Talk:2011 end times prediction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Title suggestion

May 2011 judgement day prediction. I know that Camping also predicts the "end of the world" in October, but the high profile claim is the one for "judgement day" today. This is basically the only part of Camping's prediction anybody talks about, and the one that all the money has been spent to publicize. After nothing happens today, it's a good bet that nobody will care about the other prediction. Staecker (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the old drawing board

Well... its the big day (actually, in Kiribati it's already tomorrow... as I write it's 2:45 AM on the 22nd). No massive earthquakes or disasters are being reported. Looks like Mr. Camping needs to recalculate (again).

On a more practical note: At what point do we change the article to past tense (do we need to wait until nothing happens in California or Hawaii, or can we make the call now)? I would expect a lot of vandalism postings though out the day (as 6:00 PM comes and goes in various time zones with no major disasters)... changing the article to the past tense now (and noting up front that the prediction did not pan out) may alleviate some of that. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would wait until 6pm has passed in the US west coast. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we don't have a WP:DEADLINE. On a more philosophical note, I've always wondered how to handle past-tense if the sources are written in present tense. Does changing something to past tense violate WP:V or WP:OR? Or does it count as simple math exemption under WP:OR? Or am I being too anal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

6PM is claimed as approximate time. Therefore I would wait until 21st May ends all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.55.78 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, 6PM may be approximate... but, May 21st isn't... May 21st has already come and gone in a large part of the world, especially in Kiribati (which the prediction said would start things off with a massive earthquake... that earthquake did not occur). The prediction (or at least a significant part of it) has already been proven to be incorrect.

As for Quest's confusion over how to deal with tenses... we should leave any direct quotes in whatever tense they were written in, but things in Wikipedia's voice can be changed to past tense without violating V or OR. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is now the 22nd in part of the world, and the 21st is in the past. Wikipedia's voice could now use the past tense although I'm not convinced we wouldn't still see editors reverting it. I do worry about 3RR violations going on. So long as everyone is civil about it it's ok perhaps, but ... Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW... I don't mind waiting... I simply thought we could preempt a lot of grief if we did it now. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite 8:30 am in California, we probably have editors from there for hours. I don't really care either way. If you think it will be easier, let's do it now. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the past tense should wait until the 21st has expired in California (where Camping is) and Hawaii (pretty much lights-out for a given day). It's only 10 AM in California right now. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Australia

In Australia, it's currently 10:45 and everything seems normal. Everyone on all social connections are speaking of survival.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.75 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who were raptured wouldn't be around to say so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that if even one person had mysteriously vanished then it would have been all over the news. On the other hand - Australia. Orpheus (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

People go missing all the time. The question is whether there's an inordinate amount of missing persons reports filed today. Is there any truth to the notion that you have to wait 24 hours to file a missing persons report? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's right A Quest For Knowledge, it's Poe's Law. Munden (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See Missing person#Legal issues for an unsourced statement that the police urge missing person reports to be filed immediately if there is any suspicion about the disappearance. http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/11/17/met_483813.shtml appears a reasonable source that, at least in Augusta, Georgia, United States, missing person reports may be filed immediately. Perhaps I'll take care of that, later (if there is a later). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And the official word from Australia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to wait for missing person reports. If people were suddenly vanishing, then the witnesses would be talking to the media.--RaptorHunter (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've added the item to our List of common misconceptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, you actually believed that it was going to happen?... The world won't end on May 21, October 21, or December 21, 2012... In fact, it won't end for about another million years, nobody knows when it will end or "expire", so just stop believing this stuff and stop commiting self-suicide when you think it will happen. Personally, I used to believe the world to end on December 21, 2012. Please, just listen to me and some other smart people: The World WILL NOT End this or next year. -- SpongePappy (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(Sigh) Humor doesn't always translate well in talk page discussions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? -- SpongePappy (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. Ya know, the world could end immediately after I post this. Or it could be tomorrow. Or the next day. Or week. Or month. Or any particular eon. It's just as unscientific to say it won't happen on some particular day, as to say it will happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For the article reaction section

If you think there's room for it, this might be good in a new reaction section to the event not happing: TV scientist Professor Brian Cox tweeted: "I think we should all pretend the #rapture is happening so that when Harold Camping gets left behind later today he'll be livid."[1] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if that is IRL trolling or regular trolling, but it's from Twitter, so it shouldn't be included. Also, who is he? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is cute, though. I'd give this one credit if referenced in mainstream news media. We're not reporting on accuracy, here, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it could be included here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist) 189.78.208.38 (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting to include some "how people spent the day" examples (who spent the day praying in church, hiding in their basements, out partying in bars, etc.) in the reaction section.... However, we need to insist on reliable sources to support anything we added. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Multiple news sources have reported that Camping's deadline has expired without any noticeable events at 6 p.m New Zealand time on 21 May 2011."

What gets me is not only that it is mentioned but that someone thought it'd be ideal to add not 1, but 2 sources confirming it. The reader of the article is alive and well after the date and time has passed. Isn't that enough proof for you? Maybe you need a rule that says "Common sense is common sense, no need to cite it". Though I guess you have it but ignored it. --195.74.251.172 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Who is "you"? You mean the random editors who pop in and out of this talk page? Still 10:42 here mate (EDT). =p Though it is a most beautiful day here on my deck with all the birds chirping and barely a cloud in the sky. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(from California) Perfect earthquake weather.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We should not focus on "it didn't happen"... we should focus on the fact that the prediction was considered notable enough for the media to report that it didn't happen... with that in mind... here and here are two sources for "it didn't happen" reaction in NZ. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of prediction

I am not particularly familiar with the sources here, but something that should probably be added to the lead of this article, is when Camping made his prediction. Not the "end of the world" date, but the announcement date. Did he first announce it on his radio broadcast, or in print? Thanks, --Elonka 15:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not even that is being mentioned in the article, which is quite telling to be honest. Apparently nobody knows when he spouted his lies on his vanity radiostation. So it should either be removed for being incomplete and unproven, or be killed because it's made up by a raving lunatic suffering from delusions of grandeur. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is currently 5771 on the Hebrew calendar

How can he possibly use the Hebrew calendar for his theory when he claims the Earth is older than 5771 years old? 184.96.235.28 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see an RS examining his math more closely in an historical context. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also there is only 1656 years from Creation to the Flood. Actually read Genesis and do some math. I really do question Harold Camping's "engineering" and "numerological" abilities. 184.96.235.28 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, given the amount of coverage this is recieving, someone has surely checked his silly math. Best to find an RS for it. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL mathematicians, particularly those who have senior moments, and LOL the Hebrew calendar. It's been tweaked who knows how many times before it was finalized perhaps 1200-1500 years ago. And even then it could use a bit of tweaking. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I actually am somewhat qualified to talk on that subject. The relevant book, Genesis, was written down, at the earliest, in the 700s BC. So it would be the Hebrew Calendar as it was at that time, which screws up his math even more as no one would have recalculated the years in the 1.000 years after to the time the Pastor was talking about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard from a butterfly that the earth is 4,521,912,052 years old. Prove me wrong ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made up that number, but I reckon it's a lot closer to the earth's actual age than anything the biblical young earthers come up with. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but that is why no one takes the Young Earth hypothesis seriously. No RS has tackled that as it is so obvious. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So carbon-14 dating is all lies then or what? 146.50.227.64 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is getting really ignorant. I was never particularly worried that Camping was right; however, I have listened to his show for many years, mainly for purposes of entertainment. All the musings here have been addressed by Camping repeatedly as to how he arrived at the dates and his mathematical reasonings. Was he wrong? Sure. But to respond to some of the musings would require a great deal of reinventing the wheel. Harold Camping has been a fixture on international shortwave for decades, and much of the discussion here only serves as evidences of the poor and dying radio culture we have in our time. I really wonder, of all the people offering discussion on this topic, how many even heard of Harold Camping and Family Radio before the mainstream media decided to pick up on this matter a few days ago? I will grant you all, it was downright embarrassing to hear how an otherwise intelligent and well-read man like Camping could be so certain that he and he alone figured out the end of the world. Imagine how much more embarrassing it is to read so many statements above, which Camping (in the narrow context of his doctrine)could and did very easily reply to and totally crush many times over on the radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.191.128 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lol, on reading what I wrote again it sounds like I was saying stuff in support of that Young Earth rubbish (happens when up for 24 hours =p). What I meant was that no one takes the Young Earth hypothesis seriously as it is total rubbish. That is why no RS tackled that aspect as it is obvious that his age for the Earth is completely wrong. It would be interesting to see the criticisms leveled in this article by various people answered in another RS. As for C-14, nope it's all expensive (300 USD to date an olive pit! D=<). =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Some people take the Yong Earth hypothesis very seriously - it is easy to treat the religious as if they don't exist or should not be taken seriously, but to deny their existence is an error. (It is understandably difficult for those who are vested primarily in science to grok those invested foremost in faith.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is treated according to WP:FRINGE as it has been proven false through actual scientific method. I am religious btw, just not a sheep. =p My original points were about this guy's math based on the Bible etc. Has any RS really seriously taken him up on it in the context of the Hebrew calendar? One fellow stating that he managed to crush all such call-ins is not exactly satisfactory. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, Camping's replies to call-ins should not be satisfactory for our purposes here, but that was not my main point. I was only really commenting that it is clear that this discussion involves so many people with only a cursory familiarity with Camping who are merely reacting (however understandably) to the grossly improbable claim of one man of being able precisely to calculate the day of rapture and the end of the world - for no reason other than that the day was approaching (and has now come and gone)and that the mainstream media made a big deal of it. It was amusing until yesterday, but certainly the masses will be back into Spongebob or Beavis and Butthead or whatever else. On the one hand, we are looking for RS exposition and criticism of Camping's work, yet on the other hand in the discussion pages we get such sophomoric and unserious chit-chat.95.209.181.85 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Web Of Trust and the External Links

I happened to notice that most of the external links show up as red or yellow for Web of Trust, the security addon for web browsers. I'm curious as to whether the sites are an official threat to computer safety, a threat to persons of gullible nature, or if it's the work of trolls. --24.15.248.79 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have that add-on installed. Seems to be the work of trolls. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind filling the rest of us in on this so we know what to look for? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, WoT assigns a rating to something based on its Trustworthiness, Vendor Reliability, Privacy, and Child Safety, as determined by the users of the program based on their experience with a website. This picture should explain why I was a tad concerned. http://oi52.tinypic.com/15g5wts.jpg (Changed link to make it easier to see the picture) --24.15.248.79 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Must be the work of some skilled trolls if they managed to influence the system. Either that or the dudes who made it are trolling. If the latter is true, my reaction is: Lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Only 30 mins to go (for Britain) 'till we all shout "BULLSHIT!" Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an exciting time that's for sure. If he's correct, then a lot of people will have gone if he's not, so be it and there'll probibly be a BBC source saying so. Then again maybe God will do it all at once at 6pm US time. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

US Time? We do have more than six timezones last I checked.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, The C of E. *starts ranting like an arrogant litte brat* Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Only 5 mins left to go 'till we all say "BULLSHIT!"! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

6PM, he's wrong. Not time for the rapture yet. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Web of Trust community often rates controversial sites in such a way. The bad ratings in this case is not related to the computer security, but mostly to the following: Phishing or other scams, Ethical issues, Hateful or questionable content, Spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0101 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. WoT also has marked sites for the RIAA and MPAA as unsafe.68.117.7.179 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Page view statistics

Page View Statistics won't load - either for the article or the talk page. I think Wikipedia has blown a fuse or something over this article. The main article had gone from 20,000 to 80,000 to 200,000 as of yesterday; I wonder if it will go over a million? I was also curious about this talk page, probably (today) the most active article talk page I have ever seen. If anyone is able to get the stats please post. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now it's loading! 450,000 for the main article, 1,200 for the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

so far. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for the future of the artilcle

Thinking about the future of this article: I think the article will need a fairly complete rewrite over the next few weeks... it's more than just a need to change tenses; we will need to reassess how much weight to give various bits of information. Things that are very important to mention in an article about a prediction of future events may be less important to mention in an article about a prediction that did not come true (and things that were of less importance may now be fairly significant.)

As part of that re-write, I would suggest changing the current May 21 developments section to "Media anticipation and reaction"... this will give us a place to discuss the brief media frenzy about the prediction as a complete phenominon... allowing us to discuss as a unit both the "Prediction says world to end on Saurday" reports that came out during this last week, and the "Prediction was wrong... the world did not end" reports of today/tomorrow.

No sense in doing this now... it is obvious that people want to be able to add "It didn't happen here either" type comments as 6:00 comes and goes around the world, and the current section gives them a place to do this. We can clean it up later, when people's attention moves on to other things. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well at the moment it looks like (apart from 2 minor Earthquakes in the Pacific) the news will be remarkably similar as 6PM spreads round the world. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for heavens sake, forget the two earthquakes. Not relevant to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Many people throughout history have predicted the end of the world. Several of them would have articles in Wikipedia. To point out that they were wrong is pointless, a bit like saying "the sky is blue". The reason this article will continue to exist is because of what some see as the fuss surrounding the prediction. Like all the other historical predictions, only a relative handful of nutcases believed it. I can remember other predictions from my youth (1960s, 1970s) that achieved high enough prominence for me to hear about them in rural Australia, even though they came from other countries. I'm wondering what makes this one more notable in the longer term. WP:RECENTISM is obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I question the use of "rapturefail.org" as a source

The first line under "May 21 developments" is sourced (ref # 52) to a POV, non-neutral site called rapturefail.org. While the information being reported is certainly true, IMO that doesn't justify the use of a source like this to verify it. If anyone else agrees, please delete the sentence or replace the reference with a Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... let's focus on mainstream media. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Two small earthquakes"

I deleted the reference to "two small earthquakes" since earthquakes around the Pacific Rim are an everyday occurrence and have nothing to do with Camping's prediction of a massive earthquake bigger than the Japan quake. C of E restored the reference but I don't understand his/her reasoning, "I'm not sure, it at least shows something happening whether or not it's related". I don't want to get in an edit war over this; what do the rest of you think? The line is still in the article under "May 21 developments" but I don't understand why it is there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that it is saying at least something happened rather than just a list of New Zealand - nothing, Australia - nothing, UK - nothing etc. you do have the fact that something related did happen, even if it was on a smaller scale than Camping predicted. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)

I think it's fine either way. I have a slight preference to retain it, because I didn't know that small earthquakes are a regular occurrence in the Pacific, so I learned something. In fact, this might be the only truly educational statement in the entire article! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As it is sourced from a newspaper, and not simply the USGS website, i say we retain it. if we were just pointing to the website and saying "look, only 2 earthquakes" that would make US reporters, which we are not. I had mentioned these earthquakes earlier, to alert people to the possibility of reportage around them.(of course, the newsreporter could have read this talk page, gotten the idea to look up the 2 earthquakes from my comment! but, since it was not part of the article, thats not a violation of WP policy. this page is like the "show your work" section of a chemistry or physics problem.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm not sure that US reporters read British newspapers. If they do pick it up, it will without doubt probibly be due to this on Wikipedia.

On Edit: Oh, misread that. us not US as in USA. Oh well. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine no earthquakes would be weirder than 2 small ones. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that the report of the two minor earthquakes are from the same source (Daily Telegraph) as the comment about Twitter that follows. I have combined. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmong and CPPA

I deleted a portion of the Hmong section that was sourced to a press release of the "Center for Public Policy Analysis", and obscure group that I can find no substantive information on. I have since noticed that the bulk of the previous portion of the paragraph was sourced to "Scoop", but that was really just Scoop aggregating a Center for Public Policy Analysis press release... and the third source in the paragraph was another site using a Center for Public Policy Analysis press release as its source. It looks to me like that whole last paragraph should be deleted for sourcing problems. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted that paragraph once already, but it was restored. It is POV, not sourced to Reliable Sources, and not very related to the current topic. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting

Is it worth noting that a volcano erupted in Iceland? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43121772/ns/world_news-europe/ 72.27.182.19 (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source connects it in some way to Camping's predictions. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And none does that I know of. The USGS Earthquake List doesn't even list anything out of Iceland. Ken S. (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's funny because someone above claimed USGS to be reliable source. Now it ignores earthquake. It's not important for this article, but could be for many others--89.173.20.32 (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please revert this

I have reverted this twice already and don't want to do it a third time. Somebody named User:Woolgins keeps inserting (three times now) a claim that Camping has posted that he was "just pulling our chain" and "the joke's on us." I will go warn him, but somebody please get this thing out of here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I warned him about vandalism and WP:3RR. If he does it again, please report him; I will be offline. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. See WP:NOT3RR. But if they continue, someone who's familiar with how to fill out 3RR reports or vandalism reports should do so. I'm honestly surprised the article has lasted all day without being protected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the site at http://judgementday2011.com/ has been vandalized. --Essaykid (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a matter of "vandalism" - that looks to be an exploitation site, not Camping's site. Camping's site is http://familyradio.com/ -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The site keeps going down, but when it was up, I didn't see anything that said he was joking (assuming it's even a legit site). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The quote is on a different page.[2] Judging from the About page, this site is not affiliated with Camping. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiousity...

Is there any information on the suicides/suicide attempts that have occurred as a result of Camping's prediction? One would assume there would be a few who probably did sadly do something like this... BekahTheAngel (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the news... no such reports as of yet. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's this from Kenya which the journalist seems keen to tie to Camping's prediction. Doesn't look like there's any real evidence for it, though. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I found a reference to a suicide following his earlier prediction. There have been attempts to add a reference to an attempted murder/suicide in the L.A. area a couple months back, but that reference, while saying that the perpetrator feared the coming Tribulation, makes no specific link to the May 21 date or the Camping prediction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Added to note: here is article noting suicide around the 1994 prediction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved to May 21 developments section and proper reference given to the fact that it is not known who made the edit to Campings official website. Wooglins (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Camping's official site is familyradio site, not the site you list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

May 21 developments section - pointless

I removed the May 21 developments section from the article, and it was immediately restored with the Edit summary "This section has been discussed a lot on the talk page and should not be arbitrarily removed without consensus".

Well, this Talk page is now massive, and I cannot see a section with a relevant heading, so here is a discussion on the matter.

My Edit summary when I removed the section was "Removed section which could be summarised as "Nothing happened". It's equivalent to one saying "The sky is blue"". That pretty much says it all. We don't include obvious content in articles. Nothing happened. Every living human being knows that. Pretty sure that even my dog knows it. There are many references in Wikipedia to other predictions of the end of the world. None have a detailed description of how nothing happened. We don't have a piece about how nothing happened at the time of Camping's 1994 prediciton.

Think long term here. The section WILL inevitably be removed eventually, because, well, we all KNOW that nothing happened. Let's get rid of it now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A volcanic eruption is nothing, then? The event is news, it should be left alone until all the information is gathered, following which the information should be filtered for relevant data. --24.15.248.79 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTHING is relevant. Camping was wrong! There is nothing to wait for. To suggest that the volcanic eruption is connected with his prediction is fringe rubbish and non-encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I liked the bit about earthquakes per my comment here.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hilo48 is right, in the Eastern Seaboard of the US it is already May 22nd and nothing has happened. Camping is just another one of those deluded religious zealots. 24.60.143.195 (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. No-one has a sensible opposition to my position. (one volcanic eruption where they're common anyway? No way.) I invited the original reverter to comment. No response. That section IS pointless. I will delete it.

I was the one who reverted your earlier deletion, pointing to the discussion about it above. I've been Away From Keyboard or I would have responded. Basically, the gist of that discussion was that the section should be kept JUST FOR TODAY because it was an evolving story and a lot of people wanted to chime in on it - and then it should be replaced with a much briefer section about the media hype before, during and after May 21. Since May 21 is within a few hours of being over now, it is OK for it to be deleted. However, per discussion some of the references will be restored to a new section similar to what Blueboar suggested, "Media anticipation and reaction". The point is not that "nothing happened". The point is the media commentary on the prediction, the reporting of the ongoing story on May 21, and the reporting on the fact that the prediction did not come true. Let's be careful, in discussing it, to avoid loaded terms like "failed" and "false", and stick to neutral terminology like "did not happen." --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this is not "Eastern US" wikipedia and prediction wasn't specific about Eastern US, but applies worldwide. That's why we still have 3 hours until we can claim theory as failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.20.32 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency re 1994 predictions

I can't edit this because it's protected for unregistered users.

From the intro: "Camping had previously predicted that the Rapture would occur in September 1994 and has yet to comment on how the rapture did not occur."

From later in the article: "In Camping's book 1994?, self-published in 1992, he predicted that the End Times would come in September 1994 (variously reported as September 4[18] or September 6[25]). When the Rapture failed to occur on the appointed day, Camping said he had made a mathematical error.[26]"

The bold text from the intro should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.43.156 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bold text from the intro refers to the 2011 Rapture prediction. Martyleehi (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

May21st Developments

This part of the article is I feel is completely pointless, shall we list ever single occurrence that happened today. For every single time zone? There was a thunderstorm exactly at 5:59 eastern standard time here in north NJ. My RS would be the weather channel. Can any one else see the flaws? I say delete it now and only add events that happened specifically because of this prediction... which so far is nothing. this section will become "on this day in history" deserving its own place in WIki articles but certainly not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny how as soon as i had said this someone beat me to the punch in about a minuet feel free to remove my earlier section or paste it where it belongs as i do not quite no how to do so and had the only intention of pointing out the obviious problems i saw.. good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that under the 'Skeptical responses' section it states that " ... since the Rapture failed to come as predicted, the money will fund a camp that teaches children about critical thinking.[50] The group American Atheists sponsored billboards in several American cities declaring the Rapture to be "nonsense", and held a party during the period of the predicted rapture.[35" considering it's not quite 6p PST there (at the time of this writing) yet. Also, that the last page modification shows as "22 May 2011 at 00:33". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.141.52 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 6PM where Harold Camping lives

184.96.235.28 (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, bro! SonicMasterEX (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The websites are all down.

Hmm. 184.96.235.28 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sysadmins and IT people have been raptured. The Jedi faith was the true path all along. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's the middle of the freaking night and they are probably in bed, deal with it. 24.60.143.195 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

familyradio.com is up, still showing "00 days left". I'm waiting to see if it changes to -1 at midnight PDT, which is when it normally updates. Harold Camping is apparently in hiding, or at least not saying anything publicly. --John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So what happens next? Disconfirmed Expectancy

I'd like to draw people's attention to the phenomena of Disconfirmed Expectancy published in the book - When Prophecy Fails - by social scientists Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter. Festinger et al. infiltrated a doomsday UFO cult (reminiscent of Heaven's Gate) led by Dorothy Martin (Sister Thedra) and observed the cult survive a predicted dooms day on December 21, 1954. Followers either lost faith and left the group or they developed cognitive dissonance, they developed a belief that their devotion and prayer postponed the end of the world. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thing is though, nothing happens next. Camping was wrong, and the World didn't end on Dec, 21 '54 not because the Disconfirmed Expectancy prayed it wouldn't, it was because it was simply not going to happen. although the Rapture may come, it won't for a VERY long time. 24.60.143.195 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Number 5

I noticed in his calculations that the number five was listed as the number of perfection/completion within the bible. Personally, I've always believed it was the number seven. That said, would it be fair to write a non-bias critique of his prophecy? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original critiques (see WP:NOTESSAY) - but I hope you find a good place for it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I mis-stated my question, though I think you understood the intent, somewhat. I guess what I'm talking about is that there's a lot of skeptics out. People who didn't believe in this prophecy. Would it be fair to have an overview of this aspect someplace in the article? I know you can't have a lopsided view, or original work on the page. I do believe this is an interesting section though... the social aspect of it that is.... -Poodle of Doom (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The article now has a link to the numerology article, but that article could easily be expanded, and an article on biblical numerology could be written (that phrase redirects to numerology). If that ever gets done (and it would be a lot of work, esp. all the non-internet research), a link could be made and curious readers could see how close or distant from "traditional" christian or biblical numerology Camping's work lies.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll be able to pump something out after all.. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Prediction Outcome

We need to add the seisemic activity that did occur on the day: - Earthquake & volcano in Iceland began at 6pm on May 21st, as confirmed by the Iceland Meteorological Society: http://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/2011/nr/2174

Furthermore, there were 9 earthquakes recorded by the USGS that were over 5.0. Although not the most ever, it was more than any other day during that week.

Magnitude: 5.8 2011/05/21 22:06:27 35.592 140.728 34.5 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

Magnitude 5.0 2011/05/21 21:37:11 -5.821 129.406 255.0 BANDA SEA

Magnitude 5.8 2011/05/21 21:17:01 -30.775 -178.133 19.8 KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND

Magnitude 5.0 2011/05/21 16:30:31 31.259 -41.003 9.9 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE

Magnitude 5.3 2011/05/21 13:08:06 17.257 121.755 45.1 LUZON, PHILIPPINES

Magnitude 5.0 2011/05/21 09:53:55 -7.265 147.003 42.6 EASTERN NEW GUINEA REG, PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Magnitude 5.2 2011/05/21 08:33:21 65.369 -166.891 19.2 NORTHERN ALASKA

Magnitude 5.1 2011/05/21 00:41:37 -55.997 -27.195 40.7 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION

Magnitude 5.9 2011/05/21 00:16:27 -56.066 -27.165 64.8 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION

--Lskil09 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I did put up a source that mentions there were 2 earthquakes in the Pacific yesterday but for some reason, it's been removed along with the developments section. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To add any earthquakes to this article would require a RELIABLE source attributing them explicitly to the prediction. Speculation is not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I did included a source from the Daily Telegraph. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And did that source attribute the earthquake to the prediction? HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to mention every single bit of seismic activity in highly seismically active regions of the world just because Camping predicted earthquakes? If you recall, his prediction was that we would see rolling earthquakes around the world that would make the recent 9.0 in Japan look like a "Sunday school picnic". There were six earthquakes in the area on Thursday, and two over 6.0 on the 15th. None of these earthquakes conform to Camping's predictions, and if you look back over the past month, there were several comparable minor-to-moderate-strength quakes in the Pacific Rim (a highly earthquake-prone region, mind) nearly every single day.

Also note that Camping predicted rolling earthquakes worldwide, not just in the Pacific Rim. He only predicted that it would start there.

Possibly worth mentioning is that the volcanic eruption in Iceland is a minor event from Iceland's most active volcano and did not even disrupt air travel. Pw33n (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...sure. I think it's fair to list the Icelandic one, even just in association with the prediction. It's the biggest volcano to erupt for 12 months & without debating whether it was circumstantial or not, this does make it significant. (Note: I don't believe Harold predicted it myself!) --Lskil09 (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to write an article about it, but it doesn't belong here because, as you say yourself, it has nothing to do with Camping's prediction. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The question would be whether today's seismic activity is significantly different from the average day's activitiy. It's a good bet that some source somewhere has already researched that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no point listing quakes below 6.0, or quakes on other days than the 21st, or events Camping didn't mention (like volcanoes). -- 202.124.74.234 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure there is, at least in general terms. If this was a statistically significant day for earthquakes, or not, that fact could be notable. If a valid source has already done such a comparison. It's not up to wikipedians to do that comparison. That's OR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

9 earthquakes between 5 and 6, with none over over 6, is not a statistically significant day for earthquakes; you will not find a RS saying it is. And events unrelated to Camping's predictions, like volcanoes or hurricanes, don't belong here. -- 202.124.74.234 (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily looking for a source that says it's significant, but one that says it's not significant (assuming it's actually not significant). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You won't get any scientists making such an obvious statement either. However, Camping claimed quakes bigger than the 9.0 in Japan; the USGS list indicates that prediction failed with a large margin (none over 6.0). -- 202.124.74.234 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Trends

In 2011 end times prediction#Impact, it says "the search term "end of the world may 21st" reached second position on Google Trends, based on the popularity of the search term in the United States." Do we have Google Trends statistics for other parts of the world? - it would be interesting to see if this is a US (and Hmong in Vietnam) only phenomenon. Astronaut (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the same in the UK. How odd. - Another n00b (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Text on About Page

I'm a little confused, and haven't seen it discussed here, but "Oh, and if you believe me about all this… joke is on you. I don’t actually believe any of this, but sure have had some fun pulling your chain." is on http://judgementday2011.com/about/, and a quick search shows it been there for a while, is it not worth mentioning? I've seen it in the article already, but it read like it was a recent addition, it was removed anyway, but it just seems like something notable. Can't find any third-party sources mention it as part of a report on the prediction though. 78.33.189.121 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this website in another thread (above). Mr. Camping's website is familyradio.com. Judgementday2011.com is not Mr. Camping's website... it is written by someone trying to capitalize on Camping's prediction (by selling tee-shirts for example). The quoted text was not written by Mr. Camping. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And as would be seen as the FamilyRadio site, they don't even spell Judgement with two e's; they use "judgment". --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I did suspect this, but I think it was listed as a reference at one point, so I didn't question it. Thanks for the clarification. 78.33.189.121 (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Failed

So why do we keep this page? Why was it written at all? This man wasn't even signifigant within Mainstream Christianity - period. I've never heard of him prior, and prominent Evangelical thinkers refuted him weeks in advance of the "deadline". Should I predict something next - or maybe you would like to? Major clean-up needed. My suggestion: lets devote a page to "Failed Doomsday Phrophecies" (or something like that) and include the hundreds of people (from any religion) who try to move God's time table. Camping included. At least then it creates a seperate article for these fools, consolidates the information and is historical.

We keep it because this particular prophesy (and its failure) made a big splash in the papers and TV news, and is thus considered to be notable (as defined in our WP:Notability guideline). We have articles on all sorts of crackpot theories and fringe beliefs... so long as they are notable. (see WP:FRINGE for guidance on how we make this determination). Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If the editor wants, he can find the extant Wikipedia articles List of predicted dates of the end of the world (we do not separate out the failed ones there) and Unfulfilled religious predictions. However, those, like many things in wikipedia, link to articles on items of WP:NOTABILITY. The very claim that prominent Evangelical thinkers were arguing against his claims speak to its notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean that it's not WP:NOTABLE or important from an historical point of view. For example, the Great Disappointment, an end of world prediction in the 19th century, is taught in history classes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

jesus impersonator

a young man by the name of Owen Johnson was walking around Louisville, Kentucky yesterday claiming to be jesus christ incarnate, and saying that he "shall bring upon us all the rapture of god", and that "no one was destined to be saved." i discussed it with him and he said that humans are naturally immoral and evil beings, and that no human is worth saving in the eyes of god. He also said that Jesus Chris did not originally come to earth and proceed down to hell in an attempt to save humans' souls, but that he simply lost the lease on his appartment in heaven and had to relocate for several days while he acquired a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.45.20.32 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Two issues... 1) is there a reliable source for this? (ie something published, as opposed to your personal observation... if not, we can not include it) 2) does that source state a direct connection between Mr. Johnson and the Camping prediction. (If not, then Mr. Johnson is irrelevant within the context of this article). But thanks for sharing. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a pun to prove a point.... -Poodle of Doom (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits?

Some poor souls invested their life savings in billboards and such. If there has been any significant coverage in the media about those folks suing for fraud, or some deal like that, that could be worth a mention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Googling [harold camping lawsuit] brings up a number of sites, but they don't appear to be appropriate for the article, at least not yet. Talking about a lawsuit is not the same as filing one. But it's something to maybe watch for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Most courts are closed on Sunday... so it is unlikely that anyone has had a chance to file a lawsuit. It may happen, but not yet. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Was anybody "forced" to give up their money? Harold Camping never said that he guarantees it but that the Bible guarantees it. 184.96.235.28 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

True... but then no one is "forced" to smoke a cigarette either, and lots of people (successfully) sue the tobacco companies when they get lung cancer. I suspect that there will be a few lawsuits filed... whether they are successful or not will be decided in court. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

One article I read says that he sold everything he had and spent the money on his campaign. So unless he stashed some of it in the Cayman Islands, he's broke and disgraced at this point, i.e. probably "lawsuit-proof" from a practical standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Selling college funds

Under the information campaign section the article provides a quote from a non-believer mentioning that there are "kids out there whose parents spent their college savings funds, who sold their homes." I'm not sure it's appropriate to have this quote in there as it gives the impression that these things are actually happening, while there haven't been any actual reports of it. It could be mere speculation on the interviewee's part. I feel that this quote should be removed. —Entropy (T/C) 19:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"kids out there whose parents spent their college savings funds, who sold their homes."

LOL!! - Another n00b (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable concern; while we do have reliable source on folks spending their life savings, we don't on specifically college funds and homes. I will delete, but if RS is found that echoes these, we could restore. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be a worth-wile inclusion, because it's so hilarious. - Another n00b (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a report, but it's just one family, the Haddad family. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@NatGertler, that sounds fair. @Dougweller, where is the report? Is it from a reputable source? If we do have reports of things like this happening, they should be included; however, I think they should be included as a cited statement rather than an anecdote from a news article. —Entropy (T/C) 21:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Image request

Would someone please get a clean photo of one of Family Radio's billboards before they go away? Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added {{Image requested}} to this talkpage. « ₣M₣ » 19:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "clean"? There's already one in the "Information campaign" section (albeit in Spanish) - or are you more specifically asking for one in English? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a photo that I can upload, but not sure what license applies? I took a photo of the billboard, but technically doesn't the copyright on the billboard still belong to Family Radio? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know a lot about copyright law but I do reckon that if their offices are empty and their boss has disappeared then they'll be very hard to get hold of and even if you get hold of someone, I doubt they'll grant free licence for a poster which now makes them look a bit foolish. Maybe you could try and use it under fair use? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Does a publicly-displayed signboard fall under the "freedom of panorama" rule? If not, then I don't think there's any issue. Upload it as "PD-self". Or follow the lead of pictures in the billboard article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Title

Is this title appropriate. Phenomenon seems a bit strong here. While the billboard campaign and reach of the Family Radio network has reached North and Central America, Africa and limited parts of Asia, the audience subscribing to these beliefs is still relatively small. Dont get me wrong, the topic is notable and needs to be covered here but the word "phenomenon" is treading into areas of neutrality.--RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Both strong and non-descriptive; there will be many phenomena in and surrounding 2011. "2011 rapture prediction"? (Or "...forecast"?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree you were right for changing the article name. I couldn't quite think of what to call it but I knew it needed changing. Thanks for this. Justmeagain83 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's start here: How would you identify this phenomenon to someone who had never heard of it? You would not say "Have you heard about the 2011 end times prediction?", as it is not widely known by that name. You would say "Have you heard about Family Radio's end times prediction?", or "Have you heard about Harold Camping's end times prediction.". Since these concepts are so tightly intertwined, I think this whole article would be better off as a section of Family Radio.

I propose to replace this article with a redirect to either Harold Camping or Family Radio, with subsections on "Project Jonah" and "Societal Impact" (if any should be noteworthy). Silence is consent. Phildonnia (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so you don't feel ignored, I fully agree, and would push for the Harold Camping redirect. While the Family Radio article is quite clear, the name itself could sound like a station or network in any country with a "nice" theme. Camping is unique. No doubts about what he is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should either be a redirect or simply be merged with the articles on either Harold Camping or Family Radio. I don't think the prediction is prevalent enough beyond Camping's own narrow base of followers to merit its own article, yet the title of the article (which doesn't mention Camping or Family Radio) makes it out to seem like a phenomena which exists apart from his followers--which isn't true. If a large number of other churches, religions, or organizations outside of just Family Radio start predicting the rapture in May 2011 then perhaps an article about the general idea of apocalyptic predictions in 2011 would be merited, but as of this moment Camping/Family Radio are the only people making such claims. Also, the article itself gives no new information that is not already covered in the other two pages, so there's really no reason for it to exist separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.40.127 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a title like "The Rapture Prediction (2011)" as this more clearly states the nature of the article, and allows (should someone feel like it) for variants for other years (past and future) to be created in a similar format. Lucanos (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, what are most of the RSs calling it? Best to go by the common name. The current one doesn't seem very good atm. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any sign that a consistent name -- a "Troopergate" (or, more appropriately, a "Great Disappointment") has arisen for this topic, alas. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Add to impact: Deaths and suicides

114.76.215.35 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I suggest adding deaths related to this prediction. Example:

Cops: Woman Tries to Kill Children, Self to Avoid 'the Tribulation'

No one has put forth a source tying that months-old event to this prediction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Suicide of a middle aged man at the Holy Family Basilica in Nairobi, Kenya, news paper is linking it to Harold Camping: Man found dead in church on ‘doomsday’. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper does not say that the suicide was actually linked to the Camping prediction ("The man’s identity, age or reasons for taking his own life could not be immediately established.") So it's hard to see the relevancy. Certainly, plenty of people died today, and some committed suicide... which is true every day, sadly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Rapture would not involve death or suicide, it would involve people going missing, on some large and observable scale. I expect if 3 percent of the world's population suddenly disappeared, a pattern would begin to emerge. Unless our memory of them would be erased. However, everyone remembers this Camping guy, and he is said to have disappeared (or may have merely go on a Camping trip). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that comment was in relation to possible suicides among Camping's disappointed followers. I hope it doesn't go that far, obviously, but some reaction is likely. -- 202.124.74.234 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

One news report said that some true believers had cashed in their life savings and such. The question is, where did that money go? To Camping? Or to various and sundry charities? Or family members? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Advertising agencies for billboards and what-not. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotions on the familyradio website

I think this is irrelevant. Discuss? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's relevant because the site was simultaneously "guaranteeing" that the rapture would occur on 21 May but offering promotions that lasted until 28 May and continuing to ask dupes for their money. It gives an indication of Camping's state of mind and lack of consistency, which I think is very relevant in the context of the sort of things he predicts. Frankly I can't see why it SHOULDN'T be there, except to gloss over Camping's odd behaviour. It's RS, not OR. FergusM1970 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No inconsistency... Let's assume that Camping's prediction had come true... 3% get carried up to heaven in the "rapture"... Presumably at least some of the people who work for him are not in that 3%... they are sinful enough that they would not be carried into heaven. These sinners would continue to need funds to survive (at least until October). So, continuing to soliciting donations could be interpreted as a charitable act to help those "left behind". Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to place the 28 May and 21 May dates for contrast is WP:SYNTH if you don't find a WP:RS doing so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It could also be interpreted as an act of utter cynicism. In any case, what goes into the article shouldn't be determined by what interpretations people put on it. The fact is that Camping was predicting the rapture of all believing christians yesterday while continuing to offer materials that are only of interest to believing christians. I think that is significant enough to be in the article. As for WP:SYNTH it isn't combining multiple sources: the source for both the rapture prediction and the continued activity is Family Radio's website. FergusM1970 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's really not an inconsistency. If the rapture had occurred, a lot of people who weren't raptured because they weren't believers before the rapture would become believers after the rapture due to witnessing a bunch of people floating away to heaven, and would want some literature to help them at least understand what the heck was going on. And I think the text you're trying to add is WP:SYNTH, because you're taking a date range on one page of the web site, comparing it to a date on a different page of the web site, and coming up with the conclusion on your own that the contrast in the dates is significant. Red Act (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

People wouldn't be "floating away". It would be their souls floating away, and living humans wouldn't be able to view these souls floating away, unless they can see the dead.Captain Marshalls (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just going to be a matter of souls going to heaven. There are transformed bodies involved, not just body-less souls. Camping says "believers receive their eternally alive resurrected bodies"[4] and "This earthquake will be so powerful it will throw open all graves. The remains of the all the believers who have ever lived will be instantly transformed into glorified spiritual bodies to be forever with God."[5] Souls may well be invisible, but if regular bodies were getting transformed into spiritual, resurrected bodies, instead of just invisible souls leaving their bodies behind, that if nothing else would certainly have been noticeable as being something weird going on. Red Act (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Although, amusingly, all updating activity on Family Radio's site seems to have ceased, as they are presumably crushed by the immense weight of their embarrassing stupidity. FergusM1970 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"what goes into the article shouldn't be determined by what interpretations people put on it" ... that's my point. You want to mentioning this because you interpret it as as being an indication that he did not actually believe his own prediction. The only reason to mention it is to highlight your personal POV that it was all a deliberate scam. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That he didn't believe his own prediction is certainly one conclusion that can be drawn, although by no means the only one. I do think the fact that Camping was continuing to solicit donations when he allegedly believed that he was going to beamed up is notable enough to include. After all the article goes into a lot of detail about how Camping promoted the prediction, and I think the fact that he was simultaneously looking beyond it is a useful part of the picture. FergusM1970 (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"when he allegedly believed that he was going to beamed up" - hmmm... that raises another issue: did Camping ever actually say that he was guaranteed to be among those "beamed up"?

But that too is actually irrelevant... The point is, mentioning this strongly implies a conclusion... and that violates both NPOV and NOR. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did. The Daily Telegraph quotes him as saying “It is absolutely going to happen. There is no way that I can schedule an interview because I won’t be here.” I would argue that NOT including information violates NPOV by suppressing the fact that Camping apparently expected his activities to continue after 21 May. Facts should not be excluded just because they imply a conclusion: that's often the nature of facts, after all.FergusM1970 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

An expectation that Camping personally wouldn't be doing anything on Earth after May 21 is quite different from an expectation that the organization he left behind wouldn't be doing anything after that date, unless you can find a reliable source that says that Family Radio had a hiring policy that limited their potential employees to just that 3% of the population that Camping believed would be raptured. Red Act (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't find a source for the claim that he was saying that all believing Christians would rise; I have found other descriptors that indicate contrary beliefs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Title

I am aware that the title has been discussed several times, but I don't think the current wording is a good choice. "2011 end times prediction" implies that this is THE one and only, and certainly the only noteworthy, end times prediction made in or for the year 2011.

In the first place, it probably isn't the only one. I am sure there are a number of minor gurus and self-appointed prophets out there that are making predictions of some sort.

In the second place, this wording gives much more significance to this prediction that it has deserved. O.k., so this is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of its own, but we shouldn't be overdoing it. In great parts of worldwide Christianity, this guy and his prediction is either completely unknown, or, if known, considered to be anything from completely irrelevant to ridiculous, or possibly slightly dangerous (by what he is doing to his followers).

In my opinion, it would be o.k. to have an article "2011 end times predictions" (plural) listing all notable predictions of this sort. Or, if there are currently no other predictions worthwhile being mentioned and listed in Wikipedia, this one should at least have a specification like "2011 Harold Camping end times prediction". --Anna (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, is there another notable prediction that the end times would come this year? If not, we can probably leave it as is. If there is, and we do need to disambiguate, then I would suggest a consistent format of "2011 end times prediction (Name of predictor)" ... so this article would become "2011 end times prediction (Harold Camping)". Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that sounds better than my suggestion.

My point was, though, that it does not really matter if there is another prediction that is notable enough to justify an article of its own. Certainly there are predictions of that sort, however insignificant.

The point is that calling this article "2011 end times prediction" makes it sound like an absolute statement: This is THE one and only prediction. Who can say that for sure? --Anna (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We have many articles where there could possibly be another thing described by the same name; there is likely other people out there named, say, Hillary Clinton. We deal with it by allowing the name to be used, and if another gets notable, then finding a way to disambiguate between them. We also make clear in the opening sentence which we are talking about. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested merge 2

• Support suggested merge with 2011 end times prediction aftermath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.21 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support suggested merge (i.e., redirect) of 2011 end times prediction aftermath into this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support redirect, doesn't look like there's much to merge. Qrsdogg (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete it's an unnecessary content fork and there's not info in the article that isn't already covered in the main article. Delusion23 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support redirect Changing to Delete, now that I have taken a second look at the article, it is just a cut and paste of what is already here. Unlikely to be a search term. Send to AfD. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - there's nothing to "merge", as the material there is just cut and pasted from here, not in proper manner. And there's no need for a redirect, as that is not a likely search term, nor have there been substantial links to that page. Aftermath should be covered on this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Aftermath? Sorry but Camping closing curtains of his house is not an aftermath. Gnanapiti (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a trash copy of information here that belongs here, and it's an unlikely search term. Red Act (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete the "aftermath" article per above. If there is any aftermath beyond Camping saying he's flabbergasted, it can be covered in the main article; in the unlikely event there is ongoing aftermath enough to make that too big, a fork can be considered then. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

With zero votes to keep that article alive and separate, I'm calling WP:SNOWBALL; I've marked it for WP:SPEEDY as an article which recreates an existing topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction - requested edit

The Reaction section has the phrase "A group of Christians in Milpitas, California offered a session to comfort those who had believed in the prophecy. Church deacon James Bynum told a local newspaper that 'We are here because we care about these people. It's easy to mock them. But you can go kick puppies, too. But why?'"

This is in fact a reaction by other Christians and should have a separate subsection. -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually trivia and shouldn't be in the article at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but as it stands it's deceptive, suggesting this group of Christians were Camping believers. However, this group is at least as notable as the other groups who turned up at the Family Radio site -- given that they turned up first, and appeared in the background of most TV coverage. -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

After may 21 section

Hey, I came here today morning to know about what happens with all the people involved in this prediction, and I was glad to saw the section "After May 21, 2011". Now I came again to see if you guys updated that, and you deleted the hole section and blocked the freakin page!! Please, the information about what happens after may 21 is SO RELEVANT, please, don't leave this article without that section. It's probably the most interesting part about all this event.

Please, put the section again! People are intrested in that information! (yes, I know I can google it, but you guys recopilate the events so well and with so good sources that I hope you include the section). --Lautaro.mss (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, all the aftermath information is listed under the section Reaction. —Entropy (T/C) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What is Harold Camping saying today?

Does anyone have a clue what Camping's response was/ is in regards to his failed prophecy? Where is he, and has he released any kind of statement? What are his followers saying about the failed prediction? 76.6.29.5 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

An article that I read a little while ago said that he's still been silent. I'd guess that there won't be anything from them until at the very least a couple hours after 6PM Pacific Time, possible even until tomorrow. Since, you know, it's not 6:00 there yet, so the rapture still hasn't failed for *them* yet. The Kytan Apprentice (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any discussion of the police getting into Camping's house. Disappearing after such a disaster makes me wonder if he and his wife haven't harmed themselves. Carlo (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. Camping appeared from his house briefly on Sunday night. He said he would make a statement on Monday. This is already documented in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Now the silly old man is stating the Rapture will occur on October 21st. Although if he has predicted the date of the Rapture twice and he has been wrong twice, why should anyone expect he is correct this time? 66.59.49.88 (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Rationale" section

In light of the fact that we now know Camping's calculations were inaccurate... should we continue go into such detail on how he calculated his prediction? It's a matter of due weight (ie determining what is important to mention as we shift this article to a more historical perspective). Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we keep that - it gives a picture of what it was that convinced people, of the sort of logic that informs this. In this case, the picture of the cause is still much smaller than the picture of the effects. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't mean we should completely remove the section... just rewrite it with less detail. I also think we should reassess the details in other sections as well. Essentially, I think this could be a much smaller article, rewritten with a historical perspective rather than a "current events" perspective. But perhaps it is still too soon to make such changes. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave it for future reference. Personally, I've always enjoyed a thurogh read of an explination. In 5 years, when no one remembers this, and there's that one person who stumbles accross this page, they'll say "What was his reason?" And the only thing there will be a neutered version of it. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume *noone* will remember this. Family Radio has been on the air since 1958 and is very familiar to shortwave radio listeners around the world. I agree, however, that his reasons should be made available via an external link to his book "We Are Almost There" which is online and in the public domain.95.209.50.120 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do keep it and keep it in detail. I find it important and interesting to read what it actually was about and where it came from. It is hard to find in such a condensed yet informative way elsewhere. It enables people to retrace the train of thoughts without having to read the REALLY lenghty publications of Camping himself (and then have a good laugh) 139.18.183.181 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The first entry in this section makes an interesting point, and is one I have made many times over. So many people talking about Camping today are only doing so because the mainstream media has decided that now would be a good time to tell the world of his Judgment Day predictions and they otherwise would have never heard of him. While Camping does not represent mainstream Christian thought by any means, he is an extremely well known phenomenon among radio listeners worldwide (especially among the shortwave radio culture). Family Radio broadcasts in forty languages and can be heard all around the world. What is central to Camping's Bible reflection is not merely the end-of-the-world stuff that the sensation-hungry mainstream media for the vulgar masses has decided to focus on, but rather his very painstaking work in coming up with an entire chronology for all the events in Bible. That in itself is controversial enough. He claimed that the Bible gives mathematical clues as to the exact dates of Creation, the Flood, the Crucificion and Resurrection and, yes, Judgment Day that he thought would be 21 May 2011 and the final end of the world, which he still holds to be 21 October 2011. A Wikipedia article of his outlandish claims should probably cover his entire chonology and put his entire method into question, and not just focus on one small aspect of his chronology because the mainstream media has decided all of sudden that we should give a damn about Camping for the next few days before it decides on the next piece of sensationalism we all need to care about. Far be it from me to come to Camping's defense, not at all. I thought he was way out there to start, but at least I know about him and can see the current news story in a fuller context. I don't know why a bunch of mainstream news-junkies feel qualified to offer opinions on the matter when they admit they only know what the vulgar media tells them. You don't find me offing opinions on football or sit-coms or other things of which I know nothing. At least I would like to see a link to the publication "We Are Almost There" by Harold Camping that is offered for free download for everyone. (Family Radio has remade its webpage. It may be harder to find it now, but it is public domain so it should be up somewhere.)95.209.50.120 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Earthquakes

I think there should be some sort of reference to the seismic activity of the day, however insignificant a simple sentence of " There were no sizable earthquakes to constitute anything related to his "prophecy" etc etc.. With perhaps a link to the seismic activity that actually occurred. A main part of the prediction involved earthquakes no ? --HighallTimes (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No. We don't need to keep finding ways of saying "nothing happened, he was wrong". It's quite obvious to everyone. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:2011_end_times_prediction#Prediction Outcome, this is already being discussed here. Camping predicted that earthquakes greater than the one in Japan would be measured, and none were, so it's not worth mentioning. —Entropy (T/C) 21:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that nothing happened as is everyone else, that however was not my point. Someone coming here who knows nothing about any of this says to themselves The man predicted earth quakes .. were there any? The whole prediction is talking about earth quakes the seismic activity of the day isnt mentioned here once. What we DO need to find is what did happen that day. There were earthquakes none noticable to mention .. That within itself needs to stated. nothing more.--HighallTimes (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Earthquakes of the magnitudes that occurred on May 22, 2011 were no more significant than those that occur daily. Should normal daily phenomena really be included? Camping predicted worldwide seismic activity tied to local time-zones, and no such seismic activity occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.190.147.118 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned. It seems silly to report on what didn't happen. —Entropy (T/C) 05:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to mention irrelevant earthquakes, as their is seismic activity somewhere every day. If notable reliable sources mentioned specific earthquakes within the context of their coverage of the Camping prediction, it may be worth briefly citing such sources. If this is done, such sources should be clearly attributed, with an indication that those quakes were not atypical. (I.e. the only relevance of the quakes is that they were mentioned in notable coverage (if any) of the prediction, not that they were actually predicted.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, again my only concern was that in say 20 years someone who has heard of this prediction asks themselves "Well what did happen that day? Earthquakes? How big? Its safe to assume they can read an "on this day in history" But no link to that page even mentioned in passing within the article will continue to baffle me. Whatever Works.--HighallTimes (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Camping to make another announcement on Monday.

"Harold Camping to Speak Monday on Failed Prediction": [6]. Tune in tomorrow, if you care. --John Nagle (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, everybody loves a train wreck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

One news source has a video of him refusing an interview on Sunday.[7]. The Family Radio web site has a complete overhaul as of this morning. All visible mention of May 21st has disappeared. "Family Radio News" now has a 2008 date. It looks like a partial revert to some older version of the site. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hollywood Gossip notes this: "Camping's Family Radio, which airs on 66 U.S. stations, has apparently rebranded itself quickly. The station's website has scrubbed all mentions of the Judgment Day, and its countdown clock to the May 21 rapture is obviously gone." [8] Still no announcement from Camping. --John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Family Radio website as it appeared yesterday is still viewable at [9]. —Entropy (T/C) 20:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

[10] He indeed makes a flabbergasted impression. 139.18.183.181 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Apocalypse rescheduled for October 21. [11]. "In a 90-minute speech, broadcast online and on his stations, Mr. Camping, 89, said his company, a nonprofit, would not return money donated by followers to publicize the May 21 prediction. “We’re not at the end,” he said. “Why would we return it?”" --John Nagle (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead conflicts with cited source

The lead says "On Family Radio's Open Forum program on May 23, Camping stated that May 21 was a 'spiritual' day of judgment", but the cited source says "Rather than give his normal daily broadcast on Monday, Mr. Camping made a special statement before the press at the Oakland headquarters of the media empire that has broadcast his message." -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The cited source was incorrect; he broadcast his program with the press in attendance and took questions afterward.[12] --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible misrepresentation of "judgement day" timing by sources

I listened to the broadcast of May 23, and I believe the news articles incorrectly represented Camping's statements. This article says "He now claims Judgment Day will come October 21, 2011", attributing it to the AP. However, I believe Camping's position was that a spiritual judgement day did occur on May 21, and that it was the rapture, not judgement, that was rescheduled for October. (The archive of the broadcast should be available at familyradio.com in a few days, so I can double-check) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phildonnia (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified this in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Different View on Camping's Predictions

Perhaps in the past, Camping had a scholarly interest in creating end-time predictions. Recent predictions appear to follow a trend of proposed rapture-date followed by a destruction date which, if rapture date is not fulfilled, the destruction date becomes the new rapture date.

This is more like a charlatan than biblical scholar, given that monies collected (tax exempt) to publicize the rapture date just passed will not be returned to donors, and new fundraising opportunities (and publicity) arise with the new rapture date. A new, different view on Camping and his predictions is needed, in my opinion.Nora22 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this article is not the place to put forth original opinion or to draw conclusions. Rather, it's a place to aggregate reliably sourced material. If we get a reliable secondary source saying that that opinion has been formed about him - i.e., if you say "Nat Gertler's a cool dude and deserves some cupcakes", that isn't enough weight to include that in an article, but if Time Magazine says "The most recent Gallup Poll finds that most people believe Nat Gertler to be cool and deserving of cupcakes", or even if Newsweek says "Nora22 recognized Nat's coolness and sees him as an appropriate recipient of cupcakes", then that could be a basis for inclusion of opinion. However, by providing clear, specific, sourced data, we can create an informed reader who is able to draw their own conclusions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The words "fraud" and "scam" are starting to show up in news reports.[13][14] --John Nagle (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced those two citations are "news reports"; they read more like columns or blog-type material. A quick news search did not turn up Reliable Sources saying "hoax" or "fraud". --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Does not surprise me... that was definitely a scam by Nat Gertler to obtain cupcakes. Oh... you mean... never mind. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I did no such... oh wait, Nat, yes, shame on him *hides cupcakes*. If the RSs are starting to characterise it as a scam or fraud, then we should put something in about them claiming it is such. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)