Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Closely duplicated citations?

The two references for Ragnarok are basically the same, from two outlets. Is that really necessary/needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.109.223 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have multiple sources, even if they do largely contain the same information. It's a good indication of notability - the more notable websites there are reporting something the more worthy it is of inclusion. Plus if one of the links goes dead we have another one already there. Freikorp (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Technological Singularity

Is this really an end of the world scenario given that it doesn't imply the destruction of human civilization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.173.93 (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Old question but just thought i'd put in my two cents for the archives. Yeah, the Singularity didn't quite fit in with the other predictions, I wasn't convinced it should be in the article so naturally I had no objections when it was removed. Freikorp (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking for reliable sources for some dates

Please help me find reliable sources for:

1. 2010 Sep 3-10 (Bill Weather. http://youtube.com/weatherbill7 (needs http://archive.org to see the prediction of 2010 Sep 3-10 on the foregoing link), http://2ww4.blogspot.com (needs http://archive.org), http://godlikeproductions.com (he posted it there), http://qwakeup.org. May have happened, but elsewhere. Last/earthquake Judgment.)
2. 2013 May 19 (Ronald Weinland. Last Judgment.)
3. 2013 Dec 1-31 (Benjamin Christen, Robert Lyte?. Comet ISON (hit earth 2013 Nov 28 & galactic firework 2013 Dec 1-31 & Last Judgment 2013 Dec 1-31 according to Benjamin Christen. Last Judgment.)
4. 2014 Feb 28 (Benjamin Christen. His current prediction. Last Judgment.)
5. 2014 Jun 1 (NASA. From facebook (group "June 1 2014 end of the world" (not sure of group's name; you can search for 2014 end of the world on facebook if you can't find it)). Comet/end of the world.)
6. 2014 Nov 21 (Victor Gongora, Benjamin Christen, Adrian Skotnicki/I]. My name in Rival Ball: 11.21.14is end of th world. Only prediction ever from me. There will be the worst earthquake ever. Benjamin Christen cancelled it, but you can ask him for the Biblical proofs. Last Judgment.)
7. 2015 Oct 6-7 (eBible Fellowship (Chris McCann), Roger Hammack, Jill Diringer). Last Judgment.)
8. 2015 Sep - 2015 Nov (markbeast.com. Last Judgment.)
9. 2016 (markbeast.com. Last Judgment.)
10. 2017 (Bill Weather (The Return of Christ 2017 ? Rapture 2nd Coming Armegeddon. See links above, might contain more info about his 2017 prediction). Last Judgment)
11. 2019 (Don't know who. They said on teletext it's 2012-related (it was posted shortly after or on 2012 Dec 21). I say it might be 7-year tribulation-related. May have been in article, see history. Last Judgment?)--78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need mainstream sources? As long as the person(s) really made the prediction, isn't that enough? 78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We need mainstream sources to establish notability. If we didn't I could predict on my personal blog that the world will be destroyed by a giant tomato named Eric and add it to the list. My prediction of the end of the world, however, cannot and should not be added to the list because there is no indication of why my claim would have notability. I am not an expert scientist/religious leader/archaeologist etcetera and accordingly no mainstream news source would pay attention to it. We can't just accept predictions from anybody. This is a list of notable predictions only. Freikorp (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Add Ronald Weinland.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could add who is supposedly making the predictions on these dates, what is supposedly being predicted, and any information on why you think this prediction has actually been made, (such as a non-reliable source for the prediction, like the claimants website, so we have some idea of where to start looking for a reliable source, or any information on where you heard about the prediction). Just having a list of dates with no claimant or information on what is being predicted is not particularly helpful if you want other people to help you find sources, especially if your prediction date is as vague as "2019". Freikorp (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Look in the archives (Dec).--78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Weinland is notable? Noteswork (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Weinland himself not so much, but the organisation he founded and is predicting on behalf of is (Church of God Preparing for the Kingdom of God), therefore he is an acceptable claimant. Freikorp (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

But Weinland has to be notable, or someone else who represent the organization. Noteswork (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Weinland has long been accepted as a notable claimant because of the fact he founded and is the leader of the Church of God Preparing for the Kingdom of God. Just because he doesn't have his own page doesn't mean we can't have him as a claimant, as long as the he is the leader of a notable organisation that is perfectly acceptable within wikipedia's guidelines. Freikorp (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that will be a greater idea, if you can make a page about him. You got any sources for proving his notability? I will wait. Noteswork (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What will be a greater idea? I don't want to make a page about him because I see no reason for it. He can already be a claimant because he is the founder and leader of a notable organisation. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds logical. You added him back? Noteswork (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To? The 2019 prediction may have been in the article already, if it was meant to happen as a 7-year tribulation, as in, 7 years after 2012 Dec 21. Saw it in the history of the article.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ragnarok 2014 prediction

I don't understand why original research should remove a prediction from the article. Yes, the website provided by the Ip editor makes it reasonable to assume that the Viking Centre is talking up the prediction as a publicity stunt, however the website does not specifically state anything as such. There's no reliable evidence that the prediction is phoney, but there is evidence that it is genuine. I believe the prediction should remain in the article until further information is found. Any other opinions? Freikorp (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Danielle Daglan lacks WP:Notability. Noteswork (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully agreed with what? The issue I brought up had nothing to do with notability, but now that you mention it the Jorvik Viking Centre has an article on wikipedia, therefore they are a notable claimant as far as I can tell. For example see the 1992 Oct 28 prediction (and many others); Lee Jang Rim himself lacks notability, however there is an article on the organisation he represented, Dami Mission, so it does not matter if Daglan himself lacks notability, the organisation he represents is notable. Freikorp (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the organization requires a wikilink, if mentioned. Dami Mission is also a notable missionary event of South Korea. Should be added. Noteswork (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a real prediction. It was removed quite promptly from the Ragnarok article. The JVC is hosting a festival [1] , which ends with a big spectacular "Ragnarok" enactment [2]. To promote it, they contacted various newspapers. The Mail, in its ever-reliable way, portrayed flippant comments by the promoter as a "prediction" of Ragnarok by "experts" on Viking culture. Even reading the article, where they even get the name of the centre wrong, makes it clear that the person quoted is being humorous. We have to apply common sense to reading sources. The other sources are the promotional website itself and the Yorkshire Post, which makes it clear that an event in York is being referred to, not the end of the world. In one sense Ragnarok is happening on that date: in the sense that a bunch of people dressed as Vikings will be waving swords and hammers around pretending to fight dragons. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well.--24.165.97.245 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.97.245 (talk)

To? Why is your comment signed twice? What is "User_tail"? Why no time(stamp) in your automatically (unsigned) signed comment? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it isn't a real prediction, a good percentage of predictions in the article are just scams one way or another (again, see the Dami Mission prediction, the predictor knew very well the world wasn't going to end but he convinced morons that it would in order to make a profit). I didn't add it to the article, but since it was added with secondary sources I just thought it needed better grounds to remove it than was previously given, on the grounds of verifiability, not truth, but if the consensus is to remove it then so be it. Freikorp (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you for it? Now you're against it?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How many more can be added that way? 10 more? Always someone, from some notable organization, proclaiming stuff like this. Noteswork (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

....I'm not against it, i'm just pointing out that I agree that the claimant probably doesn't think the world will actually end, but in my opinion that is irrelevant as the issue has been reported on. There's a difference between thinking that it is silly and being against its inclusion. In reply to Noteswork, we can add as many as meet notability guidelines, 100 or 10000, as long as they meet the notability guidelines they can be included. This is a list of claims from notable individuals or organisations that have predicted a date for the end of the world, there is absolutely no limit on how many can be added. Freikorp (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You said it's not real? Against it = It won't happen; not against it = it will happen.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me for not being able to read your mind over the internet regarding what you meant by "against it". I thought you meant against its inclusion. I try and keep my personal opinions regarding predictions out of my editing as my opinions on whether the predictions will or will not come true is, like any other editors opinion, completely irrelevant. I search for reliable sources that back up claims of the end from notable claimants and then add them to the article. I have no ulterior motives for editing this article, nor should anybody else. Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm the primary author of the Ragnarök article. I follow this stuff pretty closely. I'm for appropriate coverage for this on the Ragnarök article. In my opinion, it's notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Isaac Newton predicted the end no sooner than 2060.

Since Isaac Newton, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Isaac_Newton#End_of_the_world, predicted based on his scientific study of the Bible that the end of the world would occur no sooner than 2060 this would seem an important date to include.71.112.64.163 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No. This article is the 'List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events'. Predicting the end will occur no sooner than a set date is not an apocalyptic event. Isaac Newton is not predicting that the world will end on a set date, he is simply saying it won't occur BEFORE 2060. Therefore it is not appropriate to list his prediction here. Freikorp (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Freikorp might be correct here, Isaac Newton had his estimate though. Noteswork (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

2014-205 date

i believe that it will happen but in the film/movie back to the future part 2 MartyMcfly went to October 2015 so that could be wrong not entirely wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.57.47 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the exact name of the movie? Noteswork (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

2034

Jehovah Witnesses are actualy predicting for a new armaguedon date scheduled for 2034. There are many websites relating this. It should be correct to add this date in the list. Some links : https://www.google.fr/#newwindow=1&q=2034+armageddon&safe=off&spell=1 --Wazouille (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There may be many sites commenting on it, but how many are from reliable non-primary sources? Find such a source, then we can add it to the article. Freikorp (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"various Romans"

The AUC era was introduced in the 1st century BC. It is rather naive to claim, in Wikipedia's voice no less, that "various early Romans" in the 7th or 4th century BC believed this or that. If anything, this is a thing attributed to early Rome in classical (post 1st century BC) literature, but perhaps it is much rather 20th-century speculation. We won't know until somebody presents the actual source for this thing, I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

LHC

cut from article:

2008 Sep 10 / 2010 Mar 30: Various: A number of groups claimed that activation of the Large Hadron Collider experiment would bring about the end of the world through the production of planet-eating micro black holes or strangelets. Similar claims were made about 2010, March 30, when the collider reached 7 TeV, half of its maximum energy. See safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Some fear debut of powerful atom-smasher" CNN.com. 30 June 2008.

This doesn't fit "dates predicted for apocalyptic events". It was a concern on the danger of a technology; yes, it was an unfounded concern, but nobody "predicted a date", they claimed there was a risk, possibly small, that "micro black holes" might be produced, not necessarily on any given date. I realize that this concern doesn't hold up on various fronts, but it still doesn't make it a "doomsday prediction" that would qualify for this list.

In the same vein, Edward Teller did not "predict the world would end on 16 July 1945", he said that if we do the Trinity Test, are we really, really sure there isn't a tiny risk the hydrogen bomb will ignite the atmosphere? He didn't say he was sure it would, he was talking about risk-vs-damage assessment, with the potential damage being effectively infinite. That's similar to the LHC thing, and it isn't a "prediction of a date", because these concerns were designed to prevent the decision to go ahead with the test. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to add that the fate of the universe stuff at the end doesn't hold up too well either. These arent "predicted dates", they are rough estimates of the order of magnitude of a time interval, based on the assuptions of a certain model; you might as well cite the expected time intervals between major impact events or nearby supernovae, it doesn't go with the rest of the list which are actual dates which have been predicted (not estimated based on any kind of scientific assumptions). --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the LHC; that 'prediction' didn't belong there. It's true the fate of the universe stuff doesn't fit perfectly with the rest of the article. I particularly don't like the Big Rip 'prediction' as the year cited it just based on a hypothetical example, which really doesn't fit well, but i'm inclined to leave the others in as I do feel like they add something to the article. Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Predictions removed

I'm removing the BCE Roman predictions. I think it looks really bad that the first two predictions in the article have several tags (ironically these are the only two predictions to have tags). Also predictions attributed to an entire population (as opposed to one person, group, or at the very least, religion) should be avoided. I'm also removing the big rip theory, as it offers no predicted date. The 22 billion figure is just a hypothetical example; the prediction doesn't fit in well with all the others. Please discuss if you disagree. Freikorp (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Creme

In § "Past predictions", Benjamin Creme was described as having put an ad in "the Los Angeles". I inserted "Times" just after that as the likeliest completion.--Thnidu (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

John of Toledo prediction

I've removed the John of Toledo prediction due to the fact that the dates seem very dubious. According to his article and most sources I can find, he died in 1275. It seems very unlikely that he would have made a notable prediction in the year 1179. The book sourced for that fact is a humorous book and not a very reliable source as compared to the sources of his death. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know why this list relies so much on that source. StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like before my first edit: [3]. I tried to find references for all the unsourced predictions, and in the process I found a whole lot more predictions to add. About 200 edits later i'd expanded it to this: [4]. I suppose the article relies heavily on it because I got a bit carried away, feel free to remove predictions or find a better source.. Freikorp (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a good description:

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_toledo_letter

In a later version, the letter, originally attributed to the astrologers of Toledo, was attributed to Johannes Toletanus, (a.k.a. John of Toledo).Mendelo (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

just a suggestion for an end of the world prophecy

just contributing a suggestion, I don't know how to edit wiki pages, nor where to leave a suggestion, please delete this after you look into my suggestion, thanks:

"Some of you standing here will still be alive when I return." Jesus, 1st century (Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, Mark 9:1) Roscoboxer (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark of the Beast

Not sure if this qualifies as notable etc. but it is interesting, current and somebody has been putting some creative time into it:

http://www.markbeast.com/endworld/when-will-the-world-end.htm

211.31.63.48 (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Newton 2060 prediction (again)

ScrapIronIV left me a message on my talk page saying I had removed content (Isaac Newton's prediction that the world would not end before 2060) from this article without explanation, which is simply not true, I did explain my edit. He also claims to have consensus that this information should remain in the article, [5] though I have no idea where he got the consensus from, since this issue was discussed on the talk page last year, and nobody opposed my removal of this prediction. See here. As I explained my edit summary, "This is a list of dates predicted for apocalyptic events", not a "list of dates the world will not end before". This Newton prediction simply does not belong here. I would like the opinion of the other editors of this page on this matter. Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: @StAnselm: Pinging other regular contributors to this discussion. Freikorp (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the source have an inaccurate summary? "Largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, indicate that he believed the world could end in 2060 AD." — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Newton prediction in the article right now states "According to Sir Isaac Newton's research of the Bible, Jesus will rapture his Church one jubilee from the time of Israel re-acquiring Jerusalem." The prediction I was contesting was the one that said "According to Sir Isaac Newton's research of the Bible, the world will not end before this year [2060]." Freikorp (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

you need to chenge the summery of the Newton 2060 prediction. one jubilee from the time of Israel re-acquiring Jerusalem."= 50+1967=2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.37.76 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The past predictions are the ones that passed and don't happend right?!

The past predictions are the ones that passed and don't happend right?! So all the past prediction didn't happen Chris mecann fake (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you still alive? If yes, then obviously it didn't happen. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the 2015 comet notable?

As Snopes relates here there were claims that a comet was going to devastate the Earth in September 2015. Is this notable enough to be added to the list? 121.217.221.132 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Newton

The Isaac Newton prediction lists 2060 as the year, but according to the source that was only one of several estimates by Newton himself, and with the primary prediction being "one jubilee (fifty years) after Israel re-acquiring Jerusalem". Given that this event actually happened historically in 1967, would it not be appropriate to also note this and the year 2017, and that the specific year of 2060 was not the primary prediction? User2534 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Climate Change

Surely we should be putting the many recent catastrophic predictions of the future (and near past) by people such as Al Gore, Michael Mann, and James Hansen. Here is Gore predicting the ice caps may be gone in 5 years back in 2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI. Michael Mann wrote a whole book on it called "Dire Predictions" http://www.amazon.com/Dire-Predictions-Understanding-Climate-Edition/dp/0133909778/ The president of France predicted the possible end of all life just last month http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/europe/france-paris-cop21-climate-change-conference/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I think these are somewhat relevant, I think they would have to be more religious based rather than science. I'm thinking the observer effect, but I'm sure there is some Wiki rule about it...and that is not my realm. I believe the amount of predictions are increasing. Currently, Jonathan Cahn is predicting March 16th 2016 but is not on the list yet. I'll probably add him if I'm alive on 3/17. I suspect we'll have another individual or group for June 6-16th 2016, as in 616 otherwise known as the actual number of the beast. 67.45.96.102 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is described as a religion by many and these predictions have little to do with science. C02 being a minor greenhouse gas is supported by science but none of these predictions of catastrophe are. It has as much relation to science as the people who predict catastrophe based on the magnetic polarity of the poles changing and things like that. It's pseudoscience

Does the 2015 comet deserve a mention?

As Snopes relates here there were popular claims that a comet was going to devastate the Earth in September 2015. Is this notable enough to be included on the list? 121.217.214.209 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a paragragh about it on the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories page 121.217.214.209 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.curbstone.org/index.cfm?webpage=82
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ronaldweinland.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ronaldweinland.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ronaldweinland.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how this is done normally, but today (april 6 2016) has been predicted by the FLDS church as the day of the apocalypse. Perhaps someone who knows more than me can update the page if its worth updating. Here are some references. http://kutv.com/news/local/flds-people-reportedly-brace-for-apocalypse-on-wednesday http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/03/utah-fundamentalist-sect-latter-day-saints-end http://fox13now.com/2016/04/05/rumors-of-apocalypse-ahead-of-flds-leaders-detention-hearing/

Why no Climate Change apocalyptic events?

I am new to doing this, so please forgive if I'm putting this in the wrong place. There are many scientists predicting the end to civilization as we know it, and possibly an end to most life on the planet, due to global warming, some claiming as early as 2030, some within the next 100 years. There are other apocalyptic events based on science instead of religion in the list - is it okay to include some prominent climate scientists' claims? Thanks. 2601:1C2:301:C900:3DAC:1A42:D94F:DFF2 (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

if it relates to this one sure. Animal crossing superstar (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Harold Walther

Pastor Harry Walther is predicting "BIBLICAL DOOMSDAY 14 MAY 2021 AD", before which he and his friends have time to win the "BIBLE CODE LOTTERY". He claims "SATAN, THE DEVIL, WAS THE HIDDEN GOD OF THE ANCIENT MAYANS AND HE TOLD THEM DEC 21 2012".

He also claims The Trinity is a lie of the Catholic church, yet it is mentioned in 1 John 5:7-8 and in Matthew 28:19. Thus, Pastor Harry doesn't read his Bible, like so many other Doomsday "Profits". Heli Ebook (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is not in the form of a proper edit request, the list is only for predictions by notable people, and the prediction needs to be reliably and independently sourced. Someone's own webpage is not evidence of notability or an independent source. We don't list everybody who happens to have predicted something on their webpage. Meters (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

Sherry Shriner claims in her podcast/blog the biblical apocalypse would begin spring of 2017 but "it looks like they won't do anything until next year, folks". Heli Ebook (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See my response to the previous request. Meters (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5l9xlWQ85?url=http://www.anthro.psu.edu/faculty_staff/docs/Webster_GermanyMaya.pdf to http://www.anthro.psu.edu/faculty_staff/docs/Webster_GermanyMaya.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Church of the Subgenuis

No mention of Jul 5th (or is it 7th?), 1989? Paul Murray (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's my understanding that's not a real prediction. We are not going to include parodies in this list. Freikorp (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

August 21st Solar Eclipse and Wargames between US and South Korea

A lot of Christians are predicting hat August 21st could be the day of Judgement. http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/841775/Black-Moon-apocalypse-warning-second-coming-Nibiru-Planet-X

And this https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-southkorea-drills-idUSKCN1AZ04G--86.178.201.156 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And then North Korea talks about striking the United States here. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/20/asia/north-korea-south-korea-us-military-drills/index.html--86.178.201.156 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

and this one http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/638198/solar-eclipse-2017-north-korea-news-trump-us-war-end-of-world-prediction-nibiru-planet-x --86.178.201.156 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The CNN and Reuters link you've added don't work, and the other two tabloids are not exactly high-quality sources. Freikorp (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

September 23rd 2017

A lot of people believe that an apolyptic events will take place on September 23rd this year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4887222/Biblical-prophecy-predicts-Rapture-September-23.html http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/854536/End-of-the-World-The-Rapture-September-23-239-Nibiru-Planet-X http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/will-2017-solar-eclipse-cause-secret-planet-called-nibiru-destroy/--213.205.194.187 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to find better sources. The Daily Mail is not considered reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, and I believe the Daily Express isn't considered much better. The third link you've provided is dead. Freikorp (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering we're talking about vanishing-probability odds events, "tabloid quality sources" is probably the best kind of sources we're likely to get unless we're tracking significant movements (like what was seen with Y2K, with regards to the portentous year 2000, the alleged Mayan apocalypse, or similar mass hysteria events). Apparently this one originated from author David Meade. Whether this prediction is significant enough to justify an entry on this list, I have no idea. Better source though: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/The-world-as-we-know-it-is-about-to-end-again-12205478.php - Sanmei (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's definitely a better source, yes, however, the other issue is the notability of the person making the prediction. Who is David Meade and why is he important enough to be featured in this list? This list isn't supposed a comprehensive account of all predictions of the end of the world, it's supposed to be a list of notable predictions from notable people, or predictions that are so widespread they have their own article, such as the 2012 phenomenon (aka Mayan apocalypse). Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The story seems to be spreading pretty rapidly and Meade has a pair of books on the subject, but the recent notoriety seems to be primarily due to a youtube video that went viral sometime in the last couple of weeks. I see National Geographic has picked up the story, so it's possible it may garner more attention before it sputters out, but the fact that it's only just recently begun spreading probably means it'll be over before it has a chance to catch on. Probably not worth adding even for historical relevance (alas - I love collecting these). Sanmei (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I say put it in there are several "End of the World" predictions here that had far less publicity than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:6147:3978:6EDB:BC0A (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We're good for now, but there's still some time left in timezones behind UTC+1. CodingEthan (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

September 25th 2017

Wrong Peter Tuthill
The reference for Peter Tuthill is for Tuthill the musician. The Peter Tuthill predicting a "real Death Star" is (as of 2008) an astronomer at the University of Sydney, Australia. A summary of his argument, that gamma ray bursts from WR 104 may affect life on earth, can be found here: as there is no disambiguation page for "Peter Tuthill", we can create one, or change the link for "Peter Tuthill" to point to this space.com article. Please discuss.

Wrong David Mead
The reference for David Mead is for Meade the politician. The David Mead predicting a Nibiru's arrival is an author, and older than Meade the politician). As there is no disambiguation page for "David Mead", we can create one, or change the link for "David Mead" to point to this planetxnews.com article. Please discuss.

Total Review Required?
As I've found two bad references in the "Claimant(s)" column, this whole page needs a new look...all these claims, names and references needs to be verified. Please discuss. AmbidexterNH (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've re-linked Tuthill and Meade; there was no need for discussion.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Newton 2060 date

I've corrected this section, for details see Talk:Isaac_Newton#Update_of_section_on_2060_date, Isaac_Newton#Occult and Isaac Newton's occult studies. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk)

So should we keep it? I think we should myself. Though it's not an actual prophesy it was falsely reported as such. I think it got enough attention to be easily notable enough for inclusion as a falsely reported date predicted for apocalyptic events. Since we don't have a separate section for such, then perhaps best put here. Robert Walker (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

John [Johannes] Kelpius

It might be adding him to the list of those who predicted 1694 as a date for the end of the world? Cite here: [6], also here [http://www.pennlive.com/life/2017/09/philosophers_stones_and_doomsd.html. Robert Walker (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation for Said Nursî 2129

Just saying the citation is a bit weak, to Channel 4. I think it's probably accurate but could do with a better cite especially as it is not mentioned in the article on Said Nursî. This is a forum post about it: [7] with what the author of the post says is a translation of his work, I assume from the Risale-i_Nur which is in Ottoman Turkish, form of Arabic. Anyway this is way beyond anything I know about but leaving a note about it here in case someone else wants to follow it up. If it is confirmed with a better cite also maybe it should be mentioned in the Said Nursî article? Robert Walker (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Aztecs!

Another possible date could be 2027, when the ancient and discontinued New Fire ceremony should take place to stave off the end of the world. Some useful links here: https://www.google.it/search?q=%22new+fire+ceremony%22+%222027%22&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=bks&biw=1366&bih=656 --2.34.183.183 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the 2015 comet be added?

Back in 2015, there were there claims that a comet was going to devastate the Earth - see the Snopes article here. I think this would be a useful addition to the list --121.218.95.9 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that most items have a link to an existing claimant article (implying notability), but there are exceptions, sources are also used so article existence doesn't seem the only criteria. I would suggest to boldy add it and see if it's contested, since a source is a good start. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

2026 chances

Says "The chances are only 1 out of 300,000." with no citation. If it means a massive impactor like the Chicxulub one that ended the dinosaur era (but still probably wouldn't make humans extinct) then the chance is 1 in a million per century - approx, but much less this century because they have found all the near earth objects that come close to Earth's orbit and none hit us in the next century from 10 km upwards and for 1 km upwards they have found 95% with most of the 5% remaining expected to be found in the next decade. 1 km is the approximate minimum diameter for any significant global effects. As for long period comets, they are currently very rare. The closest any comet larger than a few meters in diameter has come in recorded astronomical observations is Lexell's Comet in the eightteenth century. I'm saying the probability is far less than 1 in 300,000, close to zero. Robert Walker (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, there's no source for that 1 in 300,000 claim, and from looking at Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and the sources there it does not appear that that claim is part of the prediction (not surprisingly... what religious dooms day prediction ever quotes a probability?). I'll remove it. Meters (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

June 24, 2018

June 24, 2018 missing from list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.174.82 (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a source for this! http://24juin2018findumonde.e-monsite.com/ Willt125 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

Add : date: 1960 Who: Chief Apostle J.G. Bischoff by New Apostolic Chirch Description: On Christmas Day 1951, during service in Giessen, Germany, Chief Apostle J.G. Bischoff delivered his "Botschaft" ("message"), announcing that the Lord had made known to him that he would not die before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, during which the chosen people were to be taken into His kingdom (the First Resurrection). In 1954, this teaching became the church's official dogma. When Chief Apostle Bischoff died on 7 July 1960, his dogma about Christ's return had not been fulfilled. Source: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/New_Apostolic_Church#%22Botschaft%22_by_Chief_Apostle_Bischoff Bogdan.art (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We can't use another Wikipedia article as a source as per WP:CIRCULAR, and I'm not convinced the sources used to back up this claim at that article meet WP:RS. Please provide a reliable source that supports this claim, then we can think about adding it to the article. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Dates from science fiction?

It seems like a third section might be useful, one based on science or speculative fiction. I would not include ones where the apocalyptic event is contemporary to the release of the work (just too many). A time needs to be stated in the work (or calculable) so an example would be the Terminator film's "Judgement Day". There may be some debate how bad a dystopia has to be to qualify as apocalyptic, but it needs a significant triggering event and not slow transition like climate change (except for The Day After Tomorrow). Congrats on FL! StrayBolt (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@StrayBolt: I do not think that apocalypses from works of intentional fiction should be mentioned here, unless there were large numbers of people who earnestly believed that those apocalypses were real. Perhaps you could create a separate "List of dates of apocalyptic events in fiction" or something like that. I just do not think that mixing dates when the world ends in fiction with dates when people really, truly thought the world was going to end is necessarily a wise decision, especially since the use of the word "predicted" in the title of this list implies an actual belief that the world would end on that date, at least among certain groups of people. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree Katolophyromai. We would need a separate list for fictional mentions, they shouldn't be mixed in here. Freikorp (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Add more sections to break up long list?

The list of past predictions is very long. Since it has no sortable columns, could we break it into manageable sub-sections? Maybe: Prior to 1000, 1000 to 1899, 1900 to 1999, 2000 and after. The criteria for the sections are size for editing and consistent sections for linking. StrayBolt (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The list isn't sortable because there's only three potential sortable columns, and two of them definitely don't need to be sorted; it's already in chronological order so that doesn't need to be sorted, and having the description sortable would achieve nothing. I guess having the claimants sortable would help you group all the predictions by the same groups together; I can do that if you insist. I don't see breaking the table up as an improvement. I will note none of the reviewers at the lists featured review thought that was necessary. Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not suggesting more sortable columns, but I was pointing out that no sortable columns allowed for breaking it up. My minor reasons for change include: noticed some slow down editing; although not heavily edited, having more sections can reduce edit conflicts; more sections can give more direct linking. Just a suggestion. StrayBolt (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

End of the world

In the starting sentence, extinction of humanity, a collapse of civilization, and destruction of the planet should link to articles or disambiguation pages. Also, the term "the end of the world" needs proper handling as its an idiom, which in some uses might just have meant death, or transformation. -Inowen (nlfte) 07:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the first two; I didn't feel strongly for or against it but what the heck. I'm not sure what you want the third one linked to since you've only made it a red link here yourself, and I really think that's enough links for the lead sentence anyway. And I don't think its overly necessary to clarify what 'end of the world' means. It's pretty clear one way or the other; life would cease to exist as we know it. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

20 Sep 2018 -Tsunami

Passing around FB - only source found so far https://www.facebook.com/atheistfoundation/photos/a.335718520484.149639.38706925484/10156231026040485/?type=3 Their source not stated. If added, you might as well archive this, I suppose 61.68.133.68 (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You need reliable sources in order to get added to the list. This is just a Facebook post that has been re-shared. It's not getting added to the article, even if the original person who posted it on Facebook is identified. Unless it ends up generating considerable media attention. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Others to add

Isaac Newton http://www.openculture.com/2015/10/in-1704-isaac-newton-predicts-the-world-will-end-in-2060.html

https://isaac-newton.org/statement-on-the-date-2060/

Doomsday clock: Essentially has rolling prediction of end world (Closer and closer, but never reaches midnight essentially a date that always changes)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Reception — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4FC2:5EE8:94BE:B171:67E9:2FA7 (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Isaac Newton 2060 "prediction" has been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page. It does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as he was predicting a date before the world would not end, not a date for when it would. The doomsday clock does not meet the criteria either, as it never sets a specific date. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes I've made

I've changed some of the wording in the lead and here's why:

• "End-time events..." - Added the adjective "religious-related". The description that follows is definitely not applicable to scientific predictions and the text didn't make it clear.
• "usually made using the Bible" - Replaced "usually" by "often". Even though Christian predictions are a majority in the list, the "usually" would only make sense if there weren't any other kind of predictions.

I've also removed a sentence describing what Christian predictions refer to (which was added by myself previously) because it is already included in the section "Eschatological predictions" and duplicating it would be redundant. - Alumnum (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Repeat offenders and their validity to be archived

I personally feel like those who have made more than 2 failed predictions for the end times, second coming, what have you should be delisted and declared invalid sources for archiving unless for past reference out of respect for a "three strikes" system. It just makes sense regarding pseudo-science like apocalyptic predictions. Even disregarding the unlikelihood of any of these actually coming to pass (regarding religious at least) I think some standards regarding who should be catalogued should be enforced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:C7C1:2F00:BDD2:5DBD:A7D:1336 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. If a notable person makes a prediction it should be included, even if they've made 2 of 5 previous predictions. Predictions that have the dates revised can, however, be lumped in together, as it currently already the case. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm just saying that eventually some sources can't be trusted anymore after one too many failures... you wouldn't keep trying to plug in a faulty electronic device and risk killing yourself on the off chance it'll work, would ya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:C7C1:2F00:E093:7640:DE63:2A03 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Does a politician misquoting a science report really qualify as a 'prediction'? Bkatcher (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I wouldn't have added that. I support its removal. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Jesus and "this generation"

Lately I've seen the statements attributed to Jesus regarding his own return in the gospels being added and removed by other editors multiple times. Do we need to talk about this again? This has been brought up three times on this talk page already (here, here and here), though I will note there was never any clear consensus reached on the matter. Many people have added the prediction over the years (myself included, here is when I added it back in 2011 [8]) and naturally it has been removed an equal number of times. Personally I wasn't a fan of the most recent wording [9], I thought my own was more neutral (please note one of the sources I used to back up my original addition fails WP:RS; my mistake). Anyway I just thought I should bring it up to see if people can reach an agreement about this. It's true it isn't a specific date as it was last written, though neither are several other predictions, and it could be reworded (appropriately sourced of course) to set the date range within a biblical generation of the prediction being made. Based on the gospels, Jesus is very clearly predicting his own return, though of course whether he actually said any of those things attributed to him is a complete other story, one which hopefully doesn't need to get dragged into this. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Jesus didn't mention a specific date and the list is about dates, which should not include vague predictions for a unspecified future. - Alumnum (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Several of the other items in the list are ranges, so we're not requiring it be narrowed down to a particular date or year. I agree that the prediction attributed to Jesus is somewhat vague (as were many others on the list), but I don't think it's correct to say that it is "unspecified." He said this would happen while some people hearing him were still alive. Since the maximum human lifespan is around 100 years, this lets us attach a range of years. I'm open to discussion about rewording this to be more like Damien's edit, if several of us can agree that's better. I went for my wording because it seemed neutral to just quote the verse without adding commentary. I had considered adding a second item after Jesus for the apostle Paul. He seems to have been quite confident that the 2nd coming would happen during his lifetime: "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, emphasis mine) If there are criteria that require us to exclude these two, what are they? Is it just that they didn't mention specific dates or years? How common and standardized were dates and years then? Isn't tying the prediction to certain people still being alive a fairly specific prediction? Do some of the other early items on the list refer more to events and circumstances like this than actual official dates? My concern is that people are reverting my edit just out of deference to a religion rather than out of a neutral effort toward accuracy. Personman2 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There are many things to be considered. First of all, the dates in the list are the dates the predictions refer to, not the dates they were made, so "27–30 CE" is probably not right. Secondly, we would need a source stating that Jesus made a prediction, otherwise that would be just original research and interpretation since the Bible is largely open to interpretation. The same goes for the range; consider that Israelites back then believed that some humans could live up to over 900 years old (e.g. Methuselah). There may be also disagreement about what people are specifically included in the "we" Jesus refers to. Evidently enough, our personal opinions and interpretations on these are not enough; we would need sources stating something about them. If the verse was something like "the world will end a hundred years from now", little would we be discussing here, but please note that the other predictions (or those I have observed, at least) are clearly and undoubtedly predictions, with documents proving that people mentioned dates and spread the idea that something apocalyptic would happen at that date. - Alumnum (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

suggested addition

I suggest to add to the list the end of the world dates of 21-28 at December 2019 suggested by David Montaign who had published at least 2 books or more about it.

He had wrote a book about it at 2013

End Times and 2019 [10][11]

and another one at 2014:

Antichrist 2016-2019: Mystery Babylon, Barack Obama & the Islamic Caliphate [12]

see about him here: [13]

and his blog is here : [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.237.115 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

One of those books is definitely self-published, so it can't be used, and the other one isn't filling me with confidence. The only clearly reliable source you've posted is the article from UniLad, which is just an article making fun of his prediction. I'd say he doesn't meet the threshold for notability. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Eukaryotic extinction. Description contradicts the cited reference.

Under Scientific predictions

1.3 billion S. Franck, C. Bounama, W. Von Bloh It's estimated all Eukaryotic life will die out due to carbon dioxide starvation. Only prokaryotes will remain. [123]

However, in the reference paper [123] the text is "Eucaryotes and complex life extinct because of too high surface temperatures in the future." Carbon dioxide starvation is the fate of the procaryotes "The ultimate life span of the biosphere is defined by the extinction of procaryotes in about 1.6 Gyr because of CO2 starvation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:8480:1d00:d9ad:324d:618b:1165 (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2017‎ (UTC)

So it should be 1.6 billion then? Changed. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Eschatological predictions" header

Earlier versions of the article (specifically the version that was promoted to FL) didn't include the level 2 header "Eschatological predictions", and just had "Past predictions" and "Future predictions" as separate level 2 headers. This made sense to me, since one or two of the past predictions (most notably the Year 2000 problem) you wouldn't necessarily describe as being eschatological. Why was the header added? I'd propose removing at again for simplicity's sake, but I welcome any thoughts. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I remember reverting similar edits a while back. Someone tried to change the heading to 'Religious' predictions I think, and I changed it back on the grounds not all the predictions are religious. I don't recall where the latest change came from. I'll change it back to 'Past' and 'Future' as I completely agree with you. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The sections "Past predictions" and "Future predictions" need to be grouped together somehow, otherwise the following section "Scientific far future predictions" will not make sense. It only tells subtly that the previous sections concern "unscientific" predictions, but what exact kind of? 99% of them are religious, but someone removed the "Religious-related predictions" header because of one or two exceptions, so I changed it to "eschatological", which is a broader term for end-of-the-world topics that may include non-religious predictions as well. - Alumnum (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I created a separate category for Y2K and any other possible non-religious predictions that are not scientific either. Not a decisive solution, but there must be an explanation of why the scientific section is separated from the other two. - Alumnum (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm very unhappy with both your changes, and the fact they were made not only without consensus, but despite clear opposition. I think your edits unnecessarily complicate the article. I can't voice my opposition to this restructuring enough. It was very difficult for me to navigate this list through FLC and I firmly believe if it was formatted like this it never would have been accepted and promoted as featured content. I'm tempted to ping all my FLC reviewers here and see what they have to say about this, but hopefully we can sort this out without resorting to that. Quite frankly, with a separate section for one prediction only, I think the article now looks ridiculous. This isn't the first time you've made changes to the article that clearly went against the consensus at FLC. And once again, your edits have thrown out the whole table. The 'Claimant' column is now grossly oversized and half the 1999 references are in the wrong column.

I don't see why there needs to be an any more explanation of the scientific predictions than what there already was. I don't think the other predictions have to be grouped together so that the scientific predictions make sense. As far as I'm concerned, the separation was extremely obvious. @A Thousand Doors:, what do you think? Damien Linnane (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I will explain it in a easy way: imagine that a new editor sees the three sections: "past", "future", and "scientific far future". They could assume that "scientific far future" is also future and does not need a separate section and then move the scientific predictions to the "future" section because there is no explanation about what kind of past and future predictions those sections refer to. This is easily and best prevented by making them sub-sections of a single section, what makes perfect sense because they all refer to the same kind of predictions, which, except for a few (or maybe just one - Y2K), are all of religious nature. This definitely needs clarification.

And before you criticise my editions, look at the page's history and you will see that I was the one who added the section about scientific predictions and also the one who divided the list between future and past predictions, all for the sake of organisation and categorisation. The article previously fitted everything into a single table. I was happy to see that an article I contributed to was featured, but now that I'm just trying to fix a simple lack of clarity, my contribution is being thwarted because of a single prediction that is not religious in nature. If it wasn't for Y2K, we wouldn't be discussing all this, would we? It is clearly a third kind of prediction that is neither scientific nor religious, but I'm not sure if that is enough for it to deserve a separate section. The aesthetic and technical problems you mentioned can be easily fixed by editing too. - Alumnum (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Those last issues are fixed now. - Alumnum (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support removing "Eschatological predictions" as a header, and also "Scientific far future" as unnecessary. Past/Future is fine, although I think it would be more navigable if it was broken up even more (because anyway, Past is like 80% of the list and Future+Far future is like 20%), perhaps as: 0-1000, 1000-1500, 16th c., 17th c., 18th c., 19th c., 20th c., 21st c., Future. Leviv ich 03:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• It seems to me that a simple compromise might be to revert the article to how it was yesterday, then just remove "Scientific" from the third level 2 header. If there are concerns about readers becoming confused by the separation of "Future" and "Far future", then perhaps a sentence or two could be added to the "Far future predictions" section to explain the difference. Having an entire section that contains nothing more than a table with just one row isn't really a good look for an article that's been promoted on both Wikipedia's main page and its official Facebook page. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I like your suggestion A Thousand Doors; and I agree with removing the term Eschatological Levivich, though I don't think we need to break the article up further (but I really appreciate the input). I'm voting to continue to distinguish between Future and Far Future as there's a clear, natural kind of distinction between those two sets of prediction on two levels (time and type of prediction). I don't think this needs any explaining to the reader at all. Quite frankly, it's unfathomable to think a single person won't be able to tell the difference between 'Future' and 'Far future', especially given the content of those sections (Future beginning in a couple months, Far future beginning in 300,000 years).
• Oh btw I had no idea this article was featured on the official Facebook page. Cheers for sharing that.
• Thanks for your previous contributions to the article Alumnum. I can see your point, but think your solution just muddies the water more, and I don't think it was a big issue to begin with, in the sense that I don't think people are confused by the article at all. This article averages 2,500 hits a day. If anyone was finding it confusing I'm sure at least one person would have mentioned it by now. I think removing the term 'Scientific' solves your concern, and also allows Y2K to be moved back into the Past section. Also note there are other non-religious predictions though, Astrologers and Sheldan Nidle for example. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added those to the "Other" section provisionally. But I have an idea: What if we created a level 2 header for all predictions that were made for a near future (replacing "eschatological" or "religious")? It would result in the following division:

• Near-future predictions
  • Past
  • Future
• Scientific far-future predictions

- Alumnum (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's going to confuse a lot of readers, and result in IPs regularly trying to change it. It confused me for half a minute. Do you see a problem with having a sub header 'Past' in a section named 'Near Future'? It's the kind of thing that will make every single reader do a double take and try and figure out what's going on, and while most people after a while will be able to figure it out there will be people who won't get it at all. Also my point about the other non-religious predictions was in the hopes you'd move the Y2K prediction back, not expand this embarrassing new section. Look I think you're trying to help but I don't think anyone was confused by the article to begin with. That's already changed as per A Thousand Doors starting this section and not a single person agreeing with your changes so far. I feel like you've created a problem where none existed, and your solution to this non-existent issue is going to cause a lot of confusion. I vote to change the article back to the way it was and just remove the term 'Scientific' as per a Thousand Doors suggestion, though to be clear I don't see the term Scientific as a big issue and the only reason I'm agreeing to remove it is in the hopes it will satiate your concern and allow this article to go back to having an easily understandable format for readers. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also the Astrologers and Sheldan Nidle examples were exactly that, just examples. There are even more non-religous predictions if you just take the time to look. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: @Argento Surfer: @Nergaal: @Ceranthor: @PresN: Pinging back every person who commented on the FLC who isn't involved on this discussion already. So this is what the article looked like 2 days ago :[15]. It had the same format as when it passed FLC. An editor has taken it upon themselves to reformat the article, in spite of opposition and with no support. The article now differentiates between "Eschatological" and non-Eschatological predictions. Accordingly, it now contains an 'Other' section tacked on at the end, for predictions that don't fit into the new format. Myself and A Thousand Doors think this is an unnecessary complication and also looks unprofessional, and want it changed back to the FLC approved version. Levivich doesn't approve of the change either but has suggested a new format that involves dividing the article up further based on time-period. I think that is unnecessary. Looking for some more opinions on the matter. All comments welcome. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I prefer not separating by category, except for the scientific far-future. For editing and linking reasons, I do and did recommended splitting into more time ranges, suggesting: Prior to 1000, 1000 to 1899, 1900 to 1999, 2000 and after. Proper sourcing for which type category might be difficult. There is likely a selection bias with mainly religious predictions at this time. Possible difficult to categorize items (not necessarily included): 1910 Haley's Comet poison gas, Nibiru, Newton's prediction, misquoted AOC's comment about Climate Change,…. StrayBolt (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I forgot you brought that up before. I guess I'm somewhat open to that since it's been raised by a couple people now. I prefer your time-frame suggestions. Less is more I'm thinking. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I strongly agree with returning the article back to "Past/Future" or "Past/Future/Far future" categories, and disagree with Eschatologica/non-Eschatological, or an arrangement that would involve a subcategory called "past" under a category called "future", as that would be confusing. In my opinion, whether the tables should be broken up further by time periods is a separate discussion that shouldn't hold up consensus on the first issue.

As for that separate discussion, to elaborate: I generally think there should only be a few "screen fulls" of content between headings, for ease of navigation. I think of the reader using a screen reader who, to get to the 100th entry, has to press the down button 99 times because there isn't a header to jump to. I think of the mobile reader who has to scroll, and scroll, and scroll, to get to the 19th-century entries (because on mobile, you can't jump to the "Future" heading and then scroll up to see end of the past table). Even on a desktop, I find the "Past" section to be "too much scrolling". So it's partly an accessibility issue for me and partly an aesthetic issue. I generally think there should be not more than 25–50 entries or a few screen fulls of content (whether it's a table or paragraphs) between headings, to minimize the "length of scrolling". (I haven't checked WP:MOS or MOS:ACCESS to see if we have guidance on the length of sections and tables.) Other than that, I don't really have an opinion on how many sub-sections or what dates to break it up by. There may be logical or content-based reasons to have the breaks at certain points, which may override the aesthetic/convenience reasons. Leviv ich 15:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with dividing the list into time periods. This is one way it could look like. - Alumnum (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah what you said makes a lot of sense Levivich. I'm thinking time periods is a good idea now too.

We've had ample time for comment, and so far we have four people opposing the 'Eschatological' header and only the original editor in support of it. I'm changing it back to how it was. Very happy to continue discussing time periods. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I like your time period test page Alumnum, with the exception that I strongly think the article needs to draw a line between past predictions and future ones. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

What about dividing the Past section by time periods and making "near-future" and "far-future" subsections of Future? It would look as follows:

• Past predictions
  • (time period sections)
• Future predictions
  • Near-future predictions
  • Far-future predictions

- Alumnum (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

What about an in-between narrow range of past&future, called possibly "Recent Predictions", to reduce the update issue? Of course if one of them is correct, we all might be busy doing something else. Can we add a Pre-zero (or more appropriately named) section for adding predictions like these? StrayBolt (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@StrayBolt: Oh those 'pre-zero' predictions have been brought up before on the talk page here. There wasn't any support to keep those specific ones in the table. See here. I'm sure the Roman ones were discussed too at some point, with the same outcome. Personally I'm happy to just keep updating the table. I actually kind of enjoy moving prediction from future to past once the prediction passes without incident. :)

@Alumnum: I'm totally happy to divide the past section by time periods. Do you think it's necessary to have sub-sections for the future though? Why not just 'Future' and 'Far future'? Also I'm not sure if 'near future' is a good term. I mean, 2280 isn't exactly soon. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Those pre-1st century predictions look indeed interesting. But is that a valid source? - Alumnum (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane and Alumnum: Not sure how valid any of those pre-1st mentioned above. Here are two refs for the "Assyrian tablet" that isn't about the end of the world nor a prediction.[16][17] Any word from Delphi? StrayBolt (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I overhauled this article I used that source as a reference point of sorts to help me find predictions to add (with reliable sources of course), but I'm certain that source itself is not reliable.

I'm very much liking how the article looks right now, though I'm not certain if the Future predictions needs to be broken up between 21st and 22-23rd centuries, purely because there aren't many predictions in either. I'm not too fussed about this issue though. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As per the previous discussion on the talk page about the clay tablet, I do not think that is a valid prediction. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a double-standard for (what was labeled) "scientific" prediction? For the psychic/numerologist/seer/…, if they miss a date and update their prediction, we list them both. For science, we know part of the process is updating with new data and research, but there we would just change the (general) date. When it was labeled, that change made sense. Any comments? StrayBolt (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a double standard because no scientific date has has gone unfulfilled yet, as they are so far into the future. I don't think we've had a case of a religious-type prediction being changed BEFORE the date of their prediction was said to occur, typically the only modify the prediction after it fails. In any case, is there something you'd like changed? Is there a 'scientific' date that was moved or is this just a general observation? Damien Linnane (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No particular example right now, but maybe the periodicity research I tried adding before had issues reaching broad consensus with the data and lacked a specific cause. Others on my mind were recent catastrophic climate predictions and Camille Flammarion on Halley's comet. One preacher seems to have a new prediction every week; what if he kept changing it at the last minute? We may not catch the correction. Of course, only the click-bait "news" industry would keep posting the latest update. As you said, predictors usually do it after the date so maybe they believe what they say. StrayBolt (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate Change

It's worth noting that not all generally accepted natural apocalyptic events are many thousands, or billions, of years in the future. Unmitigated climate change, by seriously impacting food supplies, to give just one example, could lead to apocalyptic conditions within a few hundred years, if not sooner. Some may argue that an apocalyptic event must occur over a short time period to defined as "apocalyptic," but this is obviously not true: Consider, for example, the "burn out" of the sun. 198.105.237.51 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Find high-quality scientific sources for when this is expected to occur, then we can talk about adding such predictions. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.237.172 (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Longer quote and video, "Millennials, and Gen z, and all these folks that come after us, are looking up and we're like 'the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'"[18] and in-context at MLKNow 2019. Many sources put the phrase "The world is going to end…" in another set of quotes, because she is echoing what her and younger generations are thinking and feeling. Many times that phrase is also truncated cutting out, "and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" Cutting that out doesn't show the contrast in concern between the generations. Several news orgs attribute the "12 years part to an October 2018 IPPC report which warned against going above 1.5 C. Newsweek summarized, "Any higher, even by half a degree, would significantly increase risks of floods, drought, extreme heat and potential poverty for hundreds of millions."[19] AOC added, “How are we saying 'Let’s take it easy' when 3,000 Americans died last year?” “At some point, these chronic realities do reach a breaking point.”[20] I think most research says we can still prevent it, if we heed the warnings. "Repent! The End is Nigh!"[21] StrayBolt (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No as she seems to be saying "this is what people think", not "this is what I think".Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I also agree this is not a proper prediction and accordingly should not be included. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Relevance debated

I notice that this entry is debated with some editors removing it, others restoring it. It may be time to discuss instead of keeping up the slow edit war... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume your referring to the new David Spratt prediction? Personally I'm somewhat against including it. The climate change predictions are certainly a lot more convincing than the religious predictions, but I mean, they don't set exact dates. This report says the world "could end by 2050" if current trends continue. Firstly that's obviously not a firm date. Secondly its giving us practical solutions to avoid this catastrophe from eventuating. Or in other words, it's only a date by which they world MIGHT end IF we don't take measures to prevent it. It doesn't fit in well with the other predictions. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alumnum: What's your thoughts on this prediction being here? Damien Linnane (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this also is too iffy to include. Its not a prediction of what will happen.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think those climate change predictions at far more believable then those relegius ones. But I also don't believe Mr. Spratt and Mr. Dunlop. But nonetheless it's a good wake up call to do something about it. MeMike123 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The title of the report is "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach". According to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre Glossary, their definition of "scenario" is: A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold. A projection may serve as the raw material for a scenario, but scenarios often require additional information (e.g., about baseline conditions). A set of scenarios is often adopted to reflect, as well as possible, the range of uncertainty in projections. Other terms that have been used as synonyms for scenario are "characterisation", "storyline" and "construction". They also define "prediction" as When a projection is branded "most likely" it becomes a forecast or prediction. StrayBolt (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that a vote for or against including this 'prediction'? Or just an observation? :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It should NOT be included because it is a "scenario" and not a "prediction". Many government agencies have created scenarios for widespread disasters, some with dates. The above definitions helps clarify the distinctions. The source for the Spratt/Dunlop post is a little odd; it has a video interview with the author of "Falter", but the text talks about the report. I think almost all of the predictions in this article say "the end" is inevitable. For climate change, there might be a few saying we have reached that point, but most say it can be prevented/mitigated. Perhaps we can add a general climate change listing with a range of dates, adding "With the lack of preventive action, many predict widespread disastrous results from climate change" or whatever the RSs say. StrayBolt (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on additions to the list over the years, I think we can all agree in three basic requirements for a prediction to be included on the list:

1. Being well referenced, so we can be sure that someone or some group actually made the prediction.
2. Referring to a specific date ("in year X", "X years from now", or at least "around year X"). This would not include vague dates such as "some hundred years from now" or the like.
3. Being an apocalyptic prediction, that is, stating that something global and extremely catastrophic will or, at least, will possibly happen at that date.

I reverted someone's edits that removed a prediction because "it was not made by scientists". There is nothing in the article saying that the predictions need to be made by a scientist. In fact, except for the Far future section, not a single prediction in the list was made by a scientist; they are only separated by time. Sometime ago I tried to split the list between scientific and non-scientific sections, but my idea was not accepted by consensus. I think I've seen some arguing for removing certain predictions because of how convincing or likely they are, which, for the same reasons, are also not valid points.

So, in my opinion, it's okay to include climate change predictions, even if they were made by a layperson with no qualification, so long as they are relevant and fulfill the criteria above. - Alumnum (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019: Add Day of the lord begins in July 17, 2019 & January 1, 2020.

Sony Toons (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Would not be suitable for an encyclopedia. —PaleoNeonate – 19:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

1874 and 1941

There is an innacurate statement here: "1874. Charles Taze Russell. This Christian minister predicted the return of Jesus to occur in 1874, and after this date reinterpreted the prediction to say that Jesus had indeed returned in invisible form." As a matter of fact, Russell rejected the use of chronology until he got in contact with Nelson Barbour in 1876 and accepted the idea that Jesus' presence had already begun in 1874 in invisible form. So, it wasn't a prediction (Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 133). Also, during World War 2, there were a few mentions in JWs publications that the end was near, but with no specific year mentioned (for example: Watchtower 1941 Sep 15 p.288). In a few days I'll change the text accordingly. Utnapishtim2 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Utnapishtim2: We have two non-biased reliable sources that state the prediction is accurate. If you want to change the information you're going to have to find a much better source than an official JW publication. Generally speaking, you can't use a biased source to correct something that non-biased sources have stated. JW publications obviously have a vested interest in back-peddling and saying older predictions never happened. So I for one vote strongly against you using that source to change anything. Even if you did find an impartial source that the prediction is inaccurate, that still wouldn't necessarily constitute grounds for removing the source. Possibly you'd only be able to update the text to say there are different interpretations of the prediction; it would depend on the quality of the sources. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: This is not a question of bias or interpretation, it is a question of facts. Did Russell predict anything prior to 1874 or not?

The first source is by the Conservative Jewish Rabbi Jacob Neusner, specifically in the book World Religions in America: An Introduction; the significative part is not on page 242, but on page 197 in the edition I've checked:

"Russell was originally attracted to the teachings of an independent (non-Seventh-day) Adventist leader, Jonas Wendall, who had reinterpreted Miller's teachings to conclude that the second Advent would occur in 1874. Inspired by Wendall's teachings, Russell soon formed his own Bible study group and began developing the unique doctrines that would come to characterize the Jehovah's Witnesses. When the prophecy of 1874 failed to bring the return of Jesus, Russell accepted a reinterpretation of the event offered by Nelson H. Barbour, which held that Jesus had indeed returned but in an invisible form."

Here, the author doesn't say that the date originated from Russell, but from the Adventist Jonas Wendell (Wendall is an incorrect spelling), and he doesn't say that he reinterpreted the prediction, but that he accepted the reinterpretation by Nelson H. Barbour. This paragraph is rather misleading because it doesn't attribute anything to Russell but seems to lead us to believe that he originally accepted the date and then the reinterpretation.

The second source is quoted as Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy, by Jon R Stone, page 56. Actually, the author is J. Zygmunt: "Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity", published in Jon R. Stone [editor]: Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy, and the relevant part appears on page 68, at least in the edition I've checked:

"Although the sect had come to espouse millenarian views virtually from its inception in the early 1870s, for several years it ventured no predictions as to when the Second Coming and associated events would occur (Russell 1874). Little more than an independent local congregation at this time, it was predominantly gnostic rather than conversionist in character (Wilsons 1959). Crucial in transforming it into the launching ground for a translocal movement were some contact between the group?s founder, Charles Taze Russell, and certain Adventist preachers. The latter, previously involved in the Millerite movement of the 1840s, were now trying to revive some of its prophecies in revised form, expecting Christ to return in the flesh in 1873 or 1874. In an attempt to meet the prophetic failure that followed, some of them advenced the view that Christ had indeed come as predicted, but in the unexpected form of a spirit being. It was not until 1876, however, that Russell adopted their belief."

This is a little more clear. The author acknowledges that Russell "ventured no predictions" about 1874 and that he adopted this belief in 1876.

In conclusion: there is even no need to quote JWs publications. The sources quoted simply do not support the claim in this Wikipedia article.Utnapishtim2 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I'm happy for you to update the article accordingly, especially if there's no need to quote the JW publication. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"Please change Charles Taze Russell to Nelson H. Barbour".Utnapishtim2 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done I merged all the content into the Wendell section given the fact that the reinterpretation is a reinterpretation of Wendell and not a prediction in and of itself. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sept 23 prophecy

Should we add the Sept 23 2017 prophecy to this list? I think it's worth a mention. — Confession0791 ^talk 05:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That article is pretty terribly written. I tried to fix some of the obvious flaws but its still an absolute mess. At this stage I'm not seeing any reason to add it to the list as September 23, 2017 doesn't appear to be a predicted date for an apocalyptic event, it just seems to be the date of an alignment and a sign of something else that will occur at an undefined time. That doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither does the Blood moon prophecy, that one's as vague as it gets. — Confession0791 ^talk 13:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah good point. I'm not opposed to the Blood moon prophecy being removed from the list. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Searra Carson

Searra Carson is a young lady who survived hurricane michael also lost her sister at the age Twelve.She is a brave young lady that went through hell but god got her out of it her saying is she "i don't look like what i been through". She is the youngest child to be in history of this generation. Sge is also related to Martin Luther King Junior by is Aunt she never been menchion but this is her season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C3:8000:821:4994:97CE:C8F4:AF09 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

2027 New Fire ceremony

We could add the 2027 New Fire ceremony. Here are some quotes from Wikipedia:
It was believed that during these days the world was in grave danger because of the instability inherent in the shift from one cycle to another. It was feared that female stellar deities, the Tzitzimime, would descend and devour the earth.
For that reason, every 52 years, when the beginning of the calendars (Civil and Religious) coincided, the sacerdotal class performed the New Fire ceremony, to prevent the Sun’s death, as they thought, would cause total darkness of the universe, allowing the sprouting of tsitsimeme, entities that ate human beings.
From the Tzitzimitl article: It was said that if at the end of a 52 year calendar round, that if they could not start a bow fire in the empty chest cavity of a sacrificed human, that the fifth sun would end, and tzitzimimes would descend to devour the last of men.
Here are books talking about the 2027 occurrence:
[22]
[23] --2.37.200.57 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

500,000 years

Saying that an asteroid of 1 km in diameter should hit Earth 500,000 years from now is misleading. While admittedly it was hard to find a source that accurately depicted how big of a crater a 1 km asteroid would make (most seemed to exaggerate by a lot) I was able to use an online calculator and calculated it with a density of 2,000 kg/m³ and a 45° impact angle to get a diameter of 9-10 km depending on the ground it landed on. The youngest discovered crater with a diameter greater than 9 km is Zhamanshin crater in Kazakhstan which is aged at 900,000 ± 100,000 years. Going forward 2 cycles, and assuming the intermediate asteroid landed in the ocean or simply hasn't been discovered, that would put the next impact sometime within the next 200,000 years, not 500,000. I am Monkey Fan (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You're probably right. But if you had to figure that out yourself with a calculator and it's not actually in a source, that's original research and it cannot be added to the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of Eric Christian Hansen entry?

Why is this section on this list? Eric Christian Hansen does not seem notable enough, and the entry's grammar is all wrong too, although that shouldn't warrant removal on its own 208.97.122.194 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It was added very recently. I've just removed it as it definitely isn't notable enough. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)