Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events/Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

In the David Powell prediction (third from bottom at time of this writing) the sentence "The Earth and the Moon will be most likely destroyed by falling into the Sun" should be changed to "The Earth and the Moon will be most likely be destroyed by falling into the Sun" 165.225.39.8 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

Add, to the "future predictions" tab, in the 21st century, the year of 2036. Claimant: José Maria Alencastro, Reference: http://profeciasoapiceem2036.blogspot.com/ / In english: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fprofeciasoapiceem2036.blogspot.com%2F // The most comprehensive post is this: http://profeciasoapiceem2036.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-profecia-em-24-de-abril-de-2036.html

He has a lot of followers on facebook and a page too. Called "2036 o ápice da transação planetári" Jvguidi (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

​This needs to have been reported in reliable secondary sources such as newspapers or books, we can't cite someone's self-published blog. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

2020 Jeane Dixon Dixon predicted that Armageddon would take place in 2020. She previously predicted the world would end on February 4, 1962.

This part must be placed now in the former part, XXIth century, since this prediction was for february 2020. Fivera (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. What's your source that the prediction was for February? Reading her book that made the prediction only mentions the year. You can get a snippet view on Google books (note the search matches for '2020'; there are no hits for searching for February) or you can currently borrow the book and read it in its entirety on Archive.org. Relevant text is on pages 170-172. See here: [1]. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

In future predictions, add the 2028 prediction in Kent Hovind's What on Earth (2013) 174.21.183.43 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That book doesn't appear to be freely available online, so can you be more specific? What exactly does the book predict and on what pages in the book is said prediction made? Damien Linnane (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Closing this as  Not done since it's not specific enough to act on. Feel free to reopen or make a new request with more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

Add in "Future predictions", "21st Century" Kent Hovind's 2028 prediction in 2013 "dissertation" titled "What on Earth is about to happen... for Heaven's sake?: A Dissertation on End Times According to the Bible" page 239 source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130701015539/http://www.2peter3.com/Books/What%20on%20Earth.pdf (check page 239) the link takes a while to load but it does work. Sorry this is a duplicate of my previous request, i don't know how to reply to a conversation 174.21.183.43 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dates

Isn't it AD, not CE? I, preferably, use AD, so I would like to confirm.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: Please read WP:ERA. It can be either, but we don't change the existing method at one article because of one person's preference. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No, no, I don't mind that. I just wanted to know if there was any special scenario in which one or the other had to be used, or if there was some rule applying to them. Never mind!PNSMurthy (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 propecy

i had deleted the 21 december 2020 propecy .no point to include here internet prophecies which are just several months or weeks old.There are milliones such .in what way this is better? i propose that we will include onnly propecies which are at least several years old befor the dead line which they speake about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.228.250 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Assuming this is about the Paul Begley thing I just reinserted because WP:EW. Since the sources are crap, and this could be considered WP:BLP-territory, perhaps we should exclude it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Especially since this is supposed to be one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the best lists on the Wikipedia community, and it got there by having standards. This article is not a collection of every moron who has managed to get media coverage of a prediction. It is a collection of predictions from notable claimants. Non-scientific claimants either have to be notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia, be the leader of on organisation that has its own article, of the prediction itself has to have its own article, such as the Nibiru cataclysm. Begley's prediction satisfies none of these criteria. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. I also see that at least the List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events#21st_century_2 has primary sources (2), those should be avoided from the WP-perspective, as they don't show anybody noticed the whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello btw. It's been awhile [2] ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, yeah I've been watching/working on this article for a long time haha. Good find.

Also, yes, third party sources would definitely be preferred. I think it's a bit of a grey area whether we can use the self-published sources since they're not used to say anything self-serving (they only say the prediction exists, rather than giving any credence to the prediction itself, so it might be OK). But I'll try and see if there's any independent coverage of those predictions when I get a chance. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

With a bit of luck there's decent sources at the corresponding WP-articles, but this is not always the case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Half of the Light from the Sun That Normally Reaches the Earth Will Not Reach Earth in 1985

Not sure if this qualifies for this page or not- here's a modern article talking about Life magazine in 1970[3] (seems more exaggerated than the actual claim?) and here's what I could find in Life magazine [4] page 22. I leave this in your hands, but let me know if I can help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

2043

I suggest that you will add the date of the year 2043 and specifically 5 at february 2043 which is mentioned as the date of the end of the world because of world war with Chinese-north Korean. As was claimed at 1999 by team of professionals discovered predictions of world events spelled out in Revelation by correlating numerical values with letters of the Hebrew alphabet. in the book which was originally published at french at 1999

Les Secrets de l'Apocalypse: Les Prophéties révélées de dernier livre de la Bible Amazon.co.uk

and in English : Cracking the Apocalypse Code by Gerard Bodson ( Element Books Ltd.2001) Amazon.com Starlogic.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:a040:199:f2cf:d91b:42c3:cea:2d1c (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

2022 prophecy

According to the Daly Mail Rabbi Yosef Berger of King David's Tomb in Mount Zion, Jerusalem, had predicted in 2017 that the Meshiach might return in 2022. He bases this belief on two factors: • Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, known by the acronym Rambam, predicted in the 12th century that a bright star would appear in the sky just before his return.

• Some astronomers have predicted that two stars in the Northern Cross will collide in 2022. This will cause an explosion so powerful that it will be visible on Earth without a telescope. • https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4124286/The-Second-Coming-Israeli-Rabbi-claims-birth-new-star-confirms-biblical-prophecy-herald-arrival-Jesus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:199:F2CF:D0CC:D7E3:CED:149A (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:DAILYMAIL. That website is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. You'll need to find a better source before we even start considering this. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

2239 Prophecy

Regarding the 2239 prophecy for which the claimant is listed as "Talmud, Orthodox Judaism," the source cited in footnote 3 does not support this at all. The article specifies that this claim was made by 18th century rabbi Elijah ben Solomon Zalman (aka "The Vilna Gaon"). The claimant of this needs to be changed.

The 2239 propecy of the Gaon of Vilna is a far more complex matter then can be understude from that source article. Most of the subject on this matter is in Hebrew only and is part of a great controvercy among reaserchers. To make complex matters short this prophecy is just a ( small )part of a thousend years plan which was made by the Gaon of Vilnas at the 18 cerntury.

• the 2239 date is mearly a small part of it and the plan is supposed to continue for thousends of years more for the POST MESSIHA age .

So it is not e end of the world propecy. A israeli resasercher think that this thousend year plan of the Vilna Gaon was the inspiration beyond the sf series of Asimov Foundation which describe a somwhat similar thousend year plan.#

• Asimov family was of lituanian jews who had know the pupiles of the Vilna Gaon . so he had known about it.

you can read about about the Vilna Gaon thousend year plan with google translator here : [5] And about Asimov connection to it here : [6] AND HERE [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:199:F2CF:7452:9EF6:A677:DCA7 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That website you keep citing fails WP:RS. You'll need to find a reliable source before we start considering your proposed changes. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Isaac Newton and 2060?

Can anyone find a reliable source for this one? Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a valid prediction. The Isaac Newton 2060 date is simply him predicting a year before which the world would NOT end, not a prediction of when it would. Accordingly, this 'prediction' doesn't belong here. Any attempts to add it will be removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Newton's whatever-you-want-to-call-it is too important not to mentioned somewhere. The introduction would be a good place. It made news in 2003 and then again in 2006. Cpacker666 (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. If it's not a date "predicted for apocalyptic events", it doesn't get added. Period. By the way making the news twice is hardly a remarkable feat, and even if it was it still doesn't meet the definition for this article. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

far future asteroid timeframe

"It is estimated that every 100 million years, Earth is hit by an asteroid about 10–15 km in diameter, comparable in size to the one that triggered the K–Pg extinction which killed non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago."

Shouldn't this then be listed at 34 million years, as 66 of the 100 have passed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.23.129 (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Statistical probability doesn't work like that. See Gambler's fallacy. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Archives

If there's someone skilled at archiving around, consider a better solution than the current per-month thing, say, a size of 100K per archive or something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. This by the month thing is ridiculous and is making it harder to find anything. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad's prophecies

Hi, my edit was just reverted. It was about Muhammad's prophecy that nothing will live 100 years from this night (Sahih Bukhari 1:10:575). The hadith says: "Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar: The Prophet (ﷺ) prayed one of the `Isha' prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night." The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night"; he meant "When that century (people of that century) would pass away.""

The English translation is one that I've found on the internet. I wouldn't say it's 100% accurate, but anyway, the hadith clearly says that there were people at that time who understood it to mean the world will end within 100 years (btw. the hadith was written 200 years later, so at that time it was obviously unacceptable interpretation). And I've also said in my edit that there are two interpretations (either all people will die, or just Muhammad's generation). And he died 632, so I'd say the end was expected 732. And besides this hadith, there are also others which indicate that "the Hour" (the Islamic version of apocalypse) will come soon.

Sahih Muslim 41:7049 says: "Anas reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the middle finger.".

Also Sahih Muslim 41:7052 says a boy living in Muhammad's time wouldn't grow very old before the Hour comes: "Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (ﷺ): When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) kept quiet for a while. Then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanu'a and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days."

Also Abu Dawud 14:2529 (sahih) links the conquest of Jerusalem (which happened in the 1st Islamic century) to the Hour: "Narrated Abdullah ibn Hawalah al-Azdi: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent us on foot to get spoil, but we returned without getting any. When he saw the signs of distress on our faces, he stood up on our faces and said: O Allah, do not put them under my care, for I would be too weak to care for them; do not put them in care of themselves, for they would be incapable of that, and do not put them in the care of men, for they would choose the best things for themselves. He then placed his hand on my head and said: Ibn Hawalah, when you see the caliphate has settled in the holy land, earthquakes, sorrows and serious matters will have drawn near and on that day the Last Hour will be nearer to mankind than this hand of mine is to your head."

I think the most important is the first one, because it says explicitly 100 years and that it was in his last days (so the date is 632+100) and it also says that the people understood it that way. And I'd also add there that there is also the other interpretation (that only Muhammad's generation will die). If you don't want to say "Muhammad", because maybe he didn't mean it, then I see that for the year 1033 we have "Various Christians" as the claimant so here it could be "Various Muslims". We could say Muhammad said that everything on earth will die within 100 years from this night and that some Muslims interpreted it that way. And it's not a weak interpretation if we consider the other hadiths that I've mentioned.

And I made a mistake in my edit, I wrote 713-732 (100 years from between first revelation and death), but the hadith says at his last days so it must have been 632. So I don't want to just revert revert. You can add it. TurboDrak (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a few issues here. Firstly your citations don't link anywhere. You're using WP:SFN templates, but your templates don't link to anything in the reference list. Secondly if you're just citing the original religious texts, that's not appropriate. You need to find a reliable source that explicitly states people interpreted the religious texts as a prediction of the end of the world, not the original quote that people misinterpreted.

However, there's also that the prediction, regardless of misinterpretation or attribution, is vague. This is a list of specific predicted dates. 'Within 100 years' is not very specific. We had the same issue with the bible and the quote attributed to Jesus that "Some of you standing here will still be alive when I return." While there was never a clear consensus on that (see here, here, here and here), that 'prediction' has been removed, partially on the grounds that it too is vague and does not give a set date. The article does not currently add predictions that do not give a set year (with the except of scientific far-future predictions). Damien Linnane (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll go through that article on reliable sources. I don't think that hadiths are reliable, but it's practically the only thing we have about early Islam. And based on the embarrassment criterion, people probably wouldn't make it up after the 100 years.

The hadith contains both the original quote and information that people interpreted it that way. The claim that it was a MISinterpretation it is just an opinion. And I repeat that the whole text was written after 200 years.

What about 375-400 or 1200-1260? They are also not very specific. Will you delete them? TurboDrak (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

First things first. If there's no secondary coverage of people explicitly saying the quotes were interpreted as a predicted date, then there's nothing to add. Please see WP:OR. We cannot add our own interpretation of religious texts, only coverage from reliable sources. Find a reliable source that states a prediction was made, that isn't the original hadith, then we can talk about adding a prediction based on what the source says. I think it's likely we still won't be able to add the prediction, but there's no point getting ahead of ourselves until such a source is found. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

“In The Year 2525”

This massively popular song included several apocalyptic predictions in its lyrics (i.e., “if God’s a coming, he oughta make it by” the year 7510, while judgment day would be in 8510). I don’t know if it’s worth including in this list, though, given that it seems to be more tongue-in-cheek than the other entries. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:121B (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's absolutely not appropriate to include, "massive popularity" or not. Firstly, 'he oughta make it' isn't a definitive 'prediction', secondly, it's clearly hypothetical and not intended to convey the world will end in that specific year. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

all apocalyptic dates are invalid and lack proof

let me tell you that all apocalyptic dates are invalid and they all lack proof; for example what is the formula used for calculating 10^100 years? Why it is not 10^99 or 10^101? scientific laws of the world and universe order that universes and planets are infinite. otherwise is impossible them to exist for a second. think big, there are galaxies and planets that time flows faster or slower, how would they exist for 15 billion years if there were doomsday everywhere? wikipedia needs to be reliable source. how could any future prediction be true while all past predictions were just a lie, or tbh just hallucinations Volkirik (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Nothing comes from nothing", so that what exists now has always existed: no new matter can come into existence where there was none before. Assuming same law for energy, as matters themself are also dense form of energy, universes' existence stretches to infinity. Well then, how the universes were created? They always existed just like the God himself, they have been going to black hole, and coming back from white hole, over and over again. It will remain so forever. Doomsday is just bad guess/opinion. Give positive energy to the universe and it will come back to you. Volkirik (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's like knocking down dominoes. If there was a date of apocalypse, the super-conscious (for example, angels) would be in constant torment of death. but all religions claim that angels are immortal. It is diabolical to argue that the apocalypse will break out. causes the world to go to world war and turn into a desert. Roses do not grow in the desert. Volkirik (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

and without angels, demons can not exist. giving doomsday date or believing one, burns your soul. thats all as creation is well-sandboxed and well-wrapped (think big, think just like software wrapper scripts, god will not let you destroy his masterpieces as he is strategy mastermind.). Volkirik (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your addition is a personal opinion and is not sourced. A Wikipedia article cannot be a source for an other article. See WP:CIRCULAR. On top of that, the article you used, Conservation of mass, doesn't mention anything about God, black holes, white holes or universe creation, so it would not be valid anyway. The last 2 paragraphs of your comments are unintelligible. So once again, adding unsourced personal opinions is not allowed so stop edit warring as your next revert will be report to the admin noticeboard. --McSly (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Volkirik, contrary to your claims in your edit summary [9], you are the one participating in the revert war. If you introduce new material, and then it is contested, it is your responsibility to obtain consensus on the article's talk page before adding it back. If the new material violates the existing consensus (not to mention several of Wikipedia's guidelines at the same time), we can and will revert it. And you're never going to obtain consensus to add your own opinions to Wikipedia by only citing another Wikipedia article regardless of what that article says (though I note the article you're citing doesn't even support your claims). Please stop your disruption. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Annie Keeler

I just added her 1901 prediction. The references call her "Dr. Annie K. Bailey", but she changed her name in 1908. She dropped her father's surname and used her mother's. Paleblue (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I appreciate your effort but this is a list of predictions from notable people and groups, not a list of everyone who has ever made a prediction. Notability would be conferred by the person or orgnisation meeting the threshold for notability on Wikipedia by having their own article. If this doctor is indeed notable enough to have her own stand-alone article, consider creating one and then add her back to this list afterwards. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Way to hurt my feelings ;) . I'm currently working on a paper on Dr. Keeler and her family and keep coming across references to her prophecies, in papers across the continent. She's a fairly local figure--one of the first 3 women doctors in Danbury, CT--but very well-known in her time. I'll see about writing up an article on her. Paleblue (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(Clarification: the hurt feelings being the suggestion that the topic of my interminably long paper is not notable, not the reversion) Paleblue (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh I understand completely. I've put lots of effort into edits that then got (rightfully) reverted almost immediately, so I don't enjoy doing it myself. Also I'm not suggesting the subject isn't potentially notable, just that nobody has shown that she is. Create the article on her first, then add her back. We need to draw a line in the sand somewhere though. There are many, many people who made a prediction that managed to get media attention, even though the person themselves wouldn't meet notability thresholds per WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Best of luck with your article creation. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There's now an article on her, so I'll link to it and put the entry back in. And I get it, there's a ton of prophets out there and we don't want an entry for every prediction by wonky everyone's hypothetical Uncle Albert. Paleblue (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)