Talk:2011 end times prediction/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Robert Reidt

I worked up an article on 1925-world-end-predictor Robert Reidt for anyone interested. Reidt enjoyed some renewed press coverage in the last week. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Billboards?

Here in my part of San Diego, the Rapture billboards (there were three of them) seem to have disappeared overnight, replaced by standard advertising. Is this happening elsewhere? Has any Reliable Source reported it? --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you buy [1] this? It's not much. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This [2] might do it - "We're not going to put up any more billboards — in fact they're coming down right now" - if Gawker is regarded as a Reliable Source. Is it? --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Need subsection for reaction by Christians

I did not see a way to edit this Wikipedia article, so I am providing a suggestion here for those who can edit. The article includes reaction by Camping's followers and by non-believers. I think another important aspect to the article is the reaction by Christians (other than Camping's followers). I am providing some suggested content below, along with references for each statement. I am sure this could be greatly improved and I don't mean this as the perfect subsection, just something to get it started. Hopefully others would add to it if a subsection were created. Please consider adding such a subsection. Thank you.

Reaction by Christians

Several Christians expressed concern that the reaction to Camping’s failed prediction would be directed against mainstream Christianity. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted one person as saying, “It's given people who hate Christianity an excuse to hate it even more. People can just paint with broad brush strokes." (Reference: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/22/BAKO1JJIK7.DTL)

A San Diego pastor was quoted as saying, “My fear is people grab a hold of this, are disappointed, and then give up completely. His brand of the Christian faith just doesn’t represent anything I’d hold onto, that’s for sure.” (Reference: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Local-Clergy-Doubt-Rapture-Prediction-122354384.html)

Other Christians expressed concern for Camping’s followers. Patheos, a Christian web site, posted a compassionate response to Camping’s followers. (Reference: http://www.christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-believers-its-ok-that-youre-wrong-says-christian-50398/) (Reference: http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/05/21/a-letter-to-harold-camping-and-those-who-expected-judgment-day/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.198.162 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Christians aren't exactly rare you know (In fact, I'm fairly certain 1/3 of the human race is Christian)... I suspect most of the editors of this page are Christian (followed closely by atheists getting a kick out of this whole thing, and finally Jews). You'd need to be a bit more specific, and you'd need to pick better reactions than "one person", an SD pastor, and a general religion blog. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion lies in our use of the term "non-believers", which we are using to refer to folks who didn't believe in Camping's predictions, not specifically to non-Christians or to atheists. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points, and good reasons why I think Christian reaction should be noted. I only intended the quotes to be representative of Christian reaction, not comprehensive, because I didn't want to include 50 references. That seems to be similar to how the non-believer reaction is done, i.e. several examples of specific reaction. Not sure how to address that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.198.162 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point... WHICH Christians are we talking about? The Pope? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Pastor Bob of the Independent Lutheran-Baptist Church of Smallville, Iowa? Some Christians didn't really believe Camping, but were sort of hoping he was right... and reacting with mild disappointment. Other Christians thought his predictions were rubbish and are reacting with sadness and concern for his followers... yet others thought the predictions were rubbish and are reacting with gleeful gloating (admittedly, not a very "christian" reaction, but true never the less). It is misleading to represent any reaction as reflecting "Christians" as a group. Keep to notable reactions, from what ever source. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie highlights part of the problem here, when claiming how many people are Christians. I find it's always one of the most exaggerated statistics on earth. I'll bet those who like to say "Look how many Christians there are. We must be right" were perfectly happy to count Camping and his fans as Christians until this embarrassing gaffe. To have a section here about Christians means having a precise definition of a Christian. There isn't one. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Errr... Isn't a Christian basically just someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour? That includes these guys btw. As BlueBoar says, we need to be specific about the type of Christian. Camping is apparently Calvinist, so err... who is the leader of the Calvinist movement atm? See if he has anything to say if there is one. The thing about Protestantism is that there is no real established leadership like in Catholicism. I should know, I was a Presbyterean Protestant until I was 18 (long story). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The figure of how many Christians there are (already used in this discussion) comes from how many people tick the Christian box on various national censuses. That has a lot more to do with hereditary influence than any personal belief that Jesus Christ is their lord and saviour. So, do you plan to check the reaction to Camping's nonsense of people who ticked that box, but only attend church for weddings and funerals? HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not supporting the need for a specifically "Christian" section, I will note that Wikipedia tradition is to accept self-identification for religion. So yes, people who check "Christian" would be considered Christian. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that is pretty much irrelevant here. The Christians who you want to hear from would be religious leaders and would most likely hold a title designating them as such. Whether or not they self-identify as Christian would be pretty obvious from their title, unless you have Reverand Avi Horowitz. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If we go by the comments of religious leaders, the typical Christian response was ignore the whole thing. At least, significantly more Christian leaders ignored it than commented on it. Then again, it would be kind of difficult to find a source for a lack of comments. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Christian Post, cited above, has their own problems. Their John Claeys (author of Apocalypse 2012) wrote on May 22nd that the "end times" will still occur in 2012.[3]. We may have to go through this again next year. --John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

After we go through this again for the next six months. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this issue:

About the definition of who is a Christian: anyone who is baptized and believes in Jesus Christ.

Actually, I had been wondering about this point too, but from a different direction. Are Camping's teachings still within the range of what may be called "Christian"? There may be some doubt about that. And if we are talking about the opinions of major Christian leaders, well, I can imagine most of them are simply shaking their heads, including the Calvinist ones.

Concerning the "quotable" comments of significant Christian leaders, I would go even further than Blueboar. I don't even think the main reaction is that they ignored it. The main "reaction", in a worldwide view (and if we are talking about all of Christianity, we cannot just take an American point of view), in my opinion is that they never even heard about this guy and his prophecy. Personally, I doubt if the pope would comment on this guy because I would assume he never even heard about him. And I have never heard any mention of this in European protestant media. It was worth a 3-line sarcastic side note in our regular paper - that was all we ever heard about the whole story here.

Just on the side: That was the point I was trying to make earlier concerning the title of this article: that I consider the importance of this guy and his predictions to be hugely overrated.

All this, however, ends up in the same result Blueboar stated earlier: "it would be kind of difficult to find a source for a lack of comments". I would assume that there simply are no significant comments from major Christian leaders (at least from leaders outside the United States).

Aside from this, though, the point of course is true that what this man is doing will expose many Christians to ridicule and hatred from those who have always looked for an opportunity to ridicule or hate Christians - completely ignoring the fact that the very great majority of Christians have always considered this guy's opinion anything from ridiculous to dangerous.

--Anna (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to tone here, can people please stop acting like Christians are some small or alien religious group? They make up more than 1/3 of the human race and more than 3/4 of the US population. The current way this is being treated just sounds weird. The comment that finally prompted me to say something on it though was your aside: ":Aside from this, though, the point of course is true that what this man is doing will expose many Christians to ridicule and hatred from those who have always looked for an opportunity to ridicule or hate Christians - completely ignoring the fact that the very great majority of Christians have always considered this guy's opinion anything from ridiculous to dangerous."

About the definition of who is a Christian: "anyone who is baptized and believes in Jesus Christ." is slightly flawed. Most everyone in the world who knows about Jesus believes in Jesus Christ as an historical figure. The modern prereq for Christians is not believing the dude, but believing he is both the son of God and God himself. The rest of your points are good though, the last part plus other things on this page prompted the first paragraph. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(Excuse me for squishing my comment in here but it doesn't make much sense anywhere else.)

I am not sure I get your point about Christians not being a small or "alien" group. Who has been saying anything of the kind?

If you were saying this in reply to my comment, well, I was sort of pointing out that Christianity is not limited to a few weird people in California, wasn't I - rather, that it is a worldwide thing, and most Christians very likely never even heard of such a person as Harold Camping.

I disagree with your use of the word "believe" however. Believing that Jesus (not "Christ"!) was a historical figure is something completely different from believing in Jesus Christ. I personally believe that Julius Caesar was a historical figure too, but I certainly do not believe in Julius Caesar. Or, one could even argue that those people being historical figures is not a matter of belief at all. --Anna (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Read through all of the comments, the tone implied in many kind of sounded like people were acting as if Christians are well... unusual. You have to look at the comments as a whole and see the idea accidentally being communicated rather than just the straight-forward message.

Huh? What are you referring to? The part where I put believes the dude? I meany to put the word in and the implication is believing in his teachings and divinity and all that. Also please read my comment below ":::Like I originally said and clarifying, it's basically anyone who accepts Jesus as their lord and saviour and believes in the divinity of the same. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)" Also, for Jesus, it kinda is as we don't have historical evidence of him yet, or archaeological for that matter. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite right. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states that nontrinitarians are Christians, discounting a definition on the basis of accepting Jesus as fully God. However, it is a prerequisite of being Christian to believe that Jesus was the Christ, i.e. the 'Messiah'. Accepting Jesus as a historical figure is not accepting Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Being 'baptized' as a 'Christian' is also not a reliable basis for definition, as not all denominations recognize baptisms performed by others, and some do not require or even practice baptism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought Arianism went the way of the Dodo a long time ago. =p There were plenty of Jesuses (Yeshua or Joshua in English), I am saying Christ to be specific (for instance there was a letter from that time period written by a man named Jesus to another man named Jesus about a man named Jesus). I am not going to put Jesus of Nazareth all over the place. =p Still, doesn't really matter for reasons I will put below. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Are Camping's views Christian? Certainly, in that they are grounded in New Testament and in a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Are they accurately Christian? Christianity is too big and to broad for there to be one set of correct beliefs and everything else is straying; it lacks the central defining authority that some of its subsets, such as Catholicism, have. His are certainly within a greater realm of Christianity, and come from a long tradition of Revelation-focused interpretation, although they are clearly not at the chewy center of modern Christianity. (Christianity is big enough that even your definition of who is a Christian leaves out considerable groups that one would commonly identify as Christian - modern Quakers, for example, do not practice baptism.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I originally said and clarifying, it's basically anyone who accepts Jesus as their lord and saviour and believes in the divinity of the same. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very different thing from those who self identify as Christians at events like national censuses. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@NatGertler: You are right of course, this is a difficulty in the definition. (Fortunately, I don't think this article requires us to supply an airtight definition of who is a Christian).

You mention those non-baptizing Quakers among the "groups that one would commonly identify as Christian". We could of course go on here. Who is "one"? And what is "commonly"? They are in fact not considered to be Christians by several large denominations (see here), so I would at least be careful with the term "commonly".

The same doubt could be applied to religious groups who certainly have their roots in Christianity but have since developed their own set of special teachings or special relevations which has become more important to them than the Bible. There is a fine line between those whom one would still call Christians and those one wouldn't, and probably everyone has their own views on where this line is to be drawn. --Anna (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

People, all this crap is wholly irrelevant and nitpicky. The ONLY Christian reactions we care about are those from major religious leaders, not anyone else. People with Christian titles part of some church or what not. Not random guys whose religion would be in question. For these people, it would be no doubt they self-identify as Christians. See if Jerry Falwell or someone had something to say about it, or is he dead? Those sorts of guys probably have some comments.

So, if Camping is Christian, do we include Camping's reaction to Camping's prediction under the Christian reaction heading? This is all very silly. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, for the same reason that you would not be expected to provide a third-party response to your own question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I should remember to not try to use ironic humour here. I am just pointing out the silliness shown in the certainty some have shown here in the certainty about what a Christian is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I only skimmed the discussion above, but I want to add my voice to those requesting some mention of non-Campingite Christians in the Reactions section. Currently the subsection "Reaction from non-believers and protesters" (where "non-believers" is supposed to mean those who don't believe Camping is right) only mentions atheists and secular groups. At the top of this thread, the OP gave several sources showing the reactions of various Christian groups who don't believe Camping's claims. Is there any reason not to add info about the rest of Christianity on the basis of such sources? Pais (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That section does not exclude Christians. It doesn't at this point identify Christians, but when it says that there were groups of protesters outside the building, that does include Christians (at the Pajamas Media link, you'll see one such group carrying signs trying to direct folks to their church.) However, arguments against the specific arguments made (folks asserting contrary bible quotes and such) are probably structurally best kept closely linked with the arguments for it, rather than with the more general forms of cultural response. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hey, can someone direct me to the Wiki article on the failed "phrophecies" of Joseph Smith? Didn't he predict the end of the world a few times, first in 1891? I think Brigham Young might have some failed "predictions" as well (more than some). I can't seem to find them on Wikipedia...

Point is, how many Mormons are there today? I know plenty here on Wikipedia. All of them view the aforementioned men as "Phrophets". But both had the same type of miss-fire failures as Harold Camping. Now that's a wake-up call! Maybe if Camping lived 200 years ago, we'd have yet another off-hand sect of Christanity. Hmmm...

Seems all these extra-biblical types have some interesting stuff to talk about. Just not sure why we're focusing so much on an "Evangelical" like Camping. Perhaps becuase he's an "Evangelical"? A self-vested one no doubt, but still. IMHO, this article is creating a platform for POV and drivle.

• This article focuses on Camping's prediction because its about Camping's prediction. Every end of the world prediction in the last 2000 years has proven wrong, so they tend to get some critical scrutiny.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that any prophecies made by Smith and/or Young were of a generic, unspecified nature... ie the type that can never be considered "failed". (example: "Christ will come again" is a prophecy... but it can never "fail" because it does not say when this will occur... it could be tomorrow or it could be millions of years from now).

Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to Blueboar, Mormon founders (i.e. Joseph Smith / Brigham Young) made very specific predictions just like Camping. They gave dates and times and "re-adjusted" the "phrophecy" when they failed. Something to consider...HBCALI (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

They're at Unfulfilled religious predictions and List of prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr.. --John Nagle (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reference the above article. History sure can be an eye opener.HBCALI (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• (reply to Milowent) actually I would argue all the end of the world predictions given they were all wrong and are so common and so boringly predictable (bunch of people do silly stuff, most people say those believing are idiots or just ignore the whole thing, when it failed the predictor says ooops I was wrong) that they warrant minimal coverage :-P It's the end of world predictions that came true that will warrant extensive coverage. Sadly that has not yet happened ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive some of this page?

This talk page is getting very long... I am thinking of moving most of it to archives. Are there any threads that shouldn't be moved (ie threads that relate to ongoing issues that are still under discussion?) Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, 92 threads is not long in the least! (Here is Miszabot's How-to section). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Curious... If I understand the coding correctly, we are currently set up for Miszabot to archive after 10 days... and while that would still leave a lot of the threads unarchived (where someone tossed in a comment recently), there are a at least a few threads that should have been automatically archived. Something is not working right. No idea how to fix it. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd suggest an enquiry at WP:VPT for a clever person to help? Beyond me too. 10 days would seem fine in general, as we're not likely to see a similar level of talk activity until October. As the bot is set up I don't want to manually archive. Pedro :  Chat  14:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you show some threads you think should have been archived? I had a quick glance thru (I have the gadget on which gives how many days) got about a third of the way and only saw one thread which was 10 days old. Since it was only 10 days old, there's a good chance it was not 10 days old when the bot was last run. Bear in mind the bot only runs about once per day on talk pages like this so if the thread is not at least 10 days old it isn't going to be archived until the next tiem it runs. Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Edit: See the bot just ran and archived 3 threads. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - a good point that the bot only runs once a day. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  07:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reactions -other believers?

What about adding reactions from Christians who did not believe Harold Camping was correct? I believe that will add a more rounded feel to the current section. I will look around in the meantime.Mmallico (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When CAN we declare this prediction a failure?

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

Well, exactly WHEN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the basis of his prophecy it failed when it didn't happen exactly as he said so if the world had ended after he said it would but still yesterday his prophecy would still have been a failure because his prophecy was very specific--174.45.204.216 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"We" can declare it a failure when reliable sources do. And by now, there are tons of them. Meanwhile, if the world ends today or tomorrow instead of having ended yesterday, I wouldn't give the guy too hard of a time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes wikipedia policies are downright idiotic --174.45.204.216 (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed my view on this. There's an easy solution. Say nothing. If we had another article that said something like "Camping predicted that the world would end in 1994", we wouldn't add another sentence saying "It didn't". Things that are as obvious as that don't need to be said. In fact, it would look a bit silly to say it. Everyone knows he was wrong about last Saturday. The article doesn't need to say so. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More press now viewing this as a scam or fraud scheme

Recent press:

• "Preacher's prediction just a path to more cash" - Gannet Newspapers Newspapers[5]
• "Was Camping's Judgement Day prediction a money making scam?"[6] - Freeport News.

--John Nagle (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The first is an opinion piece (a "Viewpoints" item); the second asks a question, does not posit an answer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

‎

murder/suicide

There have been repeated attempts to place an apparent murder/suicide attempt in Palmdale, California, USA into this article. Previous attempts have sourced this to a KTLA TV report - the problem being that that report made no attempt to link this event to Camping or even to the May 21 date. While the perpetrator may have been fearing the "Tribulation", there are often those who fear that the end times are coming. The most recent attempt used an ABC Action News report, but that report is saying specifically that it's KTLA that's saying these things, and even includes the KTLA video... which, as previously noted, does not link it to Camping. The only other thing that looks like a reliable news source which I can find that links in is International Business Times, and given that they move the California happening forward two months to place it on May 20, it's hard to consider their reporting accurate in this instance. Given that the alleged victims and alleged perpetrator are all, at last report, still alive, we're dealing with WP:BLP issues here; let's not include this until we have a very solid source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember this. This was a sad case but there was never any verified connection with the Harold Camping prediction. There are a lot of rumors running around right now, about people attempting or committing suicide, killing their pets, etc.. We need to make sure that anything we put up along those lines is verified by a Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I also should note that KTLA, who aired the original video, is a CW affiliate. We cannot assume that they were giving unaired details to an ABC station. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

5/21/2011

Did some sort of cult start that Rapture crap? Cause I would love to know what their reactions were when they woke up on the twenty-second. "Oh, we were wrong? Well, work is going to suck this week..." --SanDemonMax 12:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has an article about that whole thing. It's called 2011 end times prediction. Check it out! Staecker (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmong Christians paragraph moved to "Impact" section.

I moved this paragraph about Hmong Christians gathering in Vietnam (unedited) from the "Reaction from Harold Camping believers" section to the "Impact" section because the paragraph describes a historical event that was precipitated by the Camping prediction, and there is no reaction described in the paragraph. "Reaction" (as used elsewhere in the "Reaction from Harold Camping believers" section) seems to refer to verbal reactions to the Camping prediction AND its apparent failure to materialize. Prior to May 21, it might have been correct to call this event a reaction to the prediction, but today (August 20, 2011 Minnesota time) this fits more as an impact of the prediction, not a reaction to the prediction and its apparent failure. This might be one of those historically necessary adjustments to the article foreseen in the "Congratulations" section of this discussion page. Dcs002 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Twice now an IP user has attempted to use this link as a reference in the article: [7]. 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

There are some current news stories about the Oct. 21 prediction.[8] 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.[9]. 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" [10] "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)

Name of 2011 ratpure car

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)

Putting the title in the lede

An editor recently edited the opening sentence for smoothness, eliminating the phrase "2011 end times prediction" and had that work undone, by an editor who admitted that the version with the phrase is awkward. Restoring the phrase, while understandable, does not fit with MOS:BOLDTITLE, because the title used a name we invented for the article, not a common term for the prediction, and because working the phrase into the opening does make it awkward (as well as making it look like we're trying to explain some common name for the item, which we are not.) I suggest we revert the restoration. Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)