Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled religious predictions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not an easy close at any rate: the article has serious problems regarding a neutral point of view, but the discussion has bent towards fixing rather than deleting. In this case, the article will need swift and continued attention regarding the issues brought up by DGG and others, including bias and original research. Warmly, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled religious predictions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article attempts to list failed religious predictions. At present, it is biased towards failed Christian prophecies, but that can be fixed. More importantly, there is no clear guidelines for what counts as a failed religious prediction and inclusion here seems utterly arbitrary. Moreover, even were such guidelines available, the list would be invariably incomplete and arguably arbitrary. Finally, the topic seems utterly unencyclopedic, serving no purpose aside from a one-stop page for skeptical resources regarding prophecy. There is (and should be) no page about successful religious predictions, so why have one about failures? Phiwum (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is quite an interesting subject. All those Millenarianist the end is nigh predictions in the 20th century, are certainly worth noting, for a start. Its unfortunate that its currently limited mainly to Christianity, but that's likely to be due to the English speaking world being mainly Christian, and not having much cultural knowledge of other faiths. I'm sure it will improve given time. Newman Luke (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would think a "failed end of the world predictions" article (with a better title) might be interesting, too. This isn't that article, however, and that article would not have the appearance of POV issues because it would not be limited to religious predictions. (Nor would anyone wonder why there wasn't an article about successful predictions!) So, by all means, rename this article to something like that and change the article appropriately and I'll withdraw my objections. In the meantime, my objections are about this article. Phiwum (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article was renamed to include other religions back in July 2007 (see Talk:Unfulfilled religious predictions). Two years later, I still do not see any non-Christian entries (unless Theosophy counts) and so I'm somewhat less sure that it will improve given time. Phiwum (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep Forty sources, easy keep. I'm sorry, but this seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The nominator's description of this as "a one-stop page for skeptical resources regarding prophecy" kind of sums up what an encyclopedia article should be, "a one-stop page" for resources. The objections seem to be over the name of the article (i.e., how do you define "unfulfilled"? what religions does "religious" encompass? how do you define "predictions"?) Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that it is relevant to the merits of the nomination, but I happen to enjoy the subject matter of the article, especially when it comes to contemporary televangelists. It just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. And, no, my complaint isn't primarily about the name, but about the arbitrariness of any attempt to list failed religious predictions. It just strikes me as an unavoidably arbitrary list and moreover gives a distinct impression of bias. Why list only failed predictions? Surely, everyone must agree that some predictions have come true (by chance, say), yet we have no article for that. Do you suppose we should have such an article? (I don't.) Phiwum (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think that we should have an article about specific instances where a religious leader set a date for the Second Coming, and that person's followers then relied upon the date, and then they had to figure out what to do with the rest of their lives after having given up all their worldly goods. There have been many notable instances of this over the years. Essentially, that is the only thing that this article has actually been about, and it's gone through a series of silly titles. Originally it was called Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy and then changed [1] after some debate to the somewhat more accurate Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians; then, somebody decided that it should be called Unfulfilled religious prophecies but didn't care to make it more than Second Coming predictions; and then it became Unfulfilled religious predictions. It's still essentially a list of predictions about dates and a spin out from Second Coming. When you get right down to it, that's about the only unambiguous Biblical prediction anyway, i.e., that Jesus will return. Everything else falls in the category of "this could mean..." Mandsford (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If we pruned it down to end-of-the-world prophecies (perhaps with Second Coming prophecies) and named the article appropriately, I would be happier. If we had clear criteria for which of these end-of-the-world prophecies were notable, all the better. Contrary to your claim, the article does not restrict itself to these topics. (See the Benny Hinn entries, for example, as well as the entry under Presbyterian Church and the Kamm entry.) Phiwum (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be correctly referenced and it does not push an anti-religious POV. Expanding the article to include non-Christian faiths would provide greater depth to the subject. Warrah (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A great article in every way. Saying the article should be deleted because the "topic seems utterly unencyclopedic" is complete and utter ~~bullshi~~ balderdash! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you agree that an article on "Failed psychic predictions" would be perfectly encyclopedic? How about "Successful religious predictions"? Shall we expand this article to include Jeane Dixon? Shall we include Oral Roberts failed predictions about the success of his hospital? If not, why not? What criteria is are suitable?

I call this topic unencyclopedic because I don't want an entry for "Failed X predictions" and "Successful X predictions" for every X and I don't see anything special about "Failed religious predictions" that justifies this subject and not others. As well, this list could never be complete — for every entry here, there must be a hundred other predictions by famous twentieth century evangelists that haven't made the cut. It's not that the list is not complete now. It never will be (unless we change the list to be about failed end-of-the-world predictions, but even then, why focus on religious end-of-the-world predictions?). Inclusion in this list is currently arbitrary and, near as I can figger, always will be. Phiwum (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could be improved, but the suggestion that it is unencyclopedic is silly. HairyWombat (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks almost certain that the article will stay, but I must say that calling something "silly" when I've given explicit reasons for my comment is, well, silly. Phiwum (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's skewed towards Christianity because much of it was merged from another article after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians. To be honest, I'd forgotten I'd even created it. Black Kite 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I were about to write that the rationale "serving no purpose" is POV etc, but Mansford and Ret.Prof already said it better Power.corrupts (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Intrinsically POV, which is something I almost never say. Indiscriminate, with an assortment of well -known and obscure predictions (there are a few hundred more to choose from). As an example of the extreme bias, the section on Martin Luther is pure SYN, from a remark of his that "the day is near', which could be paralleled in almost any Christian sermon at least before the mid 19th century . The Assemblies of God section has a similarly vague remark. The Baptist section has a unsourced speculative OR judgement, about whether the specific doctrine has a biblical basis. Normally I would say, fix by editing, but frankly, I regard that so many of the sections of OR and SYN as marking the entire article as ill-conceived and essentially hopeless as the start of a decent article--which at any rate would need to be titled so as not to have the POV so apparent. A fork of Second Coming, one removed from the necessary background. User:Phiwum's approach is one way to go with it, but it essentially amounts to starting over. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with much of what DGG says. People will get emotional about this topic. ~~I tried to make some edits and all my references were deleted.~~ It will take a lot of reading and work and tact to deal with this topic. Yet the topic is an important one to readers. It just needs to be done well. I hope this article will be Kept and good faith editors will help me write this from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Unfulfilled religious predictions ‎as per request from Phiwum

Keep - this article needs to be seriously reworked (probably starting by renaming it to Unfulfilled religious predictions by Christians, or something like that, as that's what it actually is), but I think the fundamental concept is acceptable as an article. I agree though that there are serious issues here with what claims to include and how to arrange them. I'd say the fairest way to present this content would be in chronological order, to avoid highlighting any particular claim by putting it first; in fact, this article could probably be greatly improved by returning it to its older form, Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy. But I don't think deletion is the right answer here. Robofish (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you be similarly happy with a page listing fulfilled religious predictions by Christians? In any case, seems to me that "unfulfilled religious predictions by Christians" is far too broad and vague for an encyclopedic article. How many predictions does the average television preacher make each year? Should they really be listed with predictions by founders of protestant movements? (Note: I am not, in principle, opposed to restricting this page to Christian prophecies. The lack of clear criteria is worse than the appearance of NPOV issues, to my mind.) Phiwum (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You make some valid points. These can be worked out by people of good faith. (Like Us) - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You say that these issues can be worked out, yet no one has offered the least response so far. No one has suggested proper criteria for inclusion in the article, no substantive changes have been made, no discussion regarding the appropriateness of unfulfilled religious predictions while "fulfilled religious predictions" and "unfulfilled psychic predictions" are inappropriate, and so on. The article has been in a very bad state for at least two years and I think that this is a symptom of a broader underlying problem, not a simple lack of attention. By all means, prove me wrong. Let's start with a discussion of why this topic is appropriate, while my other suggested topics are not. (I assume we all agree that "fulfilled religious predictions" would be an inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia article.) The discussion is on the talk page. Phiwum (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The basic concern is that the article is a little harsh on Christians. One concerned editor put it this way: "Lets face it , the only reason for this article is Anti-Christian Bigotry. All of the articles are so twisted that a third grader can find the flaws. For example, no where does Chuck Smith make a prediction of a time or date but the Christian haters at Wikipedia twist what he says to try & make him look like a kook. The same can be said of the Martin Luther part. Boy I guess you Christaphobes have nothing better to do then vomit up your anti-Christian hate. No wonder no one trusts Wikipedia anymore. It is just a mouthpiece for the loony liberal God-hating left" However this not a reason to delete the article, rather, to work on it. If this article is kept, then we will work to improve it. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)..PS - I am not part of the "loony liberal God-hating left"[reply]

Reply: Perhaps you can find the time to read what I write. That is not my basic concern at all. It is a concern, but I regard the lack of any clear criteria and the obvious impossibility of creating a complete list of (notable) unfulfilled predictions as more basic to this issue. I also regard the arbitrariness of this article as an indication that it does not belong in Wikipedia. I take for granted we don't want to get into the business of listing fulfilled prophecies, so why should we be in the business of listing failed predictions? I just see no principled distinction between the two. I do think that there's a clear probability of NPOV issues with this topic, but that is not my primary motivation in nominating it for deletion. Phiwum (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I never suggested that you were part of any political or (anti-)religious group.[reply]

I reread your position and have come to the conclusion that it is time step back and let an Admin do his job. Best wishes from a fellow Christian - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated before... the article is intrinsically POV. Saksjn (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject. -- 02:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note! To all editors who think this page will improve, there's just no evidence that this will happen. I've tried to spark interest on the Religions portal and I've tried repeatedly to start a discussion on criteria. If you'll check Talk:Unfulfilled religious predictions, you'll see that no one has contributed to the discussion in any substantial manner. No one is working to change this article and I've certainly no desire to put in the work myself for an article I believe is fundamentally unsalvageable.

What you see at Unfulfilled religious predictions is apparently what you get. It ain't getting better by itself. Phiwum (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am working on it. After I have done enough reading and thinking, I will start editing slowly from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, but you haven't shown any indication that you regard the lack of clear demarcation criteria to be an essential flaw. I hope that you pay some attention to this essential problem. (Also, I note that not a single editor has even tried to explain why fulfilled religious predictions is inappropriate while this article is appropriate. I really would like to understand this asymmetry). Phiwum (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is fulfilled religious predictions inappropriate? - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it for granted that it was obviously inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and so mentioned it as a reductio. Maybe other folk think that article is appropriate. We could certainly talk about that, too. Phiwum (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.