Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

Apocalyptic climate change predictions

How come there isn't a single apocalyptic climate change prediction in this list? Are they on a different page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.3.93.36 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Because climate change predictions don't typically set a specific date. This is a 'List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events'. Nobody expects climate change to destroy the planet on a specific date, or even a specific year. If climate change kills the planet it will happen slowly over a period of decades, maybe even longer, therefore it doesn't belong at this list. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I came looking for this. Climate change absolutely sets dates, that's why it's called "Climate Emergency" to the uberwoke. It's mind blowing that someone would come in and be so uninformed, or be such a liar. There's even a #$%ing Wiki about Climate Apocalypse.

• 2050 Climate apocalypse
• 2020 [1] "Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months"
• 2030 [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.148.117 (talk • contribs)

Blogs and wikipedia itself aren't legitimate sources, and when a date is mentioned, it's usually referring to a deadline by when changes must be made, as opposed to a so called apocalypse. Bkatcher (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with Bkatcher. The fact there is a Wikipedia article on the Climate apocalypse is neither here nor there and is not helping your argument. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hope these quotes will meet your criteria. Here's a notable US politician invoking doom and requesting funds.

[3] [4] 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.64.46 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added these claims and sources under the 21st century subheading. 27.34.64.115 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources and quote provided back in March absolutely do not meet the criteria. Accordingly, someone else has already reverted them being added to the article. It's clearly not a dedicated prediction, its a quote made in passing, which as the Newsweek source notes, likely refers to the IPCC's deadline to reduce rising temperatures in order to to avoid increasing negative effects of climate change. Obviously, neither the IPCC nor the politician think the world will actually completely end at that time. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I was about to add Climate apocalypse under See also, but I see Extinction risk from climate change is there already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The quote seems very clear and explicit. I'm not sure that it is right to editorialize or presume intention. Even more so when the quote is so clear and explicit. 27.34.64.115 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we be attempting to psychoanalyze the intent of all of the other doomsayers on this page? Perhaps they also did not truly believe in doom, but were making these claims with ulterior motives. AOC's true intentions are besides the point. She has made the claim. The claim is deployed constantly in popular rhetoric. I find it strange that it hasn't been included here. 27.34.64.115 (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This 'prediction' was put in the '21st century' section. If it helps you understand why someone else removed the prediction, let's look at the other three predictions in there, which clearly meet the criteria for this list. So you've got a scientist who wrote an entire academic paper on a very clear belief that the world may end due to overpopulation, you have a religious order that makes a very clear prediction in a book that the planet will be hit by an asteroid, and you have a religious person making a very clear prediction in a book about when the rapture will likely occur. So we have three very clear predictions professed in dedicated writing, leaving no uncertainty about how the authors genuinely felt about their prediction or what they thought would happen.

By contrast, we then have a short quote said in passing by a politician in response to a question, that was then editorialised for news headlines. The full quote, not just the cherry-picked part added above, is "Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we're like, The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" We can choose to analyse this quote and disagree about it to no end, but that won't accomplish anything as it's not the issue at hand. The politician didn't write a manifesto or book clearing illustrating a dedicated belief about how the world will end, she didn't put out a press release about it, she was just answering a question in passing to illustrate a point. I think the quote is only "clear and explicit" if you choose to editorialise it yourself.

I'd encourage you or anyone else to analyse this Wikpedia list and discuss the removal of any 'prediction' which is simply someone saying something in passing in response to a question, rather than actually professing their dedicated and clearly explained belief about how the entire world will end on a set date or year, though I doubt you'll be able to find one.

I'm not the person who removed the prediction. I'm not the person you have to convince in order to get your way. I'm just taking the time to explain to you why it was removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to offer your views. I am not a Wikipedian for reasons which should be self-apparent. When the public reacts with incredulity at the lack of climate doom predictions here, it may be worth considering from an outside perspective.

Although I am not as well versed in the lawfare of this site, I am aware that it is regarded as a "public encyclopedia". At the risk of sounding tautological, the site is meant to be edited by the public. I appreciate your offer of, " I'm not the person you have to convince in order to get your way". From my limited knowledge of Wikipedia, I'm not sure this is correct? I am aware that many pages on this site have become fiefdoms of specific editors. Not sure this is in keeping with the "public encyclopaedia" mission. I would appreciate clarification on this point.

Perhaps in this case, it would be better to have some outside perspectives offered. Like others, I noted the lack of inclusion. I came here to the talk page and offered some sources which should meet the "reliable sources" criteria. Within minutes I was able to find notable person making these exact claims in "reliable sources". Of course I fully expected this to be ignored. After a few months I returned to offer the edit, as no action had been taken.

Before proceeding further, I would like to put the red herring of the IPCC report to bed. Clearly the theological predictions of doom haven't been endorsed by the Pope or other theological authorities. It seems inconsistent to offer this objection. We have not cited the UN Climate authorities in this edit. Again, it is a red herring.

For the accusation of "cherry picking" I am happy to engage on this. The quote is clear. The speaker is AOC. "...and we're like, The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change...". "We", could refer to the wider climate change movement or millennials. AOC is a member of both. However, there is no ambiguity about the inclusion of the speaker, AOC, in "we". Frankly, it is a bit illustrative of the wider issue that we find ourselves involved in these semantic disputes over plain English.

For your assertion that it is a throw-away phrase used in passing, I think we will also have to disagree. This is common refrain which has been deployed repeatedly by the climate doom community. As I mentioned above, I found the reliable source within minutes of searching. It is so common that users have taken it upon themselves to comment here and ask why it hasn't been included.

I'll avoid presuming intent, but it isn't easy to understand the exclusion from a good faith perspective. Given the depth of rationalization for exclusion and the prolific nature of climate doom claims, one would expect that an unbiased editor of this "public encyclopaedia" could find an acceptable prediction to include here. The alternative explanation, "There are no notable climate doom predictions" seems beyond absurd. If we can agree that there are notable climate doom predictions, perhaps we can work together to include them.

Please do not assume I do not appreciate your efforts to engage here. Even if we disagree about the rationalizations given, I do appreciate your efforts. This is much more than has been afforded before my attempted edit. Thank you again. 27.34.64.115 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to engage civilly as well.

About 1 million people read this specific article each year: [5]. This conversation was started more than three years ago, and you're the third person to agree with the original poster since April 2021. Of the three million people who have visited in that time, three IP editors, including you, have commented on this talk page expressing interest in seeing climate predictions here. That's literally one in a million people. Now this is neither here nor there in terms of whether you are right, but my point is I think that you saying "the public reacts with incredulity at the lack of climate doom predictions here" is a pretty big stretch. The other three million people don't appear to see a problem with it.

Of course we always want more people to edit Wikipedia, but we want people who are Here to build an encyclopedia, rather than just push a single point. Wanting more people to edit also doesn't automatically mean we will accept every edit they suggest. The reason your edit has not been accepted has been explained. Having a reliable source is the first step to having content added, but reliable sources don't automatically guarantee content will be included. The link at the top of this paragraph should clarify that further. The fact you can find many sources that confirm the politician said this quote is not the issue at hand.

So on Wikipedia we make decisions on what content to include by following Wikipedia:Consensus. It's not a perfect system, but a perfect system is not possible. By stating 'I'm not the person you have to convince in order to get your way' I was trying to simply clarify that this isn't just a decision between you and me. You're the person trying to make the change and at present I'm the only person explaining why it isn't appropriate. Most people don't want to put the time in to explain things to IP editors who feel strongly about a certain issue but don't appear to be here to help us build an encyclopedia by working on a variety of topics in different areas. I'm sorry you got ignored, you shouldn't have been, but that's probably why you were. In any case, more people will engage and put in their two-cents if they see there is a concerted effort to make the change. I may be wrong, but I believe established editors who know very well that content should not be included on Wikipedia simply because it exists will be very unlikely to agree with your reasoning.

We will have to disagree about the quote. Clearly, the politician thinks climate change is real and will have a catastrophic impact on the world. But I really I think you're taking things a bit too literally if you believe she genuinely thinks planet Earth will cease to exist or that humanity will be completely destroyed after 12 years. But again, that's not the point.

I don't have a problem with climate change predictions being added to the list. However, in order for them to be added to the list, they would need to make a detailed prediction that the world or humanity will completely cease to exist, in the same way that religious people believe the world will completely end on the day of judgement. Simply setting a deadline by when climate changes must be made before the ongoing impacts of global warming are irreversible is not the same as predicting a specific day or year when God destroys the planet. And answering a question and mentioning the world "ending" without clarifying further is not the same as making a clear, dedicated prediction, which is the requirement for inclusion here as far as I'm concerned. If the politician writes a detailed article clarifying that she thinks the world or humanity will completely end on a specific day or year, and that she isn't simply echoing the general sentiment of the IPCC, I will absolutely support including her 'prediction'. But until that happens, I will not.

I've spent much a couple hours today trying to explain things, which is much more time than I planned to spend on Wikipedia today. Don't take this personally, but I don't intend to engage much further as I think we have an impasse in terms of how we believe we should interpret the source and whether it should be included, and I don't think continuing to discuss the issue at this length will help either of us. My opinion towards consensus is that a 'prediction' based solely on her answering a question without further clarification is inappropriate and inconsistent with what the list should include. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor correction, those millions are views, not people/unique visitors. Participants in this thread are probably several of them. Agree with most of the rest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes fair point, I'd say several hundred of those three million views are just me checking on recent changes to the page haha. I would be very be surprised if unique visitors didn't extend will into seven figures though. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, but this very much says you are a Wikipedian. Welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a Wikipedian is indeed technically anyone who edits. Incidentally, if you have questions in general someone from the Wikipedia:Teahouse should be happy to answer them. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Eclipse

There's been buzz that the upcoming eclipse is a harbinger of the rapture. Is that too fringe to include here? All I can find is youtube citations and the like. Bkatcher (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSPYT. If you can't find sources that satisfy WP:RS there's nothing to discuss here. However, even with reliable sources this may still not be notable enough. This is not a list of everyone who has made a prediction that has managed to get media coverage. This is a list of predictions that were made by notable people or groups, or predictions which gathered so much media attention that the prediction itself is notable, such as the 2012 phenomenon, which is not attributed to a single person or group. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

F. Kenton Beshore

Hello,

I noticed an error in the article regarding the date of post-apocalyptic prophecies. The date "2021" has a reference to "F. Kenton Beshore" with a link to "Mariner's Church" in Irvine, CA. However, I'd like to clarify that "F. Kenton Beshore" is not formally affiliated with Mariner's Church.

"F. Kenton Beshore" is the author of the quote mentioned in the linked external article, not to be confused with his son "Kenton Beshore," who was a former senior pastor of Mariner's Church.

Suggestion 1) Since there are no appropriate external links available for "F. Kenton Beshore," I propose removing the link entirely for the sake of accuracy and clarity.

Suggestion 2) If the link for "F. Kenton Beshore" is removed and no additional context is added to identify who "F. Kenton Beshore" is, I suggest the entry for "2021" be removed entirely, as "F. Kenton Beshore" may not warrant a separate entry solely based on a quote.

FYI, I have not edited a Wikipedia article in several years and my account does not currently have the ability to edit the article in question.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Bethenos (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this issue. I've gone with suggestion two, as F. Kenton Beshore fails the notability requirement for this article. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

1999 july is about Vladimir Putin not Apocalypse

this prophecy isn't about Apocalyse but about Vladimir Putin himself and it's a true prophecy not a false one Nostaradamus said that in 7th month year 1999 a great king of terror will come from sky according to Julian calendar which was used by prophet's time in july 1999 Vladimir Putin became prime minster and he revived Eurasian dream which is similar to Mongol Empire then War is coming which mean a major war between Russia and it's allies, China, Korea and maybe (not sure) Iran in which Putin will be the greater victorious Israel will replace USA's support with Russia' support but maybe Islamic Republic of Iran will not fall but it will not achive it's great goal (the destruction of Israel) however in this century there will be a major role of Iran in another major war and this is according to Nostaradamus himself so Islamic republic 60% will not fall in near future. 178.52.108.92 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your claims. No reliable source = no changes to the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Century 10 : Verse :72 : the year 1999 seventh month, from sky will come great king of terror, to bring to life the great king of the mongols, before and after mars (war because mars is sympol of war) to regin by good luck.

So in 9th August 1999 in western calendar He became a prime minster but in Julian calendar which was been used during Nostaradamus time and is the calendar of present day Russia this is the end of July of 1999 and for Iran you can see century 5 verse 27, century 3 verse 64, cetury 6 verse 80 and century 5 verse 25 and others. 178.52.108.92 (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

this is the best explaination of this quarter from this cetury until now this can give some new hopes on the prophecies again. 90.153.221.70 (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On this website, this falls under WP:No original research. Convince CNN or Nature that this is interesting to write about, then it may have a place on WP somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. IP editor: What part of 'No reliable source = no changes to the article' is not clear? Please actually read WP:RS. Don't waste our time with your original research. I won't reply further again unless you provide a reliable source, rather than your personal interpretation. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok Iam sorry about this but this is my explaination and Iam the first one to explain it however this is not a crime at all so this is a talk section of this article and this is my opinion so respect it and I don't want you to change the article but you can delete only the 1999 july date in the article but without adding anything or you can leave me alone with my opinion and don't bully me atleast and don't change anything in the article but if you deleted my opinion or bullyed it you will make me sure that this web don't respect freedom or private opinion. 178.52.129.99 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no body in 2024 16th May accept this opinion but future will prove it, when everybody will know that every propagenda which created by studiers of these prophecies were fake let the future prove it and let us see what will happen next, but please for everybody respect each other's opinions and don't bully it. 178.52.129.99 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is bullying you. I understand it can be disheartening when you put effort into something and then you don't get your way, but the fact remains I clearly explained what you needed to do if you wanted to talk about changing the prediction. You needed to provide a reliable source. But you ignored that and then went on to only provide even more original research. I don't have much patience for people who ignore rules that have been explained to them. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are not for sharing your original research. Please don't use this talk page for something it wasn't intended for, and please don't accuse people of bullying you when they tell you to stop.

You've now also violated WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS by deleting the comments of another editor with this edit: [6]. You can't delete something just because you don't like it or disagree with it. For that reason we will also definitely not be deleting the July 1999 prediction based solely on your interpretation that it is wrong. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Iam sorry about deleting it and Iam ready for everything except for deleting my own. 178.52.14.112 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

King of terror is also a character from Sgt. Frog. If this Nostradamus/Putin idea has been noticed by a decent WP:RS, it may be reasonable to mention it on WP somewhere, but probably not in this article. If the Nostradamus/Putin idea is your own invention, it doesn't belong on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You have to be careful when reading obscure prophecies from Nostradamus, originally written mostly in old French, but also partially in catalan and latin, obfuscated in a series of poems, reprinted multiple times by various editors that probably created some mistakes in the process, and then more recently, translated into English. So, if you want to understand what it says, I suggest you read them in the original language. The first part of CX72 is relatively straightforward, but the second part can be interpreted in many ways. For the third line (resusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois), "resusciter" can mean resurrect or reunite, or re-form. "grand" can be great or large. "Roy" can be a king or a kingdom. Angolmois can be an anagram of "the mongols", or can refer to the anglo-saxons, or some other place. For the next line (Avant apres Mars regner par bon heur), "avant apres" literally means "before after", and can be interpreted as "before and after" or "around that time". "Mars" can be the month of march, the planet Mars or refer to the state of war. Also "avant apres Mars" can mean "before what follows March", in other words "during the month of mars". "Regner" most likely means "to reign". "par bon heur" can mean "from good luck", or "with happiness", or perhaps some other obscure meaning. The whole thing could mean that Mars will be visible during that time. There are many ways to interpret these prophecies. Many have tried. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok you said that it's when Mars appears then when did Mars disappeared even when it's in low shining degree we couldn't say it has been disappeared, did you know that in 2020 Mars was at it's highest degree of shining this is my first point and the second one who told you that I didn't studied the original copies and that I know nothing about them, I have a pdf copy of old french copy from 16th century from google books and the third point, the prophecies are only written in old French with some old Greek and Latin names from pagan era that are only a sympols and do nothing with prophecies. 178.52.14.112 (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)