Talk:Left Behind (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


As currently presented this article is pure religious POV advertising and totally unacceptable as a NPOV work. It should be deleted immediately. If the intention is to create a NPOV review then all of the attached and equally obnoxious POV religious advertising on those pages should be removed and all of them combined into one single article.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a review site. That includes giving more or less accurate descriptions of notable book series. Being based on a religious work doesn't make it NPOV. Get over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

<response from a casual wiki browser> oh go away and get a life, zealot. There isn't all that much difference between fanatical religous nuts like you (presumably your faith is athiesm) and deluded fools who fly planes into buildings.

<another wiki browser> My concern is that thousands of evangelical Christians are under the assumption that any organization trying to foster world peace is bound to be evil and part of some "devil's plot" against god. I do agree that some people claim they are for peace when they really have ulterior motives (ahem, Bush admin), but the UN is respected worldwide, as are many other international peace and human rights groups. These organizations work against corruption, apathy, ignorance, intolerance and lies to try and make the world a better place for unfortunate, downtrodden people. You don't have to be a Christian (or religious at all) for these acts to be genuine and effective. The author is doing a huge disservice to those that work for human dignity, and should make a public apology to them.

I detest this novel and all that it represents. However, it reads just like any NPOV review. Since I would probably expend much more energy laughing at creationists than I would in reading this drivel, I did appreciate the summary. Now I know a little more about the Christian mythology. And being happy that I don't ascribe to this belief set. As books go, I wouldn't read it. As Wikipedia goes, it's a pretty good article.OrangeMarlin 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Let the article be. It meets Wikipedia criteria for existing and can certainly be improved. CyberAnth 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert on anything, but my little tidbit of opinion is that if an article on a religious book was written by atheists, it might not be quite as full of an article. It's a little bit like saying that an article on science is biased because it was written by scientists. But like I said, my opinion counts for little or nothing, so you don't need to listen to me. :) Bonjour123

"Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research." (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Nina

There's a problem. This article is NOT religious (if religion in this case is Christianity...I'm a believer.) The THRUTH is that faith has to be put in JESUS for salvation and NOT just God the father. I doubt the film makers realised this. in any case, some articles have to be POV religious to be true. writing this from an atheist's POV is going to make the article an untrue reflection of the book and hence, wikipedia false.......... dklimitless....20 july, 08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dklimitless (talkcontribs) 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the review is a model of dispassionate ~ and unusually competently written ~ reviewing. I see no religious bias or noxious "POV" in the article. I think it'st's a damn shame there's an audience for this stuff. Then again, is it good or bad that so many people are taking a few minutes away from their televisions?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Marked for POV-check[edit]

I find the article biased and tagged it for discussion "POV-check".

The main reason for this is the kind of criticism that is mentioned: only Evangelists criticism, not that of other beliefs. For instance, atheists could argue the story triest to frighten people into believing. The plausibility of only the interpretation of the new testament is disputed, nothing more. I agree though we shouldn't mix the bias in the book with a bias in this article. Because religion is always a controversial subject, I'd just like this article to be more sensitive. DWizzy 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the criticism is directed at the series as a whole, not at this specific book. The main page for the series already includes criticism from both Christian and non-Christian sources, though it doesn't include most of the information on this page. Perhaps it would be better to merge the two sections there. We could also possibly include a link here to the criticism section there. Inexorability 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe you two are right. The entire article appears to be written from an Evangelical POV. If some non-Evangelical Christian and secular POVs can be liberally inserted (no pun intended) into the article, I think the tag may safely come down. For now, I'm changing the tag to straight-up POV. toll_booth 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's highly possible ya'll are stupid.

The article is about a book--a work of fiction. If you don't like the book, then don't buy it. And don't confuse the article with the book. As regards the issue of criticism by Evangelical Christians, the book is written by an EC, and its primary audience are ECs. How many non-EC people do think have bought and read it? Naturally, most of the criticism against it is going to come from other EC. And by the way, there is a line about Muslims opposed to the game in the article. --Danaidh 04:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, wikipedia is not an EC site but an impartial source of information. The POV issue has not been resolved, as the article is highly EC-centric. As such, I ask that please nobody remove the POV tag; the sign does not mean that neutrality is definitely out of balance, but possibly out of balance, which several of us contend that it is.
Thanks for understanding. toll_booth 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think all of you are missing the point of this series of books. I grew up in the christian faith and had a difficult time understanding the book of Revelations. I know this is a book of fiction, however, it gave me an idea of what could happen in the last days. People are so willing to listen and read about other religions, but they have no tolerance for the christian faith. Maybe you should open your Bible and read the book of Revelations and then read this series. Maybe then you will learn something substantial and maybe you will hear the words of Christ and become not one of the people left behind, but one of the people gone during the rapture. I would much rather read this series of books than read about sex, and lies. Everyone has critisize this site for putting this book here, yet there are many other books listed on this site. This series is not meant to be factual, but rather give the audience something to think about and encourage them to read the Bible to find the answers. Have any of you done this? I would encourage you to read the entire series, study the Bible, look at current world events and then make up your mind.--Nursemom1000

How about reading the Bible before "the entire series"? (Incidently, it's "Revelation" not Revelations.) Christians disagree on the end times, and these books follow a minority interpretation that many believe to be harmful. I may have missed the point of the series but I'd say its authors and fans have missed what the Bible says in many areas. That's by the by, however. Wikipedia is for neutral encyclopaedic articles and therefore I'm with toll_booth (though I don't know of any non-Christians who have criticised the books off-hand. Match 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Adaptation Section removed[edit]

I removed the section about the video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces because the game does not appear to be based on this specific book, but on the series as a whole. Also, the paragraph was extremely biased against the game, showing no semblance of neutrality. The game is already mentioned on the main article for the series, and I moved the info provided here to the article about the video game. Citadel18080 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete suggestion[edit]

The sentence that claims that the book brought new believers to Christianity is clearly POV and not facutal. There is zero evidence shown to support such a claim. Even if someone were to find some evidence, such as a person specifically saying that they joined a religion because of the book, it would probably be that the person joined the same religion as the writer. Those that are and those that are not considered Christian is a hotly debated topic and clearly sets up a POV problem for the statement. We must consider the fact that a lot of people that self describe themselves as Christians would not be described as such by other Christians or by objective observers. I do not even need to mention the utimate objective observer that really counts do I? There are some Muslims that claim that they can be Muslim and Christian at the same time. There are Hindus that do not accept the dual nature of Jesus but call themselves Christians, and then there are Hindus that do accept it but would never call themselves Chrisitans. There are actually a lot of Hindus that worship Jesus as an avatar of Krishna. Then we have the fact that the writer of this book does not accept Catholics as Christians, clearly showing that he did not look up the word in a Greek-English dictionary. Many Catholics do accept some but not all protestants as Christian but many Catholics, myself included in case you were wondering, specifically do not accept any outside of the Catholic Church as Christian and never will. Eastern Orthodox do not accept protestants as Christians either but they do accept Catholics.

I hope I have made a point with all of this. The sentence needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Way to rant about nothing. Can you site a source saying no one, ever, has converted to Christianity because of these books? Unless you can, you're just as biased as the sentence you accuse of being so. Hypocracy and POV have no place in Wikipedia. (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to note the fallacy, can you cite any source saying no one, ever, has been turned into a dragon because of these books? Heck, I'll allow original research in this case: all you have to do is prove that no one's been turned into a fire-breathing dragon by reading these books. (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Potentially laughable Statement[edit]

The author of this entry may have gotten carried away with enthusiasm, to the point of seeming absurdity (at least for those who haven't read the books): millions upon millions world-wide have vanished, the dead and alive,[...]

Pray tell: how could the living left behind ever know that dead people have vanished in their millions - by digging up coffins? I suggest that this particular phrase be deleted. Textor (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like the idea or not is irrelevant. The point is, the authors see this as plausible. This is ignoring that fact that it would be pretty obvious that dead people disappeared when the morgues were randomly missing people. Wouldn't take long to realize it. Morte42 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason the author wrote that is because the series, both the children's version and adult, make multiple references to morgues and hospitals. It is conceivable, that, during the time of the Rapture in the book, millions upon millions of people were dead in morgues, funeral homes, and hospitals worldwide. It's common sense to read the books and infer that someone would have reported a lot of missing bodies. You don't have to dig up coffins to know that dead people have disappeared. Eowyngrey (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The first book of the adult series explicitly states that numerous bodies disappeared from coffins on the days of funerals. In some cases the pallbearers for the coffins disappeared, dropping the coffin and breaking it open revealing the body inside was also gone. While its certainly bizarre to imagine, the authors of the book either actually believe or make it an active part of their fictitious story that dead bodies also get raptured. --LuciusPius (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thriller genre?[edit]

This news report refers to the series as "thriller" novels. Should a thriller-related category be added to the article? Or should this genre be mentioned in the article? And I also want to say this book is great, it tells a lot of useful things. Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

Someone ought to write a really plot summary rather than borrow the one from the film version's article. It looks idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A new summary is needed. Not only is this a summary for the film, but it is a poorly written one.Chris Goodson (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Chloe in high school or in college?[edit]

In one part of the article, she's driving to take a high school exam. Later in the article, she's a student at Stanford. I'm skeptical that the college admission process continues during the chaos of the rapture, so which is it? Is Chloe in high school or college in the book and/or film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talkcontribs) 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am reading the Series (Note: Spoiler Alert!)Chloe is in intended to be in College. An you are correct she left Stanford not to return after The Rapture happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etineskid (talkcontribs) 04:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


The "plot summary" section currently needs a whole lot of work... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Others have noted how a literalist interpretation of scripture and visionary experience can have a potentially dangerous impact on behavior, and may act as a factor in unnecessary violence."

This is a bizarre comment. There's nothing remotely literal about the interpretations in these books (they're works of fiction, remember?). A literal interpretation would be that the giant 6-headed beast with swords in its mouth means a giant 6-headed beast with swords in its mouth, that kind of thing. To say that it means the head of the United Nations is a decideded non-literal interpretation.

"Literalism" seems to be a kind of buzzword these days. Any time people disagree with the fundies, they claim they're rejecting literalism, even if the interpretation in question isn't the least bit literal.

I doubt anyone wants to change the passage to read "a non-literalist interpretation of scripture can be dangerous". —Preceding unsigned comment added by BurkeDevlin (talkcontribs) 15:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

{{movenotice|Left Behind (novel)|Talk:Left Behind (series)#Requested move}}

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Left Behind (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred Clark/Slacktivist Left Behind exploration[edit]

Journalist Fred Clark has been publishing an ongoing series going through the Left Behind books (and movies) in detail since 2003,

It is both comprehensive and popular. There are few resources on the LB novels as detailed and few discussions as revealing and animated. It does comply with WP:EL on the grounds of notability. Garth M (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead Links[edit]

Sadly two of the links to Christian views, one Catholic, one Protestant, on this meretricious little pile of pulp are dead links. is a "not here" page, and the one listed above it gives me a "This page cannot be displayed."

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Left Behind (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)