Talk:Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of the debate over re-naming the article which was previously titled Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy to the new title, Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

Suggested New Title

Why not just call this page: "Timeline of unfulfilled Prophecies and Predictions" It would remove the objection that we're identifying all these folk as Christians (which many of us do not agree) without the mess of trying to ID in an NPOV forum who is and who is not a Christian.

Besides, it would be fun and instructive to add prophecies by, say, Jeane Dickson, and other, too.

Finally, we really should document these. --CTSWyneken 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then it could include just about every religion there ever was, that'd get too long really fast, you know eventually we'd just have to break them up into smaller articles by category :/. Plus, Wikipedia policy if I understand it correctly has an annoying habit of considering anyone a Christian who apparently merely claims to be one unless it's like for some insane reason. Homestarmy 00:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this page is doomed to constant controversy because many Christians are likely to take offense. --CTSWyneken 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Another idea. We retitle it and break down by century and/or year, when needed. I think it would be great to have a record of these prophesies. Lengthiness is also instructive. --CTSWyneken 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if we take some of the people being mentioned and specify maybe what denomination their from or what they believe on some things that make it obvious to people they do not fit the fundamental Biblical qualities of a Christian, wouldn't that not cause offense? Besides, it's useful to have a list of people who make bad prophecies, I mean, it's almost Biblical to make this article, what with us being commanded to beware of false prophets and all. Homestarmy 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the titles suggested earlier, would come closer to allowing the artical itself to remain more on the same subject --T-rex 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would caution against attempting to qualify people by anything other than their church affiliation. Home, you come close to wanting to "smear" someone and that is unacceptable. For instance, Taze Russell, the noted JW, very much viewed himself as a Christian. He also had legitimate scriptural references for his interpretations. You and I would differ from his interpretation, but this is not the place to say ours is better/best. I think just stating he was Jehovah's Witness accomplishes your objective and there is no need to go further. Benny Hinn is another example that would be hard to say anything except he is a Christian preacher (Did he start out as Assemblies of God?). Also, we often quote that there will be false prophets, logic would also state there will be true prophets also.

I hope we don't continue to get bogged down in this. The real work is documenting the article. Storm Rider 03:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't really think it was necessary at first to go more in-depth into people's beliefs in relation to more fundamental Christianity, but CTSW raised the idea of offense at Christians being associated with people clearly not Christian from a fundamental Biblical standpoint I assume, so I proposed a solution, what more could I of done? Besides, it probably isn't absolutly needed, your probably right about only needing to say things like denomination or association. At any rate, are we going through with a name change vote or what? Homestarmy 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to get consensous without a vote, and I would suggest that we try to do that first. If this comes down to a yes/no debate, then it's dsicussion is likely to get ugly real fast. That said I would to rename this soon, so we can remove the NPOV tag --T-rex 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just im so used to voting on it seems every sentence in Jesus whenever there's a dispute, what title do we want the most then? Homestarmy 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As am I. Is there anyone out there who would at all mind the change to a new title? If so, why? --CTSWyneken 16:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is more which new title to use --T-rex 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If we're still sticking with a timeline i'd still propose "Timeline of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians", if we're making it into a more formal article, i'd propose "History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians". On the other hand, if we want to go down the fundamentalist route, we could name it "List of false Christian prophets", but im sure someone would take issue with that :D. Homestarmy 17:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What about "List of false prophecies and predictions (x Century?) --CTSWyneken 18:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then we have to specify once and for all what exactly this article should be about. You know, this thing looks like it once had a whole bunch of editors a year ago, where did those people go? they should probably have some input if their still around. Homestarmy 18:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians works for me. As for the other editors you would assume that they would notice this activity on their watchlist, but I would suggest trying to get into contact with some of the primary authors of the artical. --T-rex 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the original editors. In fact I was the original creator of the article. Homestarmy told me you people were discussing important stuff here. It's nice to see some good debate and concern about what is going on here.

I've stated things previsouly but I'll do it here since it's hard to wade through the various arguments of other people all over again. Basically, while Christians may view this page as being biased, it was nevertheless intended to be a truthful list of facts. In other words, if a Christian leader comes out and says "The Lord said this will happen", and if it doesn't happen, then it should be recorded here. To argue that it is biased would be akin to arguing that a list of known incidents of police brutality is biased against police departments.

Moreover, as anyone who visits my userpage or blog will know, I am an evangelical Christian myself.

IMO the list is not big enough to break into many different articles. I intended it to be as simple as possible. Changing the name of the article to History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians is okay, so long as any recent "branches" from historic mainstream Christianity are also included (Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS, etc). While my personal belief is that these new religious movements have actually separated themselves from Christianity, I still think they should come under the umbrella of this article because of their historical ties.

--One Salient Oversight 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is almost Biblical myself, "beware of false prophets..." and all that. Of course, just because one turns out to be a false prophet doesn't mean they can't repent and be a Christian, I don't see much cause for offense unless people don't read the introduction and think it's attacking the Bible heh. So....is there some sort of system we have to go through the change the title besides the "change title" button? Homestarmy 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You read my intentions clearly Homestarmy! One of my not-so-hidden reasons for creating this page was for that very reason. Yet, despite my ulterior motives, the page deserves to exist anyway.

What other religious groups are there that have made predictions and prophecies that come false? Jeane Dickson was mentioned but there is no article - was Dickson making predictions outside the historic constructs of the Christian church?

I wouldn't be happy with the inclusion of failed predictions by futurists (eg some author in 1965 predicts the world will run out of food by 1996). I'd rather keep this article focused upon the supernatural.

--One Salient Oversight 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the suggestions are promising. I for one prefer something along the lines of Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians but would be satisfied with T-rex's suggestion. —Aiden 23:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop re-naming this page

Since, obviously, there is no consensus, and no attempt was made to bring in the larger community, I'm going to request that an admin restore this page to its original name. Please, leave the page alone until there is a clear consensus. For the record, I still feel that the original name was quite acceptable, and any offense taken seems to be grounded in a desire to remove potential credibility from those making the prophesies in question, not any actual historical or encyclopedic value. -Harmil 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll file an RfC to get some more opinions then. Homestarmy 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth I agree that renaming the page before forming consensus is a very bad idea. I don't agree that the original name was acceptable but if there is going to be a edit war moving the page around that causes a big mess that someon has to clean up and is not likley to result in an acceptable resolution. Reagarding some of what people said above the reason I liked a title with the word eschatological in it is because as is discussed above I do not think Pat Robertson saying who he thinks will win the next election represents qualitativly the same phenomana as someone who thinks the world is going to end in 2012 or that Jessus was going to return to earth in 1975. Eschatology is basically (and I am simplifying) the theology of the end times. It is not restricted to any single religion though many religions share some ideas about it. People predicting the end of the universe/world whatever is a major historical theam and even narowing it down to people doing so from a claimed biblical/christian perspective woudl make a good article. I don't think the original title conveys that however, and I think we need to reach consensus on the title (and approprate content even if we dicide that the current content is ok). Dalf | Talk 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching this page (after Aiden's invitation). It makes it hard to find when it keeps jumping around. Arch O. La 23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Took Bold step of Changing the Article Title

People, I hope you will forgive my bold action of changing the title. I may have jumped the gun and if so, let us change to title back. I acknowledge that I can be impatient and this may be an example of just such a weakness. I have corrected most of the links, but did not address User pages for: Gracefool, One Salient Oversight, William M. Barnham, and CTSWyneken. I may be wrong, but I feel uncomfortable changing peoples individual pages. I think I caught all the rest. Storm Rider 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I think your fine. Now then, let's get to work and see what exactly we're working with here, I haven't actually been here very long, I haven't really critically looked at the article much :/. Homestarmy 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the logical next step would be to look up and denote the various denominations that these people are tied to...(who is Catholic, who is a Jahovas witness, who works mainly with the American United Epistpical Church etc...) It's going to be a week or two before I'll have enough time to really help myself, but good luck --T-rex 01:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just looking over some of this, a few of them seem ambiguous, and a couple didn't even see to me to be prophecies at all. Since the article is more historical now, we might need to remove the timeline format and turn it into paragraphs by time period or (Such as in Mr. Hinn's case) paragraphs denoting certain people. We can clean this all up soon though I suppose. Homestarmy 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start. —Aiden 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Who changed the name to this convoluted name? I think it's obvious to anyone that if a prophecy isn't fulfilled and a Christian says it, then it's not in the Bible nor is the person probably a prophet. What's the problem? Homestarmy 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, someone named martian something or another. Listen, if your there, if a Christian prophecies something and it does not come true, It is not Biblical, it doesn't matter if a Christian said it or not, just because people say something is Biblical doesn't mean their right. Homestarmy 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back. However, due to the way the software works I beleive that killed all the links so we need to take care of this first now --T-rex 16:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second, now it doesn't have anything to do with prophecy, I could predict that in a couple years the world will be at war in the middle east as a mere historical observation based on probabilities, and if I got it wrong, I could go on this page. We need something about prophecy in the title or it could list almost anything, we can't get into an edit war over page title or like you've pointed out, all the links get all blown to bits. Homestarmy 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got an idea, what if we file an RfC to see what other people think? we don't have many editors for this article and of those we got, apparently we all have very different opinions on the title :/. Homestarmy 16:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What we have so far

For anyone coming in, here's basically what we have in terms of proposed titles:

History of eschatological prediction

Timeline of eschatological predictions

Timeline of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians

History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians

Modern eschatological predictions by Christians

Modern Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians

Timeline of unfulfilled Prophecies and Predictions

List of false prophecies and predictions (x Century)

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

History of Unfulfilled, non-Biblical Prophecy by Claimed Christians

Timeline of prophecy uttered by Christians

Technically, we haven't really decided exactly where this article will even go yet, so some of the titles aren't really related to false prophecy from Christians, and we aren't quite sure yet if we want to make the article like just a list or a real article with paragraphs by century or specific people. So any suggestions would help :/. Homestarmy 17:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

~~The current title would be better with "still" in front, like this:~~

Still Unfulfilled Christian Prophecies

This reminds one that just because they haven't been fulfilled yet, doesn't mean they won't or can't be in the future. I haven't read the actual article yet, but if it talks about "Biblical" prophecies, that would be preferable to a selective label like "Christian". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, I hadn't read the article... Now that I have, it looks more like "Timeline of unfulfilled prophecies and predictions" is the best pick. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, to avoid the same confusion I had with future (as yet unfilfilled, non time-specific) prophecy, maybe it could be: "Timeline of PAST unfulfilled prophecies and predictions"...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reflecting more, here's what it really is:

"List of date-specific, non-Biblical predictions by Christians that failed to happen."

But I don't know if that's too long or unwieldy for a title... Unsigned User:Codex_Sinaiticus

I still favor History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians. My thinking goes something as follows:

Not all those who give prophecy are prophets, just those who have a spiritual conviction regarding a specific event. Thus, I think it appropriate to call it prophecy rather than predictions.
Predictions seems an attempt to dismiss these people as quacks a little too quickly.
Timeline does not seem to apply so much; we are not really demonstrating how the timing of prophecy changed or repeated itself throughout history. However, if a corrolation or commonalities is seen this could be interesting.
Without Christian in the title the article loses focus and could easily bleed to the point of becoming meaningless.
Prophecy is not intended to be biblical. The Bible for virtually all Christians is closed. This seems a distinction without a purpose. However, if you are attemting to segregate Bible prophecy that is yet unfulfilled this would do it.

I guess I owe an apology to everyone given that I changed the title first; I apologize. I have tired of endless conversation and felt we could move ahead quickly, but I was obviously wrong. Should we have a vote now regarding the titles above, keep it open for a week and then make the move? What process does everyone want to follow? Storm Rider 17:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The title as it stands (Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians) is way too general. The difference between a prediction and a prophecy is that divine inspiration is claimed for the latter. The premise of this article is that some people who self-identify as Christians make prophecies, and at least some of them do not come true, which are listed. Therefore I would be in favor of Unfulfilled Christian Prophecies, which says it all in three words.

There is little point in arguing that if a prophecy is unfulfilled then it wasn't really Biblical or a prophecy. The point is that the claim of prophecy was made before the fact. Apparently you have to wait until after you know whether or not the prophecy is fulfilled, to determine whether the putative prophet is really divinely inspired.

There might be some value in an article on Fulfilled Christian Prophecies but I expect that NPOV would dilute it quite a bit. One of the central beliefs of Christianity is that the coming of Jesus fulfilled certain Biblical prophecies. But I can find plenty of rabbis who will give me plausible explanations as to why those prophecies are, in fact, unfulfilled. So the author of such an article would be duty bound by NPOV to say that most Christians believe the prophecies were fulfilled, but most Jews disagree.Tex 18:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the thing is, this article was supposed to of started as a timeline of sorts of UNfulfilled prophecy, sort of like a warning of "Look, look, there's some people who make up fake stuff in the name of Christianity!" or something like that. I think we might want to wait a little bit to see if the RfC I filed attracts any more people so we can make a real vote though, there's a whole lot of options, and if people just come in again and change the article title and mess everything up then we'll of wasted it if we don't have people who would revert it quickly. Homestarmy 18:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)\

"Unfulfilled Christian Prophecies" almost says it all in 3 words. But still, I would expect an article with that title to be about things that still might happen in the future, including Biblical stuff. So you still need "Past" in there. ( Also, maybe "Failed" is fair enough instead of "Unfulfilled"?) something like "Unfulfilled Christian Prophecies of the Past" would solve the confusion... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But like the introduction currently says, all that we're listing here are specific, measurable prophecies, many of them are like "Such and such will happen within so and so years" and the like, we apparently wern't supposed to be listing prophecies that are pending as to whether they will come true or not. And the introduction says that Biblical Prophecy is already in another article :/. Homestarmy 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Weren't supposed to be listing pending prophecies? We can change that too, you know. I think it would be valuable to put prophecies in as they become public. As long as a prophecy is specific and measurable, why not have it in the article before the time it's supposed to happen? The famous blowout election prophecy would be an example.

I really see no reason not to include prophecies about events that are still in the future. And, going on past performance, all or nearly all of them will stay in the list after their deadlines pass. From a practical standpoint, it will be considerably easier to keep track of them if they go in the article when they're made. Otherwise they could drop off the screen while we wait 10 or 20 years to see if they pan out. Tex 19:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing) I'm absolutely opposed to including any prophecies that aren't already expired. We can't pretend to know which ones are true and which ones are false if their time limit hasn't expired yet. That totally changes the scope of the article from a list of already failed prophecies, to declaring prophecies failures even before they have a chance, which in a way would be like claiming to be prophets ourselves, something wikipedia just can't do. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not declaring them failed to say they are 'Unfulfilled'. They just haven't yet been fulfilled. Tex 20:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to including ones that 'haven't yet been fulfilled' alongside all these ones that were obviously false... It seems too pov, as if to lampoon the ones still in the future... ones that 'haven't been fulfilled yet' are a separate topic... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to characterizing this article as 'lampooning' anything. By your line of reasoning, though, should there be a separate article, Pending Christian Prophecies? Tex 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to see that, than to have the still pending ones "guilty by association" with ones that are already proven false... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple or so toward the end that are not so time specific, that should probably not be listed, since they could still potentially happen - namely the ones that say "within a few years".

The phrase I used in the intro: "non-Biblical, failed prophecies" could almost be the title, actually. Just add "by Christians". Then you wouldn't even need to specify "past", because "failed" implies something that the time span on has already run out. So that's my choice now: Non-Biblical, failed prophecies by Christians. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the very problem with this discussion (and I quote from Homestarmy, above): this article was supposed to of started as a timeline of sorts of UNfulfilled prophecy, sort of like a warning of "Look, look, there's some people who make up fake stuff in the name of Christianity!"

And of course, no, that's exactly what this page is not about. This page, like every other main namespace article on Wikipedia is about its subject matter, and in this case, that subject matter was a Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophesy. It's not about the feeling that you get when you read that title, it's not about the feelings that any editors had while writing it. It's about the history, ordered chronologically (hence "timeline") of things prominent Christians have said would happen, and that haven't and won't happen. We don't need to put the entire article into the title ino order to do that, we do need to have a clear and accurate intro, and appropriate style for Wikipedia. Anything beyond that is either scope creep or POV creep. Now, sadly, I have work to go do, but please, try to keep a somewhat objective (that is to say neutral) point of view, here. Just because you are a Christian, doesn't mean that you have to deny that there are (many) Christian prophesies that have never come to pass. Ultimately, you have to realize that any religion is going to attract people who will make claims about their access to divine knowledge, and who are quite wrong. Wikipedia should document that as carefully as we document the rest of the history of the religion: good and bad, and without bias on our parts. -Harmil 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of Unfulfilled Christian Prophecy would also be fine with me. Everyone please note, prophecy is the noun, to prophesy is the verb. Tex 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

^^That is why I requested that the work Modern be included to avoid confusion with biblical prophesy, which is not meant to be included within the scope of this article. Modern Unflfilled Historical Prophesy by Christians? Althouth I was under the impression that there was general agreement behind Storm Rider's page move, I guess not though. Also as a question to Storm Rider, I saw that you redirect most of the artical following your change, but did you get all of them? Also I'm thinking creating all the suggested titles as redirects --T-rex 19:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I got all of them except for those on personal pages as mentioned above. Storm Rider 19:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I tried checking, but that didn't work. I just wanted to be sure we wern't losing any links for good --T-rex 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And a timeline of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians does not show the history of prominent Christians who made incorrect prophecy....how? I think your just assuming im not on your side because I keep saying things from a Christian POV Harmil, I think it is a good idea for us to have this article, it doesn't matter an enormous amount if the article just keeps the old title because the introduction makes it clear this is about Christians, making prophecy that didn't come true, not Biblical prophecy, I was merely invited to come here by a friend since people were discussing possible new titles, I suggested "Timeline of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians", and well, it all went down from there. I think it is highly Biblical to write this sort of an article, I am not saying I am offended, far from it, this falls directly in line with watching out for false prophets, I don't see much cause for alarm. The title at first made me suspicious. Upon actually reading the introduction, I found my suspicions without basis. I am not offended, nor should I be, as being offended almost requires someone to have pride, which is bad Biblically speaking anyway. The point is, I think this article is good from the perspective it already is coming from. The title could use a tiny bit of tweaking, but it isn't amazingly necessary, and we supposedly had a consensus anyway, until an apparently compleatly random editor who has yet to say anything on the talk page changed it to some ridiculously convoluted statement, which caused this whole ruckus. It looks like you restated my entire POV on what this article should be Harmil. Homestarmy 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Christian prophecy" tends to allude to Biblical prophecy or a general prophetic belief held by many Christians. There should be a distinction. The current title is fine in my opinion, but if people have a problem with "predictions" and want the word "prophecy" used, it should in the least be used in the context of "prophecy by Christians" and not "Christian prophecy." —Aiden 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above suggestions: History of Unfulfilled, non-Biblical Prophecy by Claimed Christians seems to work well. —Aiden 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "claimed Christians" is highly POV in itself. I agree with you that "Prophesy by Christians" is better phrased then "Christian Prophesy". I would think that it would be best to either keep the current title or only change predictions to prophesy. Although I still like the work "Modern" although I seem to be the only one on that --T-rex 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to "edit" the article's title as if it were the content of the article. Also, Aiden, you have repeatedly used phrases like "belief held by many Christians" as if that were somehow in contrast to this article. Keep in mind that we're only listing the notable prophesies and, yes, many Christians were followers of each of the people who made these prophesies (though we can no more make assertions about what they believed than we can about any group, no matter what they might profess). I'm still waiting on admin response, but I am strongly pushing for the restoration of this article to its original title until such time as there is a wider consensus. I'm actually a bit frustrated that you took it upon yourselves to rename the article multiple times, and then edit the original redirect, preventing any attempts by non-admins to move it back when I had asked that we develop a local consensus and then put it to a broader vote. Why was that request ignored? -Harmil 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one who liked the origional title. Me, Aiden, and Homestarmy all directly supported Storm Rider's change. Until user Martianlostinspace changed it again, it seemed that we had generally came to an agreement. What is wrong with Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians? --T-rex 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it says 'Predictions' instead of 'Prophecies', thus losing the connection with divine inspiration. Tex 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly part of it (since the article refers only to those articles which the prophets in question asserted were divine in origin), but the more general problem that I have is the same problem that I have with re-naming any article without sufficient cause. This name exists in numerous downstream sites, caches, archives, etc. There should be a strong and compelling reason to change an article title, and I just didn't see such a reason. I saw several Christians who were flustered over the name, and I can empathise, but that doesn't make it a good reason. I trust you see the difference there. The title, "Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophesy", does not make any assertions or implications about the religion as a whole, and so I'm not sure I follow any claim that it's fundamentally POV any more so than "Timeline of disproven scientific theories" would be (whcih, BTW would be a great article to have, but that's a side point). -Harmil 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said, well spoken. So let it be written; so let it be done. Tex 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it was supposed to be "prophecies", and the historical part goes in front of unfulfilled :/. The problem is if it's just down to predictions, your no longer pointing something out that's, well, useful for a Wikipedia article. But failed prophecies are useful to note, it shows that some people who are often very infuential to some degree in the world have failed to have the things they promise come to pass. Of course, we shouldn't write that in the article for NPOV sake, but the implication is clear simply by us providing the information. Homestarmy 21:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical Unfulfilled Prophecies by Christians? Is that what we want? Sounds excatlly the same to me, so go ahead and change it. --T-rex 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me too, well its a slight improvement anyway... Two things: 1) Don't we want "Time line of.." after all it is a timeline; and 2) my main issue is the ambiguity of "unfulfilled" in the title because it still sounds like it could cover "pending" ones since they too are "unfulfilled"... since I think "pending" should be a separate artile, I'd rather see a different word than "unfulfilled", like "failed"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

People, I support using the term prophecy; however, I do not support changing the name too quickly. I view Martian's change as unilateral vandalism. I have encouraged him to join this discussion, but he is not here yet. If we are going to change it, it it would be best to change after a vote. Changing titles and catching all the links is somewhat time consuming and I hope none of us wastes our time as I did with the initial change. Can we just wait a while before any title change? How about voting on a title change and keeping it open for a weeek? Storm Rider 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A week seems a bit severe, how about 4 days? I mean we've already edited the title a bunch of times and it seems to me it's probably pretty much shot up all the links by now if it's going to do anything, changing it quicker again can't do much more damage :/. And on the timeline thing, if we keep it as a timeline, it seems to me it will get less flexible as time goes on for us to categorize things. If we try to make the article more in paragraph format with "historial", we can address things by decades/centuries/whatever, and if an exceptional example or 2 of people or organizations with failing prophecy pops up, we can be free to make whole paragraphs dedicated to the subject. Homestarmy 23:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A week is fine. Please be prepared to explain the difference between "Prophecy by Christians" and "Christian Prophecy". Tex 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well by Wikipedia standards I think, if anyone reeeeeally says their Christian, the articles assume their Christian. but for those of us in the know, it's more like biting sarcasm whenever you see someone listed as a Christian, but then the article notes something obviously un-Biblical, so "Prophecy by Christians" is only as offensive as you want it to be until you read the article introduction. None of the prophecy by Christians in the Bible can be mentioned, (I.E. Revelations, you can't even measure the time period to check it.) also, while "Christian Prophecy" is a slightly more loaded term that begs the question, "What does this article call Christian, the Bible? The people? Scientologists?", however, the introduction does clear it up quickly. If you all want a week vote, I guess I won't mind too much :/. Homestarmy 01:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hopeing that we could avoid a vote, but apparently thats not going to happen. A vote would be much easier if their were two options to vote on and not 10. As for the links, I've fixed it up so that every artical still links here without having to bring up a second page, so it's not too bad anymore. I would suggest that we wait until after the vote to fix the rest --T-rex 01:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we are actually ready for a vote. Most of the suggestiosn above are not even close to acceptable in my view. Either way we are not at a point where I think a vote is helpful in establishing consensus. Perhaps a straw poll to even see how much support renaming has would be mroe helpful. If we have strong consensus to rename then I think that might help focus the discussions in a better direction. This article has been around for a long time there is no rush to move it. Dalf | Talk 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply review each option one at a time, ask for a "can you live with it?" opinion from each of us, with no more that two sentences justification? We take a day on each, then, if most people can live with it, we retain it for a vote. In ten days, we'll likely have a smaller list, maybe just one. 8-)

Having said that, my reason for trying to leave the word Christian out of the title is we will see recurring comments and edits by offended people from time to time, I would think. (of course, it's sat like this for a year...)--CTSWyneken 11:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I could revert any vandalism and use Biblical evangelism to spam people's talk pages just in case they think their doing something good :D. See, this article is making things more Biblical every day! So Dalf, what is an acceptable title to you? Homestarmy 13:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just stumbled upon this discussion and found it interesting. I see two essential problems with the current title (“Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy”):

By the capitalization of “Prophecy”, it suggests that the subject of the article is not simply prophecy that is Christian in nature, but “Christian Prophecy”. However, the article fails to define what “Christian Prophecy” means.
The article lists only prophecies for dates that have already passed, but the title does not make this restriction. (The return of Christ is an unfulfilled Christian prophecy, so why is it not mentioned in the article?)

There is also the structural problem of how to order the entries — by date of utterance or by date of expiration. Since both are pretty interesting, we might have two articles:

Timeline of prophecy uttered by Christians (say “uttered by Christians” instead of, e.g., “made by Christians” because many people will claim that the prophecies were actually made by God) — I’m adding this to the list at the top of this section.
Timeline of events predicted by prophecy — ordered by date of predicted event rather than date of prediction.

Maybe we could also have a Timeline of non-Christian prophecy. — Daniel Brockman 20:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As per the introduction, the article deals in measurable prophecies, such as "The world will explode in 1856!", things which simply looking at history can prove to be false. CTSW had a similar idea to yours Daniel, about making an article or 2 dealing with other religion's prophecies, or just plain anybody's prophecies, but im not sure if it has much to do with this article :/. You do raise a good point about the article title not really giving a date-type implication, what about "History of unfulfilled past prophecy by Christians"?. Homestarmy 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your previous answer, some people may think that 'Christian prophecy' refers to some accepted or canonical body of known good prophecy, while 'prophecy by Christians' is just that, prophecies produced by Christians, right or wrong. I don't think there is any accepted body of prophecy apart from Biblical prophecy, which the introduction states isn't covered anyway. (It's interesting to note that a lot of Biblical prophecy wasn't produced by Christians, but by Jews.) My thought is that it is more important to make the title short and easily understandable. It looks like it is going to turn out to be a long, complicated production with lots of qualifications thrown in to satisfy a lot of people's individual concerns. I imagine that most readers will be put off by the length and obvious over-qualification of the title. I also think that most readers won't care about all the concerns, however sincere, that led to all these exceptions and exemptions tacked on to the title. Tex 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I like CTSW's idea the best, let's just go through all the proposed titles one at a time and discuss their feasabilitiy and get to a point where we can get a simple vote. Homestarmy 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving it back to the original title just for the time being

Originally I'd just done a quick driveby to fix capitalization without even looking in on this talk page, but I've been asked by Harmil to move the page back to its original location while the discussion here is still being hashed out. I've taken a glance through the discussion so far and since it looks like there is indeed still substansive unresolved issues I'm going to go along with that. Everyone keep in mind that this article has sat at Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy for a year and a half already so a few more weeks isn't going to cause any extra harm. :) Bryan 05:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other titles were at least an effort to maintain NPOV. This, however, is not. —Aiden 07:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's not. Instead it's an effort to say "rather than moving this page all over the place while in the midst of heated discussions, why not come to some sort of an agreement first?" There are some areas where boldness can result in more of a mess than others. The more moves this page undergoes the more redirects there are to keep cleaning up each time. Bryan 07:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bryan. I'll continue to monitor the disucssion, and once (if) there is some consensus I'll make an attempt to bring the matter to the attention of the broader religion community on Wikipedia for feedback. -Harmil 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to pull anyone who you think might be intresed in to the conversation now. Sometimes forming consensus is easier that way (some times a lot harder but still probbly a good idea). Dalf | Talk 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dalf, it's easy to get a bunch of people for an up-or-down vote on a few options. It's much harder (impossible?) to get that many for a prolonged discussion of a minor topic. Hence, my original suggestion (WAY up above) that you all develop a consensus among yourselves as to the appropriate title (or two if you can't settle on one) and then make a vote out of it. Just do keep in mind that titles aren't nearly as important as they may seem at first. Good sources and clear articles are always more important than the perfect title. -Harmil 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying StormRider, it looks like we're going the long route though. Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem with the title is the phrase "Christian Prophecy" correct? --T-rex 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be so :/. I mean, I can sort of understand how it would be a problem until you actually read the introduction to the article. Homestarmy 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Christain prophecy raises the hackles of some Christians because the label appears to be saying that all Christians hold these predictions as prophecy, which is not a correct perception. Saying that there are prophecies by a Christians is a more neutral phrase. Not for everyone, i.e. my favorite editor of late Mr. Martianlostinspace, had a knee jerk reaction to a similar title. Further, although I prefer the term prophecy because the individuals are speaking as if God spoke to them, I am not completely opposed to the term prediction. I suspect by June 1, 2006 we might have a firm direction and a conclusion to this process. Concensus is not efficient, but it does eventually prevent edit wars. Storm Rider 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

THe problem with the term Christain prophecy also the ambiguity between weather Christian means People who are christian or The religion itself, doctrin, scripture. This second meanning is the part that is at conflict with the disclaimer in the opening paragraphs. I suggest that we may want to do a poll to see two things. Support for changing the title (which I suspect there is), and support for changing the scope of the article to something more well defined and more fitting of an article (which it seems I may be the only person advocating). In the name of doing this right I think we should open a poll first to see how mahy people feel the current title is approprate and second to see how many people feel the scope of the article is appropratly defined. Then we can work from those results to get more specific proposals. I suppose I could just put the poll up but I wanted to make sure that everyone feels that it woudl be a good step twards reacing consensus first, or that we should go about it diffrently. Does anyone have strong feelings about this proposal? Dalf | Talk 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

June 1st? Now that is severe :/. I understand how people might want to vandalise the article because they might not read the introduction or might not even have enough faith to think "Hmm, if the prophecies didn't come true, they aren't Christian prophecy!", but vandalism in Wikipedia is nothing new :/. Articles like evolution, Jesus, (Well, that one got locked cus we got in a fight) RuneScape, World of Warcraft, articles get vandalised all the time at very excessive rates, I can't imagine a little vandalism to this article would be much worse, I can revert fast :/. Besides, if someone does vandalise it and thinks their somehow doing Christ a favor, then there's my chance to ~~spam~~ give out evangelistic ~~propaganda~~ material, citing the verses in favor of creating this article, and all around making Christians who don't have much idea into more informed people. And besides, if martian doesn't come here, it doesn't matter how much consensus we get. Can't we just leave the page title locked or something whenever we decide what to make it? Homestarmy 22:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a way to lock page titles, and I think the June 1st comment was sacrcasm see WP:WLASOH. I think we all need to just calm down and come up with a NPOV title that describes the contents of the article. And please don't spam anyone... --T-rex 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if I don't spam vandals I have to use that boring "test1" template thing or whatever, i'd rather personalize it with a Biblically evangelistic touch if their offended by the title of this article. CTSW mentioned a method of consensus-building I can live with above somewhere. Homestarmy 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is martianlostinspace here. I don't want to raise tension by discussing our differences, I just want to say sorry for changing this page so quickly, and I shouldn't have done that. My views haven't changed, my ways of expressing them have. There'll be no more changes like that until I've discussed them, and got agreement first. I hope my apology is accepted. I should never have done that, and I will stop changing a name even if I don't like it, if most agree with the current name. Please forgive and forget everything I have done here. Martianlostinspace 14:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Achieving Consensus on Title

Votes are mostly looked down upon but I think it'd initiate a start in determining what most of us think would bring about neutrality to this article, with the first subject of discussion being its title. Please review the below versions which have been proposed and vote for what you think best accomodates Wikipedia policy.

Note:

Please sign (#~~~~) below your title of choice.
Only one vote per person.
Please do not comment on your vote line.

What I'd like to do is include several rounds of voting, in which proposals with the least amount of votes are not included in subsequent rounds.

If you choose to vote, you agree to abide by any consensus achieved. Should the vote fail to achieve a consensus, it would in the least help us narrow down possibilities. —Aiden 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Titles

Please make sure you have read and understand the rules before voting.

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy (Current version, no change)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy (Current version, but with lower-case "prophecy")

Timeline of unfulfilled Prophecies and Predictions (CTSWyneken)

--CTSWyneken 03:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Objection: This title does not conform to Manual of Style capitalization rules. — Daniel Brockman 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled prophecies and predictions (Brisvegas)

Modern Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians (T-rex)

Objection: This title does not conform to Manual of Style capitalization rules. — Daniel Brockman 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians (T-rex / One Salient Oversight)

T-rex 04:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy 13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider 06:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dalf | Talk 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC) - This is still not what I would choose but it seems to be a better option than the current title.

Non-Biblical, failed prophecies by Christians (???)

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians (Aiden)

Abstain / Will not abide by consensus. (Please comment below)

Comments on vote

If you would like to add a proposal for vote, please simply add it. And again, please limit your comments to this section. —Aiden 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the actual current title, but kept the modification, as I think it's a fine change. I think it's a mistake to open this up to a vote so early on in the discussion, and with such a wide array of possible names, but if you prefer to do it now, I'll see what I can do about getting some eyes on the vote. -Harmil 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
There appear to be 2 identical copies of "History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians" or whatever in the vote. Homestarmy 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there is a guideline on capitalization of article titles in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which goes like this: Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game). Therefore "prophecy" would be preferred over "Prophecy" for style consistency. Tex 16:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think that this should only be a vote to pick an alternate title, and we can vote that against the current title after wards. I think it is important to get the opinion of the users who don't want a change as to which new title they support the most --T-rex 19:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I was a little confused by the desire to jump right into a vote before a consensus had been reached, but the vote has been opened up and people have already started to cast their votes, so I don't see a way to put the jinn back in the cookie jar. Taking down the vote and re-structuring it now could be seen as an attempt to back out of an unfavorable result. -Harmil 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would just like to encourage you and Tex to instead vote for the althernative title that you would prefer. We all know that the origional title isn't going to just go of the list anytime soon. --T-rex 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But I am advocating a page move (and I didn't even suggest it, it was one of the original options). Note that no one has voted to leave the page name unchanged as yet. It would seem that Tex and I just happen to have a different take on what, in the title, needs fixing. I'm still doing what I can to round up voters, mostly those who participate in articles on religion (I've put messages on the Christianity and religion portals, and mentioned on #wikipedia) -Harmil 21:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The more the merrier Harmil, the RfC I filed on this article should also still be up :). Homestarmy 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that any of the above make me happy from both the POV perspective (which some of them seem to satisfy) and fomr the perspective of framing for a good article. Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians seems the most accurate and avoide the problem of labing people as prophets who do not think of themselves thus, but I don't think that makes a very good title for an article. Am I really the only one that thinks that we shoudl limit the article to predictions about religious events related to end times? Dalf | Talk
I do agree that Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians is very neutral and inclusive of the article’s current content, but I don’t think it is a very accurate title, because it does not mention anything like “prophecy”, “interpretation of religious scripture”, or “divine inspiration”, which I believe should be the scope of this article.

I think Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy is a good and accurate compromise between clarity and brevity. Some people might misinterpret it to mean Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy foretold in the Bible, but that’s a strictly unfounded interpretation. The word “prophecy” does not imply “written in the Bible”. It simply means “prediction made under divine inspiration”, which includes interpretation of religious scripture.

As for “the problem of labing people as prophets who do not think of themselves thus,” I don’t think this article should quote people who do not think of themselves as prophets. This article should be about people who think of themselves as prophets, because it is about people who predicted events under divine inspiration. That is simply the definition of “prophet”, a term that does not imply “more important than Moses”. — Daniel Brockman 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
well the thing of it is, by putting "Unfulfilled" there, it pretty much seems to imply that it's not really prophecy, just prophecy that was fake. I get the feeling people would get far more annoyed over "History of fake Christian prophecy" than "unfulfilled", it'd probably get me riled up before I actually read the article :/. Plus, even if you took it to the other extreme and suspected that the article was trying to blast future prophecies like the Bible, "unfulfilled" doesn't quite capture that sense compleatly, the article quickly and succinctly (At least I think it does) captures a sense in the introduction of "This was prophecy which failed, we are not trying to blast the Bible, all of the prophecies listed are falsifiable and were proven false on whatever grounds they rested on." Homestarmy 23:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one bothered by the lack of votes? We had twice as many people giving their opinions yesterday, or is everyone just at the One Million Aritcles party? --T-rex 01:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah we really need more input or the vote is worthless. —Aiden 02:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd invite friends to come and vote, but then I might rig it. (inside joke for Jesus page editors. Lame, I know!) --CTSWyneken 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  - LOL Arch O. La 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
"History" vs. "Timeline". In its current form, I support "Timeline". If it's going to be expanded and written in prose, I'd support "History". Just a random comment ;)Chris (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but like History because it encourges the article to grow to be something more in the future --T-rex 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm happy for the title to change I have to admit that the original title that I created is still, IMO, the best one. I've checked out all the arguments and there will never be a title that is going to be absolutely correct. Arguments for the inclusion of prophecy found in the Bible can and probably are dealt with elsewhere. There will always be a problem with the title, no matter which one we pick. One Salient Oversight 07:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
At the very least we can make it not push buttons quite as much :/. Homestarmy 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Predictions or Prophecy?

After consideration, I finally decided to vote for "Predictions by Christians". Why? Because many, maybe even most of these, I would not even dignify with a word like "Prophecy"... They are simply predictions. I have a feeling that may be the thinking of some others here too... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we haven't started actually seriously getting into the content besides someone putting up a bunch of {{Fact}} tags, (Which is a good start of course) some of us I think are pretty new editors to this article, I know I am, I just got invited here a couple days ago and I decided to stick around. Which sections in particular don't seem to be prophetic? Homestarmy 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines prophesy as "A prediction, especially one made by a prophet or under divine inspiration." Each and every one of these predictions was (or should be to meet the criteria given) made by someone who claimed that they were divinely inspired. Now, they may have been wrong, but they are notable prophesies all, as far as I can tell. Some, because the people making the claims are currently widely followed. Some because they had significant political or religious impact at the time. The reason for removing an entry would be: a) we cannot find a source to back up the claim that the prophecy was made b) the person who claimed that the prophecy was divinely inspired was not notable, and no notable impact can be discovered or c) the claim is not measurable or came true. -Harmil 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Say, because this vote seems to be going down to 3 choices, if one category doesn't get a majority, do we go to a runoff or what are we gonna do? Homestarmy 23:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The original writeup said that there would be a runoff. I'm not sure that that's practical, though. Getting everyone back would be near impossible, and it wasn't structured as an IRV (which would require that we had all ordered all of the options). As it stands, I think that the best options are:

Go with whatever gets the most votes, or
Leave the article alone unless something gets a majority.

Anything else, at this point, is probably impractical. Thus lay the dangers of constructing a vote too quickly. -Harmil 01:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still here, and the common agreement was for a runoff... And unless one choice gets over 50%, there should be a runoff between at least the top two... otherwise, you will have a choice that fewer than 50% selected... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This vote was clearly set up for a run off. Actually I would suggest two, first History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians vs Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians, to see which of the new suggestions has the most support, including votes by those who don't wish to see the name changed. And then the majority there will be voted against Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy, to determine where we ulitmetlly put this article --T-rex 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit lacking in the technical side. Could someone please archive the vote and implement T-rex's above run-off suggestion? —Aiden 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, doing that right now --T-rex 18:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Responding to request for comment

Hi. I've read several comments on the talk page and the article itself.

It is my impression that T-Rex has a point in that "Christian Prophecies" makes me expect to be official Christian prophecies. These would be issued by the Pope, the Lutheran head of church, archbishop or similar.
I notice the lack of the prophecies made by Isaac Newton and the host of judgement day prophies (virtually hundreds) made throughout the centuries.
What's Jehovah's Witnesses got to do with Christianity?
Since these aren't Christian Prophecies as there is no such thing (only God knows the future) a better name would be "Timeline of unfulfilled prophecies based on Christianity", or possible "...based on the Bible".

Fred-Chess 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Fred chessplayer, thanks for dropping in. A few points to clear up: first, Jehovah's Witnesses, to quote Wikipedia, "are members of an international religious organization who believe themselves to be the restoration of first-century Christianity. Founded in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell, official membership now stands at over 6 million." I can't think of how a group could be more appropriate for inclusion on this page. Now, granted, they don't consider other modern Christians to actually be Christian, nor do most modern Christians acknowledge JWs, but as they are a group whose religion is based on a belief in the teachings of Jesus, from a purly objective standpoint, they are Christians. As for your comment about only God knowing the future... well, that's fundamentally an element of belief, and higly dependent on your POV. Still, these are people who claimed to have knowledge of the Christian God's view of the future, either because he communicated with them, or they were given foreknowlege by him. In every case, they are notable people whose prophecies were believed by many, and therein lies the nature of such prophecy. Now, you comment about Newton. I was not aware of any prophecies by Newton, only that he had written about the prophecies of the Bible. If he actually claimed to have divine insight into future events at any point, then we should certainly note that with appropriate citations here. Judgement day prophesies are noted here only where the meet the criteria listed at the top of the article. That is, they must be notable and measurable, and they must predict and event which did not occur when it was predicted to. There are some such prophecies listed. -Harmil 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Fred chessplayer, hi. I wasn't aware there were "official" Christian prophecies issued by the Pope or the prelates of other churches. If so, and they qualify otherwise, they should certainly be included. The Pope and his counterparts don't claim to have a monopoly on divine inspiration. As far as I know, the only received body of prophecy is Biblical, and that is ruled out by the article's introduction. And as for who's a Christian and who isn't, for the purposes of this article, I'm prepared to accept anyone who self-identifies as a Christian. It may or may not be that no one has knowledge of the future but God, but some Christians have claimed to, and issued prophecies apparently on God's behalf. Indeed, some continue to do so today. These are the people this article is concerned with. Tex 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to first vote on topic of the article

Not only are we in disagreement about the title; we are not even sure what the article should be about. So what if instead of voting on a set of proposed titles, we vote on what the article should be about in separate polls? I propose the following set of polls:

Restrict the article to predictions about past dates?
Restrict the article to relatively modern predictions? (In particular, this would exclude Biblical prophecy.)
Restrict the article to predictions that did not or has not yet come true?
Restrict the article to predictions made under divine inspiration (i.e., “prophecy”)?
Restrict the article to predictions made under Christian divine inspiration?
Restrict the article to predictions made by Christians? (For the purpose of this poll, anyone under Christian divine inspiration shall be considered a Christian.)

The restrictions would all be combined to form the final subject matter of the article. Of course, standard Wikipedia restrictions (like that of notability) would still apply.

Once we have decided on those questions, we can move on to things like “Christian prophecy” vs. “prophecy by Christians” vs. “prophecy uttered by Christians”, “timeline of” vs. “history of”, and “failed” vs. “unfulfilled”.

What do you think? Do we first take a vote on what kind of vote to take? — Daniel Brockman 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is to name the article that we currently have, not to do something new --T-rex 07:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I do like the article now and with a new title, hopefully we clarify the topic simultaneously. Storm Rider 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like the current article too. The reason for having this vote would be to possibly rule out titles like Timeline of unfulfilled prophecies and predictions and Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians. — Daniel Brockman 08:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Predictions could go on for miles and don't even have anything to do with religion in many cases, I could predict that tommorow I will have a test, and if our science teacher isn't here or something and it doesn't happen, I could go onto the article because im a Christian :/. That's kind of silly, failed prophecies just plain seem more noteworthy. Homestarmy 13:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You left off my suggestion to limit it to prophecies about the end times (though not necessarly the end of the earth just the "end times"), this coudl be in a cheistian context or a general religious one. Limiting the topic this way I think atually captures a real phenomana worth an article. Dalf | Talk 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Failed end times prophecies might make for an interesting article on it's own I suppose....Homestarmy 13:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And there it is. Rather than discussing how you can transform this article into some other article, why not simply write another article. As far as I can see, most of this discussion has centered around concepts that are useful in their own right, and scope-creeping this article to the point that it's about entities which may or may not have thought that something might or might not happen, isn't really going to do as much for Wikipedia as starting useful articles. -Harmil 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the article restricted to failed predictions?

Since we don’t seem to have enough examples of Christian predictions that came true for those to get their own article, why don’t we put them in this article? — Daniel Brockman 08:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because that's a pretty long list itself i'd think, the article would become far too long and it would lose focus between failures and successes. At least it seems to me it might.Homestarmy 13:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is Native Americans in the United States restricted to just the natives? Why don't we list the French fur trappers that settled Canada and Louisiana? Well, because that's the scope of the article. We could broaden this page until it covered every statement ever made by anyone, but I'm not sure I see the point.... -Harmil 15:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we don’t have a Timeline of fulfilled Christian prophecy. — Daniel Brockman 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So make it. This article is about unfulfilled Christian prophecy. Another article can be about fulfilled Christian prophecy. I'm sure we'd even put See Also links on both. Chris (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Some current prophets

For a list of some (self-identified) Christians who are specifically described as prophets, preaching prophetically, bringing prophetic words, etc., readers might be interested in the [Prophet's Page]. There are quite a few of them. Tex 16:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at that site, scary. Besides being a lesson on how not to design an html page, the only name I recognized on the list I have a hard time buying into his psuedo-christian beliefs. On a totally unrelated note, would anyone object to moving the anti-page move notice to either the bottom of the article or the talk page? It looks horiable on top, and is of no interest to non-editors --T-rex 18:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically, do we need that warning message on the article at all, can't it just be hidden or something? And so is that website not useful then? :/ Homestarmy 19:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The site is hard on the eyes, the name I recongnized Jonathan Maracle has no wikipedia entry, so I would assume most of them are not well, known. There may be some other parts of that site that could turn up some information that is usefull to the article though, it did seem to be on a similar topic --T-rex 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Round of Voting

All wikipedians are encoureged to vote regardless of if the voted in the first vote or not. The time to select new titles was during the first vote, please do not add any new options here. Votes are mostly looked down upon but I think it'd initiate a start in determining what most of us think would bring about neutrality to this article, with the first subject of discussion being its title. Please review the below versions which have been proposed and vote for what you think best accomodates Wikipedia policy. Whichever of these two options gets more support will be voted against the current title (capitalization corrected) of Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy. If this was your vote in the first round you are still encoureged to vote for one of the following titles, you can (and are expected to) return to voteing for only the capitalization change in the next (and final) round of voteing. Earlier votes from the first round have been kept, however you are more then free to change your mind.

Note:

Please sign (#~~~~) below your title of choice.
Only one vote per person.
Please do not comment on your vote line.
You are free to change your vote anytime until the next round of voting starts.

Possible Titles

Please make sure you have read and understand the rules before voting.

History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

Aiden 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
TMac 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Dalf | Talk 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
One Salient Oversight 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Harmil 03:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC) - still object, but participating in good faith
Tex 12:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
JGF Wilks 15:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

disputed This vote disposes of the most popular item from above: renaming to Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy. Thus this is not actually a valid runoff. Please remove and re-start this runoff -Harmil 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please reread the text above this vote for an explanation. Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy is given extra prominence not being left off --T-rex 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a runoff is generally supposed to be between the most popular options. Tex 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is like the wildcard round, the biggest choice already made it to the finals, this is just the match to see who will face off with it. Homestarmy 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Like a wildcard round" was not the stated format for the vote. If you announce a runoff vote and open the voting, you cannot reasonably introduce a different sort of voting after the first round. To dispense with the pretext of a runoff vote at this juncture is unacceptable. -Harmil 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, I read above on the terms and stuff, and it looked like what we're doing right now was the plan all along, I dunno what to tell ya :/. Homestarmy 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to do is include several rounds of voting, in which proposals with the least amount of votes are not included in subsequent rounds.

Those aren't my words, that's the conditions under which we started voting. Instead of that, the proposal with the most votes was dropped. I don't care if you bring it back later on, the point of the matter is that this is no longer a runoff vote, as was described earlier. Unless you can get unanimous agreement of all of those who have voted to date, I think you're better off sticking to the plan as stated. -Harmil 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrrmph, well, it is still part of several rounds, and it doesn't say we can't have wild card rounds, the ones with the least votes did get dropped. Is it really that huge a deal? Homestarmy 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This vote is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to drop the whole thing. However, if you're going to go to an admin and say, "please unprotect the page so we can move it per the result of our vote," then you need to establish the rules (you did that) and then follow them (you fell down there) in order to reach a decision that everyone will feel at least reflects a majority view. A discussion of why this particular technique (removing the highest ranked choice until the last round) skews a vote is beyond the scope of this page, but it doesn't matter; I wasn't the one who set out the rules. -Harmil 01:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to protest every minor point? Why are you seriouslly that opposed to changing the title of this article? Just vote and get this to the next round... --T-rex 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, chaning the format of a vote halfway through is by no means minor. Second, I do not oppose chaning the title. If you look at the first vote, you will see that I favor chaning it. There seems to be a dismissal of that fact based on a sense that I (and the otherse that voted with me) don't favor a "valid" change. Once again, I will point out that no one has voted to retain the current title. If you don't like the choice of new title that many of us selected, then perhaps holding a vote was a poor choice? -Harmil 13:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well now we've got a stalemate, so it looks like nothing is going to be changing at this rate -____-Homestarmy 14:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Capatalization is not a title change. By itself does not need a vote. Also I would like to point out that the majority did support a change in title. Don't be mad. --T-rex 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, both of these version are being voted on by those who wish to see the title changed, so we need to work out a consensus and move that version forward to the actual run-off with the current title. —Aiden 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

flawed Let me just point out that this "wildcard round" is flawed in at least the following way. I am in favor of the small-p prophecy version of the title. If I wanted to game the system, I could vote for the weakest wildcard contender, in an attempt to skew the results of the final vote. Those in favor of the "wildcard" vote may wish to reconsider whether they want to open that possibility up. Tex 17:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith? I see your point though. I'm going to ask the others that voted for "Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy" and get their opinions on this first --T-rex 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To assume good faith means to assume that most people are trying to help the project and not hurt it. Arguably that would not be inconsistent with crossover voting in a poll like this. If I am trying to get the alternative I think best chosen, surely I am trying to help the project. Tex 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats not how I was using the term. That problem could have happened in the first round of voteing as well, I don't think that it is any bigger of a problem here, and all vote seems pretty consistant so far. I think this dispute arrises from Harmil being unable to bring himself to give support to anything else, even mildly. I fully do expect you to stick to your origional votes come the final round, but would like your input on this vote as well --T-rex 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

When I said what assuming good faith means, I was quoting from the link T-rex provided. Tex 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

First off, let me say that I respect everyone for taking the time to try to improve Wikipedia.

Now, we have two disputes over the format of the second round of voting, which clearly does not include the most popular option from the first round (and adding it at this point, simply compounds the concern as many have already voted). The request for the secound round's removal still stands, and arguments that one of the options wasn't significant ("Capatalization is not a title change") obviously don't agree with the reality of the MediaWiki implementation. At this juncture, I'd like to suggest that we all walk away; take several very deep breaths; recall that this article is and has been in need of significant work for over a year; and contribute some research. Let's re-consider a page re-name after everyone has had a chance to cool down and we can organize ourselves a bit more.

Keep in mind that I'm not asking anyone to concede their points, I just want to give us all some time to get perspective over what's obviously become rather muddled. I look forward to working with all of you on this and many other articles in the days to come. -Harmil 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we take a few days off. Not too much has progressed here in several days; particularly on voting on a new title. I suggest that we continue with the vote beginning Friday, March 17th, under the following rules: 1) immediate vote between two titles: History of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians and Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians. This vote would last until next Tuesday, March 21st, at which time the title with the most votes would enter a final vote against the title, Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy. This final vote would run until Saturday, March 25th, at which time the article title with the most votes wins.

I would prefer not to hear comments such as the process changed during the process so the vote is invalid. We have discussed changing the title ad nauseaum and we have a majority of active editors to this article that desires to reach a conlcusion so that we can move forward. I don't think any real progress on the article will be made until a conclusion is reached. Everyone needs to focus on the vote. Vote, state your reason if you desire to support your vote, but keep it concise. I will be traveling a lot for the next two weeks and will be able to vote, but will not be able to participate in a lot of discussion. Would someone please take the lead and set up a vote. No more red herrings and false issues, it is the vote we are talking about. My intention is not to offend anyone; if I have, I apologize in advance. Let's make this work together. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I ask you to re-consider your rush to voting. Most importantly, you are ignoring the concerns of the two users who have cited concerns with the lack of the most popular option in the poll. Second, calling our concerns "red herrings" and "false issues" is not at all in line with the presumption of good faith, which I ask that you extend to Tex and I as you would to any other editor on Wikipedia. The fact of the matter remains that isolating one option in the poll as the "other" vote and consolidating all other votes in their own runoff round is a highly questionable tactic which, were I not assuming good faith, I would have attributed to a desire to swing the voting toward the stronger of the other leading options. Instead, I assume that this was a mistake, and thus I ask that everyone walk away, give us all time to relax, and come back in a month or two to resolve this without all the frustration. I want to see the article re-named too, but I'm sure we all have other things to contribute to Wikipedia in the mean while. -Harmil 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So it appears that we are going with storm rider's suggestion? OK, although I really think that we should give the final vote a full week... --T-rex 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current vote? Why not have the winner advance to the next round? —Aiden 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, this talk page is already cluttered enough, so I'll answer your question, but let's let it go, or take it to talk pages after this. There are quite a few excellent texts on voting theory ranging from the mathematical[1] to the social[2] aspects of why voting is not only hard (impossible, in the strictest mathematical sense[3]) to do perfectly, but very easy to accidentally enforce an outcome on[4]. What you've done is a classic technique (and I'm not saying that you did it deliberately) used to sway voters away from a particular choice. It would be akin to having all Americans vote in a Republican primary, and then have the winner run against a lone Democrat (or visa versa). The democrat would almost certainly lose because you had already engaged the public in supporting a Republican. Many people will stay with that choice, having taken the time to choose between the Republican candidates, even if they would have gone with the Democrat in a straight RvsD vote from the start. Thus, what you engineered was a nearly certain result of one of the two options in the most recent poll prevailing over the third option, even though I'm sure you didn't mean to. -Harmil 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that. There's plenty of people who don't want the title changed, and when the new proposed title is found, they'll vote against it. —Aiden 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't buy that line of reasoning, and you think there are plenty of people who don't want the title changed, perhaps you'll buy my argument. See the heading Comments above, under flawed. This type of crossover voting was once common in my state, when people were allowed to vote in either party primary. The Republicans would vote in the Democratic primary, for the candidate their guy wanted to face in the general election. And vice versa. Tex 12:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, first Storm Rider's suggestion more or less is the current vote. Secondly once the title is selected I think we can trust each other enough to accept concensus and move on. Also it looks as if the title you proposed and voted for is the one that will ultimatlly end up at the top of this article, so I really don't see why you are complaning. I'm still of the impression that we can trust people not to try and throw the vote, but maybe I'm the only one. --T-rex 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps you are right. So what do we do? Redo the vote entirely from the beginning? —Aiden 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like this is stopping..... :( Homestarmy 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Round of Voting

It seems as if it is time to finally finish this disscussion. Final round between Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians and Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy. Voteing will last one week(?) Although, I am actually going to request for either Homestarmy or Tex to open the vote to avoid any accusations of doing this wrong (although I don't see how anyone will find this round debatable)...

I think we ought to wait until most people realize we're about to vote because the talk page activity has become stagnent :/. Homestarmy 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the talk page is stagnent because people are waiting for the vote --T-rex 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. —Aiden 23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As Admiral Dewey said, "You may fire when you are ready, Gridley." Tex 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am back and I am certainly ready to move forward. I think a vote would be an excellent step. T-rex, will you do the honors? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to get someone else to set up the vote, but I guess I'll do it --T-rex 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought since the first vote was flawed, we were going to redo the entire process. —Aiden 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the two choices don't represent my preferred choice: Timeline of unfulfilled prophecy by Christians. The current first choice connotes that all Christians agree that it is prophecy. I think you will find that the majority of Christians would disagree with that statement. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —Aiden 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Voting will last for one week (7 days). A simple majority is all that is needed to determine the new title. Pray that there will not be a tie. All editors are required to respect the results of this vote and this discussion really shouldn't be brought up again anytime soon.

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy

I don't really see any other choice :/ Homestarmy 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
JGF Wilks 16:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Tex 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Harmil 19:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Seqsea 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
One Salient Oversight 02:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Brockman 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Kirbytime 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

T-rex 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
—Aiden 22:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Dalf | Talk 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
--CTSWyneken 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC) I don't like either, but at least this one doesn't suggest official endorsement by a denomination.
TMac 00:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
--drboisclair 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)I believe this title is more NPOV than the other.
CCMichalZ 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

End of Poll

The poll has concluded (yesterday actually), so I'm going to ask Bryan (the admin who locked the page moves) to move this for us, I trust that we will no longer need the page move lock anymore either. Now we just need to worry about getting the rest of these referenced (see below) --T-rex 01:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Woohookitty who locked it. I'll unlock it since it's been a whole month, but the poll above looked evenly split so it doesn't seem like a consensus has been developed. As such I won't move it myself, leaving it to others to stick their faces into this potential hornet's nest. Remember: there's no deadline for any of this. :) Bryan 02:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the influence that there is general argeement that the page would be moved to whichever of these two options got the most votes, as all the users who have been following this discussion from the begining have already voted, so I consider this to be decided. However, to avoid any potential problems I would like to reqest that the page move be done by somebody who voted against the selected title (note: this partcular move does not require admin abalities) --T-rex 04:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are several schools of thought on that. A generally accepted guideline of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia:Voting is evil, though, and that consensus can't be decided by a simple 50% + 1 majority. Unfortunately that doesn't say much about what is a good way to establish consensus. It could well be that moving the page is ultimately the right thing to do, feel free to give it a shot and perhaps those who oppose the move won't oppose it strongly enough to raise further objections. Just don't expect to be able to point to this poll and say "but it's settled!" if argument does continue afterward, is all I'm saying. I wish I had a better suggestion for resolving disputes like this, usually when I'm involved in a dispute that hits an impasse I just leave it alone for six months or so and come back to see if the situation's resolved itself in the interim. Bryan 04:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I think only a majority is needed here, as we have gone through a good number of votes to get this straigtned out. As Harmil keeps saying nobody is voteing for the current title. Unless one of the dissenting voters want's to move it, I'm going to put list it on page move requests --T-rex 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting, I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue. I've just chosen to not be the one who pushes the button. :) Bryan 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

T-rex, let's go for it and move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Harmil has beat me too it. I think its time to archive this discussin (again) and fix then go on to fixing the rest of the the citations --T-rex 03:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On endorsement by a denomination

I am surprised to see one of the voters above say that the 'prediction by Christians' title doesn't suggest endorsement by a denomination. Just glancing down the list, it appears that many of the predictions there did in fact have the endorsement of a denomination. I'm pretty sure, for example, that when Herbert W. Armstrong predicted a massive die-off of the population of the U.S. in 1975, it was endorsed by the Worldwide Church of God. Now that may not be a denomination like the Presbyterians, it may not be a denomination that you or I would join, it may not even be extant under its former structure, but it did endorse Armstrong's predictions.

So what escapes me here is, if many of these predictions were endorsed by a denomination, why would you deliberately try to pick a title that obscures that fact? I'd really like to know. Tex 15:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The title he voted for is "predictions by Christians" not "Christian prophecy." The differences between the two are pretty clear. —Aiden 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User Aiden...

Yes, exactly, that's what I said, 'predictions by Christians', see first line above. I am accepting the voter's description of the title.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. My question was not about the difference between the two titles.
It was, at the risk of being repetitious, about why the voter would want a title that conceals the obvious fact that many of these predictions were endorsed by a denomination (his words, not mine).
To put it another way, he said of his choice "at least this one doesn't suggest official endorsement by a denomination." That seems contrary to the fact that most of them really were endorsed by a denomination. Isn't that a disadvantage in a title, to be inconsistent with the contents of the article?
I'm just asking. Anyone, please weigh right in with an answer.

Tex 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually CTSWyneken says that he doesn't like either. Perhaps he likes the other one more for a different (umentiond) reason? (pure speculation) --T-rex 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have the word "Christian" at all in the statement. While I do not dispute that Wikipedia can and should accept anyone's definition of themselves, I do not enjoy being lumped with folk who oppose much of what I stand for and stand for much I oppose. But that's not the way things are going. "by Christians" is much preferable to Christian as an adjective.--CTSWyneken 03:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I liked the "By Christian" one more myself but it seems so many people went with the abstract title which I have no idea how can possibly become a good article :/. Homestarmy 14:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't choose on the basis of "by Christians" vs. "Christian" (I don't actually think there's a huge difference between the two). I chose on the basis of "historical prediction" vs. "prophecy". Somewhere along the line, we started voting on two different articles. —Seqsea (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just can't seem to shift the focus here away from the difference between the two candidate titles. I give up, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

Be sure to look at the article on Christian communism, though. I have no doubt you will want to change that to 'Communism by Christians', so you don't get "lumped with" a bunch of communists. Best, Tex 16:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is difficult for Christians to stand together as a united group. This title of Christian prophecy attempts to do that. No one denomination speaks for every other and to present that they do is misleading at best.

We are an odd lot; we profess belief in Jesus Christ, but we really prefer to think of our indivdiual denominations as the best and everyone else's as inferior or wrong. Thus, the conflict with the title. We have no problem accepting on the surface if someone calls themself a Christian, but are not ready to accept all of them as family and be tainted by the relationship. We rather prefer to reject them by doctrine. Its a quirk and it is unfortunate, but true none-the-less. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On the communism thing, as I understand it, the early apostles in Biblical times were technically practicing a form of communism, they shared things and pretty much didn't really own things, I don't see how it's negative heh. Homestarmy 13:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)