Talk:2011 end times prediction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Congratulations[edit]

Folks, with all the passion here, we've pulled through an article that has been viewed more than 2 million times in the past month, with 2/3s of that being in the course of four days. It has seen a metric gajillion of edits, and while there certainly has been disagreement over what has been stressed and lots of fine-tuning, it's been kept largely coherent and worthwhile.

This is, of course, not the end of it all; we can expect to see coverage of the fallout for a while to come, with I expect some sociological research into the causes and effects of the whole hoopla. And we are likely to see some more hoo-ha around October 21 (although I expect it to be less.) The article itself is likely to need changing as this fits into history... I'm thinking we should eventually rearrange it so that the discussion of the impact moves higher up and the details of the formulation move to a lower spot in the article, particularly if there is good sociological science to cite. But that's all longer term; we've clearly pulled through the shorter term. Good work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So said Captain Obvious. - Another n00b (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, Nat. It's been a fun ride trying to stay on top of this bucking bronco - by far the most-watched article I have ever worked on. I don't know why User:Another n00b felt the need to post a sarcastic response, but personally I think we have done Wikipedia proud, keeping this article encyclopedic through all the hysteria. (The semiprotection during the peak period helped a lot too.) It will be interesting to see what kind of analysis is produced after the dust settles - and by whom. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% agreement! I only wish other pages on similarly fringe ideas were as well managed as this page. I'm arriving late in the game here, but it's obvious to me that many editors did fantastic work on this article to keep it neutral and encyclopedic. Many thanks to you all! Dcs002 (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed an absolute marvelous work by the editors who managed the frenzy. It was phenomenal. Another great chapter in Wikipedia history Anu Raj (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding (in good faith I believe) a non-neutral, non-reliable source[edit]

Twice now an IP user has attempted to use this link as a reference in the article: [1]. The title of the linked piece is "End of the World Is Soon? You Remember Good Ol’ Judgement Day Loony, Harold Camping?" and it comes from an opinion site called "Words with Meaning". I want the person to understand why this is not acceptable as a reference here at Wikipedia: This is an encyclopedia, and everything here must be neutral and must be cited to a reliable source. You can read why this is required, and what is meant by these terms, at WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Identifying reliable sources. The site "Words with Meaning" is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it, and the item is not neutral in its viewpoint (as you can tell from its title). You are welcome to contribute to this article or any other article at Wikipedia, but our guidelines require us to treat the subject with respect, and to maintain a neutral tone. Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've readded the quote, more properly attributed, and with a reliable source. (And I should note that we do not require sources of facts to be neutral, so long as they are reliable. The WP:NPOV guidelines are for our articles, not our sources.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the attribution. It's true the main problem is that this site fails the "reliable" test, but I would hate to see us ever cite anything to a source that sneers at the subject as this one does. --MelanieN (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Camping still making announcements[edit]

There are some current news stories about the Oct. 21 prediction.[2] Probably not worth an update until afterwards. --John Nagle (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone prematurely updated the article, saying it hadn't happened. Reverted as WP:CRYSTALBALL. --John Nagle (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
We may be reverting this all day today, but IMO the "it didn't happen" announcement can't be made until Oct. 21 has ended, at least in California (where Camping lives), or possibly at the international date line. And when that announcement does go in, it has to be properly cited to a reliable source. (Granted, we will all realize that it didn't happen, but that's "original research". :-) ) --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No. There are many "obvious" facts, that don't need sourcing, that we use as the basis for Wikipedia articles every day. These include the fact that we have made it to 2011. Once it is 22nd October everywhere, we will not need to source he fact that the world didn't end on the 21st. We don't require sources to for every other failed prediction. HiLo48 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Camping is, as of yesterday, standing by his prediction.[3]. In 20 hours, October 21 will be over everywhere on the planet. Somebody already updated List of predicted dates of the end of the world or similar events prematurely, but it's not worth arguing over. --John Nagle (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Alternate suggestion: we add to the article that the world -did- end today. After all, if it doesn't end, we can fix it tomorrow, and it will be right, but if the world does end today, it will go out having been right! (Yes, I'm kidding.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha I think we should provide some sort of source saying the world did not end tomorrow, just for the hell of it. Especially if the article title says something along the lines of teh world did not end.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather have some totally unrelated headline - "Hippo gives birth at county zoo", "Whatever Celebrity gets arrested" for an article with an Oct 22 date. The world goes on... --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
ABC News: "Harold Camping: Doomsday Prophet Wrong Again" [4] "Camping’s Family Radio did not respond to ABCNews.com’s earlier requests for comment". That says it all. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Suicides[edit]

Name of 2011 ratpure car[edit]

Needs correction--78.156.109.166 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment? I do not see any reference to a car in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011-ratpure-car.jpg (title must be corrected) --78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
What about the title needs to be corrected? The current title is "Vehicle in San Francisco proclaiming the Harold Camping prediction."; that appears to correctly reflect the information at the file. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that he wants the spelling error in the title of the file changed. But personally I don't see the need because it's not shown in the article to be spelt incorrectly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
OIC. As you say, it's not a problem at this article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I don't think we can change the title here without breaking the link to the file. The misspelling was put into the file by the person who originally took the photo. Let's just pretend we didn't notice! --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)