showing that the difference of April 1 or April 3 is not a difference it is the same date Friday G.April 1 = J.April 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.102.3 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fotheringham (1934), Hoehner (1977), Humphreys and Waddington (1985), and Pratt (1985) all agree that the crucifixion most likely occurred on Friday, 3 April 33 Julian, which is the same day as Camping's Friday, 1 April 33 Gregorian. I'm making a temporary change to the article pending confirmation of these refs. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing reasonable enough?

I considered adding a statement that mentions that making May 21 a "spiritual" judgment day is a common explanation used by other groups that have set dates for the rapture, and bringing up that some people discussing him on the internet even posted the fact that Oct 21 would be a fall back day, predicting correctly exactly what he would say when May 21 passed without incident. However the only sourcing I could possibly have is a forum topic in question from the most well-known forum about Family Radio and his doctrines (which allow both sides to be posted.) Is that citing sufficient?

But also, an article about him has proven that it will remain notable after May 21 due to his decision to continue predicting dates. BMSprint (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dictators dictate. Prophets prophesy. Nature of the beast. What works for them. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that many prophetic groups "adjust" their predictions after the fact by labeling them as "spiritual judgment days". Gotta be a better source for that somewhere. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Camping stressed to the media on May 23 that his October 21 date was not a "new date", and that he had already predicted this day as the end of the world but that obviously he had previously misunderstood that judgment would be "spiritual" on May 21, because nothing physical took place. So basically, he's trying to make the reality of an uneventful May 21 fit his prediction without changing anything else about it at all. Come October 22, there's not much else he can do without completely losing credibility. I doubt he'll pitch another date, he's too old and he's had enough. Let's just hope he doesn't come up with a "back up date" between now and October. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, you are trying to interpret the meaning of his actions. You may be 1000% (or more) correct, but that isn't what matters. Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what's been printed in other reliable sources that we reliably cite in the article, with us not giving undue weight to any perspective. We can't even write about what we think an author or article subject means. Only what's actually said (no inferences of our own). When you get the chance, please read the linked items above, and let me know if you have any questions. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you were responding to me and not the OP, I know all of those policies inside and out, I've been here since 2004. My comment was just that—a comment—I wasn't suggesting that we try to inject our own opinions into the article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Judgment Bus New Orleans 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Judgment Bus New Orleans 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Rapture"  ???

Our article says: "Camping gained notoriety owing to his prediction that the Rapture would take place on May 21....."

I looked at the Wikipedia article "Rapture" to which this sentence links.

It is quite esoteric, discussing the views of Dispensationalist Premillennialists, Amillennialists, Postmillennialists (including Presbyterians), and Historic Premillennialists. (Prehistoric Millennialists seem to have been overlooked. ;o)

IMO it is not possible to tell from that article what events were actually predicted to happen on May 21, and therefore it is not possible to know whether any of them did happen. Open-ended vagueness of this sort in articles leaves Wikipedia vulnerable to any charlatan who makes vague predictions.

Is there a source that spells out in more or less concrete terms what specific events were predicted for May 21?

If not, can we amend the article to say something such as "Camping gained notoriety for his prediction that certain unspecified events, which he referred to as the "Rapture", would take place on May 21, 2011....."

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually all well covered in the cites from pre May 22nd... the biggest problem is, I suspect we need to come up with wording that accurately portrays what he considered the Rapture/May 21 to be, without making it attack-y by repeatedly pointing out he was wrong. It is relevant to mention he was wrong (and admitted so), imo, when done in the correct context, such as "when the events did not happen as predicted, Camping revised his predictions to say... silent Rapture, EOW on Oct 21st, etc"

But yes, I agree, since the Rapture has so many varying degrees of interpretations, it is relevant in this article to discuss (in greater depth) what his predictions are, and leave the link as it is for those who wish to read up on the varying interpretations of the events. On that note, I would suggest that no one try to pick which set of beliefs they feel he falls into (ie: Premillennialists, amillennialists, or whatever) as even though he may seem to fit into one of those categories, he has never claimed to, thus it would be our original research in concluding where he fits (unless he clearly states something to that nature that we can cite). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it left as it is. Take it from him, it didn't happen. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What didn't happen? (that's the key part to the above suggestion, since there's different interpretations of the rapture). Also, please remember to state a Wikipedia acceptable reason for your preference to not include relevant information. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What indeed? I guess the rapture didn't happen, meaning the thing he expected to happen. It didn't, so he revised it to a "silent rapture". Kittybrewster ☎ 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. But, we cannot say the rapture didn't happen (we cant even prove that in light of his new predictions, and of course, our OR is irrelevant to en.wikipedia). We can say that "...when certain events in his original prediction did not occur, he admitted to there being an error in his early predictions and revised them to redefine May 21st as a 'silent rapture' with the destruction of the universe still occuring on Oct 21st." (though in better words than I could manage). But, the other related point being, it differentiates "Rapture (general term of ambiguous meanings)" with "Camping Rapture Definition/Prediction #1" and "Camping Rapture Definition/Prediction #2" - if that makes sense. Saying "the Rapture" has no meaning/context as related to him. Defining what each was, and what aspects of #1 failed to cause the revised #2 is simply relevant to his notability, while clarifying his changing definition(s) of "the Rapture" allowing readers who dig deeper to understand the context if they go to that article. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to make it that complicated. And shouldn't. He predicted a rapture and it is not for us to say what he meant or to interpret it. We go with the natural meaning of the word. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I believe you are wrong because you are trying to support your opinion by imposing meanings I did not say or imply. He predicted events to unfold to signal the beginning of the rapture. They did not occur. He admitted he was wrong about the events, but not about the rapture itself - now relegating it to a silent rapture. There's nothing in that for us to say - he said it. And it's relevant. Once again, read the BLP policies. I understand you don't like putting anything in the article that makes it look like he was wrong, but your opinion isn't relevant based on a feeling. I've repeatedly asked for the Wikipedia policy that allows lobotomizing relevant information from an article based on feeling. Please, so we can move forward, respond with that - it is quite possible my understanding of policy is incorrect. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To put it more simply, (1) We only need to state what I and others already indicated above... what he said, what parts of his predictions he has claimed has failed, and how that applies to his new prediction. To that, I am not saying (to Kitty) that your opinion is more or less valid. You haven't given a reason to allow giving it any more thought. So, with no reasoning presented, what you are suggesting is difficult to even consider. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I quote from Kittybrewster's comments above: "(Camping) predicted a rapture and it is not for us to say what he meant or to interpret it. We go with the natural meaning of the word." I agree that it is not for us to say what he meant or interpret it. But it would be good to have sources about what Camping said more specific than that he predicted a "rapture". IMO if the article Rapture makes anything clear, it is that "rapture" has no natural meaning in this context. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wanderer57, I read what she said. It is entirely irrelevant to what I keep promoting we do. I suspect perhaps she's missed every message I've written on the matter. I call for no speculation. Camping (cited 10+ times in the article pre May 24) stated the rapture would begin with (be signified by) earthquakes, followed by those chosen ones being raptured to heaven and the eventual destruction of the earth. No speculation. No guessing. His statements, cited numerous times. As of recent days, he's admitted he's "wrong" (he used that word) and it was a silent rapture, or silent judgment (one of which is his term), and the world (and universe) would still end Oct 21st (his claims). NO interpretations in any of that. He made those claims. There's nothing to interpret. If you read above , you will note I even proposed a few entries that are entirely based on his statements. You'll note I have been entirely against any insertion that's our interpretations.

So, again, from what I am reading in what you wrote, you agree that what he said is relevant since it explains his belief on the matter, which cannot be defined by the article of multiple ambiguous meanings. Perhaps then you can see why I keep prompting Kitty for an answer as to the reason she's against my (and now your) suggestion, since she is ignoring those suggestions entirely in her response and instead misreading them as "Hey, I want to write my interpretations on things" - which I have been clearly against. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Like many predictions of this type, Camping's statements to the press were somewhat short on quantifiable statements while at the same time emphasizing his certainty that a "tremendous, terrible situation" would occur. This source [10] makes clear that Camping believed massive earthquakes and other "horrible" things would reduce the world to "chaos". According to Camping, there will be no question the end of the world is nigh because will "not be business as usual at all. At all." (Emphasis in original article.) The events would "follow the sun" (a statement that I found oddly geocentric) and either you are a "true believer" and would be "caught up with Christ" or you are one of the "millions" who would die. About the only thing we can say with any certainty is that millions did not die from earthquakes as he predicted. Re-interpreting May 21 as being a "spiritual" judgment day has moved the goalposts and made it completely unprovable one way or the other. There's nothing objective you can say about that except it is what Camping now claims. May 21 passed without incident. It was business as usual. No great earthquakes or tsunami. No mysterious disappearances. Gabriel did not blow his horn and the dead did not rise from the grave. Odin was not swallowed alive fighting Fenrir the wolf, and Yggdrasil the world tree did not shudder and groan. However, I am going to make an appeal to common sense that it is not necessary for the article to state that the apocalypse has not occurred. I think it is most important that the article be dispassionate. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And therein are the extent of the additions that I would like to se re-added to the article, which have currently been lobotomized out of it (except, even though I am a big fan of it, the Norse related stuff) ;-) But it should be followed up with his revised prediction. To summarize, in horrendous paraphrase; "Camping predicted (bad/various events as per LC above via cites), and when May 21st passed uneventfully, he revised his predictions explaining the Rapture still had begun, but it was a spiritual judgment day which will still be followed by the end of the world/universe on Oct 21st"

Really, that's it. That's all I am proposing. His notability and notoriety are solely based on "predicted this, didnt happen, so he predicted this...". So, what he predicted each time, which we can cite via dozens of reliable sources which often attribute it directly to his actual words, is, to me, something important - both for what makes him notable and because it's rather divergent from the half dozen other major definitions of Rapture on the page hotlined to. Anyway, that's all. No proposal to bash the article left and right with "failed" in the text a dozen times... no inclusion of our interpretations (he's provided plenty)... no original research or even the need to use others (RS or otherwise) interpretations because he's made plenty of quotes which are mentioned in the RS articles. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ooooh, and look! I managed to say they were "failed predictions" without using the word "failed" even once!!! Hopefully that will make those against that word happy. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Camping has made a lot of vague prognostications about judgment day and the rapture, but if there is a common characteristic to his predictions that was widely reported and can be objectively evaluated it was his prediction for earthquakes. It does not seem that there was any *unusual* earthquake activity on the 21st of May, but I am not a geologist. I've been poking through Google news looking for a cite to that effect by someone from the USGS. The only source I've seen so far that addresses the lack of unusual earthquake activity is from the Huffington Post, but I don't consider them reliable on issues scientific. Liberal Classic (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi LC, here's the beauty. The earthquakes were supposed to start at 6PM, and continue across the world in all time zones at 6PM (following the sun), which is citable. I already provided a USGS link (worldwide activity) to show no such activity for the 21st. There's the beauty of it. If he said there'd be some earthquakes, it would be hard to dispute... I am sure there were one or two or so... but worldwide earthquakes, compared to virtually none? Easily citable he predicted "A", and USGS shows entirely contrary "B". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert, please understand that I am not trying to be a wikilawyer here. Isn't taking that computer-generated map and concluding that there was no unusual volcanic activity a form of original research? Sure, I can look at the map and compare it with previous days and weeks and decide for myself that nothing unusual happened. However, I am not authoritative because I am not a geologist. Wouldn't it be better to quote from someone in the USGS who says nothing unusual occured? Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake activity (not volcanic). And no, we aren't proving/claiming there was no unusual earthquake activity. We are simply proving there were no worldwide massive earthquakes. It's not the "glass half full/glass half empty" argument. It's "Glass empty or glass overflowing" argument, and for that, I suspect the USGS site adequately shows the glass was empty. 26 total over 3.0 (, which is the "you can feel it" level, most of them tremblors)[11] is a far cry from "worldwide". Heck, Yellowstone often has that many in an hour. If there were a level of ambiguity, like he said "some earthquakes" or "a few..." etc, I'd agree. But, the map shows, it was (a) very few, (b) not worldwide (or even close) - and those are the only things we need to be able to cite to show his prediction was erroneous. Even in that, it's just an additional cite. He already admitted that part of his prediction was inaccurate, even going as far as to say "(he) was wrong". ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Error in his published math

Camping states that the total of 1978 Gregorian years are 722,449 days from Gregorian 33 AD April 1 to Gregorian 2011 AD April 1. Then he adds 51 days to April 1 to get May 21. April has 30 days and so adding 50 days is May 21, not adding 51. No one has caught this, that I see. Further I hope he doesnt see this as pentecost because Google shows Pentecost to be 50th from Easter Sunday not from Good Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.102.3 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If he messed up, it's not our job to correct him. Let an RS do it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Camping Chronology Simplified

Using Josephus Abram to Jacob as 2167bc to age 75 in 2092bc with Isaac 2067bc and Jacob 2007bc; he deduces Adam to Flood as 130+105+(905+895+910+962+365+969)+182+600= 6023 years (11,013-4990bc) instead of 130+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182+600 = 1656 years. Post Flood to Jacob as (502+438+433+464+239+239+230+148)+130+100+60 = 2983 years (4990-2007bc), instead of 2+35+30+34+30+32+30+29+130+100+60= 512 years. Josephus uses 430 years as 2092-1662bc Exodus while Camping uses 215+430 as 2092-1877bc to 1447bc Exodus. All these dates of Josephus used by Camping are shifted 2 years from the intention of Josephus, they should be Abram 2169bc to Isaac 2069bc to Jacob 2009bc and Exodus 1664bc. The 2009bc is Marduk Street of Babel, a book of 2 years exists of post-Exodus, and Christian chronologies from most sources have a 774bc Olympic instead of 776bc. It is also calendrical that Solomon's temple in Josephus is 1073bc as the 592nd year after 1664bc, and 936-year marduk after 2009bc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.102.3 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not see the relationship. It's only something inclusion worthy if we have a reliable source that cites Camping for this, as well as a means of claiming relevance. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Worth including?

Found these news articles the other day (both relate to the same case). After she died, a woman from NYC left her $250K estate to Family Radio. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394172/Doris-Schmitt-leaves-fortune-doomsday-predicter-Harold-Camping.html?ito=feeds-newsxml http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/06/03/2011-06-03_queens_woman_wills_fortune_to_doomsday_prophet_harold_camping_family_outraged_.html Chartered Wombat (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)