Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

Expand list template

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

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

Joseph Smith, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This generation shall not pass away

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand the distinction now that you point it out. I guess what we disagree on is criteria for inclusion. I firmly think any belief of the end that was notable enough to garner historical attention should be included as a prediction, regardless of whether it was an interpretation of the Bible or an interpretations of predictions in the Bible - The end result is the same, people panicked and thought the end was nigh. There are several predictions on this page that don't attribute the prediction to a specific person, for example the 1780 fear from various New England residents or the 968 fears from Otto III's army. I don't think these predictions are any less notable just because these people don't have a specific leader we can attribute the prediction to. Of the two main references that were backing this up before it was removed; one states that the belief that Jesus would return while his apostles were still alive was unanimous in the years after his death (I couldn't tell you how accurate that is, but keep in mind wiki's verifiability, not truth guideline). The other simply states early Christians thought Jesus might return whilst the apostles were still alive. [3] [4] These were simply the first two google responses I got after searching for something like this. If you require better references I will commence searching immediately. Freikorp (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for pointing that out, I must admit I often forget to check whether books are from SPS. I understand your point regarding 'certain interpretations'. I had a somewhat difficult time with my significant expansion of this article. Prediction of a specific day (and even time of day) were of course easy; it became difficult as there are so many notable (and fascinating) predictions that are not so specific. There were a lot of great predictions I really regretted leaving out because they were either too ambiguous or reliable sources could not be found. I also agree primary sources would be better. Before I stumbled across this article only about half the predictions had any reference [5], so my primary concern was getting a reference at all. Now that that's done I'd like to get better ones as time permits. I still think the 'prediction' in question is notable for inclusion, as whilst saying the end will occur before certain people die isn't a specific date, it does put a definite limit on things (as opposed to the plethora of people who have said he would return 'soon' over the centuries); I'll simply add it to my list of things to improve with the article. If you have further suggestions for improving the article I'm be happy to hear them. Freikorp (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We can divide in sections

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

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

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

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

This is strange stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists

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

Overhaul

As you can see, the overwhelming majority of the "Article" column in the table is blank. I intend to address this issue and the issue of lack of citations by removing the article column and replacing it with a 'reference' column, similar to that of the List of drug-related deaths page, which I previously overhauled. I intend to move the 'article link' of those events that have them into the description. I will start this shortly unless there are any major concerns or better ideas from other editors. Freikorp (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I have implemented my above plan. Every claim now has a reference, and I've removed the no reference and original research tags accordingly. I've expanded the list considerably, and am in the process of adding more predictions. Eventually I will also get around to address the pre-existing bare URLs. Freikorp (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've finished adding notable predictions I have found to the page, I've also addressed the bare URL's. Feel free to contact me with further suggestions for improving this article. Freikorp (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding the other "ig nobel" mentions.

I think that both Dorothy Martin should be added (1954) (http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2008/07/after-the-prophecy.html) and Lee Jang Rim restored. Both are mentioned along with others in the 2011 "Ig Nobel" prizes. Lee Jang Rim was in the article with a reference, I'm not sure for what reason it was removed in terms of notability.Naraht (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any strong objection to them being added back. I removed them and others as quite frankly I was making the list so long I figured I'd limit the entries to people notable enough to have their own wikipedia article, I was unaware they were Ig nobel recipients. Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added Lee Jang Rim back - will look into adding Martin. Freikorp (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm up to the 1950s on my way through listing all notable predictions, and have added Martin's predictions to the article. Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian scientist?

According to the article Darkness (poem):

A scientist in Italy even predicted that the sun would go out on July 18 [of 1816] shortly before Byron's writing of "Darkness". His "prophecy" caused riots, suicides, and religious fervor all over Europe.

This is referenced to Vail, Jeffrey. the Bright Sun was Extinguis'd': The Bologna Prophecy and Byron's "Darkness". Wordsworth Circle 28: 183-92, page 183 for "A scientist in Italy even predicted..." and page 186 for the "caused riots, suicides, and religious fervor..." bit. This seems rather important and worth tracking down if it really caused riots and suicides "all over Europe". But I don't have any more on this. The Wordsworth Circle is a journal but whether it's online I can't tell; what the "28" would be is unclear to me since they use volume/issue numbering rather than just a single number; a date would have been nice. Cannot find a "Bologna Prophecy" right off and wonder if Vail is just blowing smoke or what. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius

When I overhauled the article I removed any predictions made in jest, such as X-Day (Church of the SubGenius). One of these has recently been added back. I propose to remove such claims, as they are not real predictions, but I thought I'd ask other editors first to see if there are any grounds for their inclusion, other than that they are mildly amusing. Freikorp (talk)

I was at X Day. They were actually passing out Kool Aid when word came down that they'd been holding the paper upside down. The world would not end in 1998, but in 8661. Czolgolz (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius is a parody. I'm not sure that it really qualifies for inclusion in this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing it, I strongly don't think it qualifies for inclusion either. Freikorp (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Totally agree, does not belong up there. Is there anyway to get it semi protected, or would that be overkill?MilkStraw532 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately a page must face heavy ongoing vandalism or edit-warring before it is eligible for protection, and neither has happened here. Freikorp (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pandering to Christians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unreliable sources

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

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

Renamed

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

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

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

Newton's Prediction

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

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

2800 BC quote from the Assyrians

I've removed the following quotation:

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

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

The second reason is that other reliable sources call the quotation spurious. Oh yes, you can find people repeating the quotation all over the Internet, but actual reliable sources, such as Suzy Platt's Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service, can find no evidence that the quotation is older than 1949.[6] It's simply one of those spurious quotations people would like to be true (because it suits their political or generational prejudices? because it sounds neat? Who knows), so they repeat it over and over again.

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

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

Ronald Weinland

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

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

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

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

Timothy Dwight IV.

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

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

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

Move Thie Prediction

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

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

BC/BCE

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

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

Columns for date of prediction, and category

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

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

Galactic merger apocalyptic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, un-. Spell checker fail.

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

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

Edit request on 17 December 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect?

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

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

Section titles for past and future predictions

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

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

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

Jupiter Effect (1982)

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

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

2038 32-bit Unix time problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prophecy of the Popes and Three Secrets of Fátima

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

The Prophecy of the Popes 'prediction' used to be in the article - You can see it in this version of the article [7]. It read "St Malachy is said to have predicted in 1143 that there would only be 112 more Popes before the end of the world. Pope Benedict XVI is the 111th. The prophecy states the last pope will be named Peter of Rome." It was removed by an IP user on the grounds "This does not cite the 21st century. It can be assumed that the last two popes they will not live up to 22nd century, but this is not fact." [8]

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

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

We cheated death again

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

Predictions vs. suggestions

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

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

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

More sources at Craigslist

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

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

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

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

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

June 12 2889

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