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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
"The current Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, would correspond to the pope described in the penultimate prophecy. The list ends with a pope identified as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will allegedly bring the destruction of the city of Rome, the Catholic Church and usher the beginning of the Apocalypse.[1]"
Do this deserve to be mentioned? Date 2013-? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Good enough. We´re talking about a span that could be decades, so it´s clearly not a date. Should dates appear, we can always reconsider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
September 2016 prediction
I don't think this belongs. There are no independent secondary sources attesting to the predictions - and that is the criterion which has been used for inclusion on this page in the past. The publishers all seem fringe, if not downright self-published. StAnselm (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
While there was a significant amount of public interest in the 2012 "prophesies," a significant number of unrelated individuals have come up with new interpretations since. Just because we have been inundated with false predictions doesn't mean that the existence of the predictions becomes irrelevent. It does however, mean that main stream media coverage of these events will diminish.
The very fact that there are so many independent calculations arriving at exactly the same month and year is astounding to me. I think its more than notable. Damonthesis (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
But all those websites are self-published, and none of the predictions are reported in independent secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a page about fact, obviously. What's being discussed here is prophesy, and that subject matter is highly unlikely to be found in primary sources. It's understandable not to cover a self-published prophesy delivered by one person, as the page would be infinite. However in this case, there's a significantly sized group of people "discovering" the same result, and it happens to be relatively close. After 2012, this page might as well be permanently locked if we aren't going to cover something like this. I found 4 in about 10 seconds, and there are three published books on Amazon. It is, at least, significant to me. Damonthesis (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no doubts that within 10 seconds on google I can find four new people claiming to be Jesus Christ. That does not automatically make any of their claims notable enough to be included on List of people claimed to be Jesus. We are not removing this because we have been "inundated with false predictions", or because we think it will not come true, we are removing it because it is has no third-party coverage. It is my belief that any sound person, Christian or non-Christian would of been able to tell that Harold Camping was, quite frankly, an idiot, even before his last 2 predictions failed. But the press jumped on his 2011 predictions because (whether you like it or not) he was already a person of moderate notability within Christianity in America, and many people not only believed in his prediction, some did extravagant things in preparation for the end. Accordingly his prediction attracted considerable media coverage. It doesn't matter whether you can find 6 of 60 people reaching a conclusion that the end will occur in september 2016. The issue is none of the individual claimants, nor their claims, are considered worth knowing about by the mainstream press, which is a reflection of how popular the claimants are and how many people are taking them seriously.
Also I think you are incorrect about your belief that "main stream media coverage of these events will diminish", if anything I think coverage is going to increase. Apocalypse sells, but that's just my opinion. Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If you can find one other year that has been presented by more than 3 people as *the* date of the Apocalypse, and it's not already listed here, I'll agree with you completely. It's the simple fact that there are so many people concluding the same thing, at the same time, and using scripture and celestial events to come up with it that makes it significant to me. There's a significant amount of third party coverage on the internet, my point is that the mainstream media doesn't pick up on these things, just as they didn't with Camping, until just before the "supposed date." In his case it was due to a massively funded advertising campaign, regardless there seems to be a significant number of people relaying these predictions all over the internet. The Facebook page for the "Ministry of Forbidden Knowledge" has over 20K followers. The Wake up Babylon blog has over 3K subscribers. The point is that mainstream press coverage isn't really a good determination of noteworthiness, things like statistical significance are. We have here the same claim being made by preachers, computer programmers, NASA scientists, all over the country; who have absolutely no correlation to each other, and completely different methods of calculating the exact same thing. The purpose here isn't to present a concise picture of what the press covers as a novelty, it's to "list dates predicted for apocalyptic events." Did you read through any of them? The presentations are somewhat interesting, and the fact that a number of them contain references to verified celestial events which are specifically noted in the Bible also seems significant.