Talk:Blood moon prophecy

Chapter and verse?
Could the Chapter and Verse in which it is stated that it is impossible for people to predict the Second Coming be added to the end of the lead? Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - added to body & lead. Good suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem of bloat
This article on a very minor bit of nonsense, has been bloated by numerous references to sources which are neither reliable nor independent of the proponent of the nonsense. Much of this has been added by one user: ThaddeusB. It is important, when dealing with articles describing incorrect ideas and popular but foolish notions, to avoid giving undue credence to proponents. A brief description of the idea can be sourced to the proponents, but large chunks of this article are either WP:OR or uncritically repeating credulous sources, which is a substantial problem per WP:FRINGE. This is not about Christian versus non-Christian sources: very few Christians believe this nonsense either! It's about excessive reliance on uncritical sources. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, a user of your experience should understand and respect WP:BRD.
 * Now, as to substance, you have a strange idea of what is an unreliable source if you truly believe everything removed was sourced to an unreliable source. For example, you removed references to Washington Post, USA Today, and Fox News.  Second, the sources which would not be reliable in many case (e.g. Answers in Genesis) are not "proponents" of the idea, but rather Christian critiques of the idea.  Being a reliable source is all about context.
 * As to the use of "uncritical" sources, those would not be Christian ones, but rather the popular media sources. I.E., those normally defined as reliable. Again, being reliable is about context.
 * As to Original Research, there is none. Everything is sourced to outside sources.
 * Instead of removing two thirds of the content and edit warring to keep it removed, why don't you try discussing what content exactly you think is inappropriate. Simply saying there is too much text because the idea is "foolish" is not a valid argument.  There is no provision of WP:FRINGE that addresses the length of stand alone articles on fringe subjects.  Instead, it (properly) talks about showing the idea is not widely accepted.  That is exactly what covering Christian critiques of the idea does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will add that it is quite possible that some specific content should be changed/better sourced. I am not unreasonable, but you need to explain your reasoning on specific points so I can respond to/address the concerns.  Simply saying it is a foolish idea (which I agree with) is not an argument to make this a shorter article.  2012 phenomenon, a featured article on a foolish idea, is quite long.  Treating a fringe subject properly (in a stand-alone article) is all about balance, not length. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. You added it, I reverted it, now we discuss. The WP:ONUS is always on the user seeking to include disputed content. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The content has always been in the article. ONUS does not give you unlimited authority to remove whatever you want form any article. Your assertion that the sourcing is inadequate is disputed and you are acting inappropriately by forcing your interpretation instead of discussing.  It is this kind of bullshit "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that chases away valuable contributors.  There is a reason we have BRD and you should respect it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From BRD "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." There is a legitimate dispute here over the application of various polices.  The fact that you insist your version, not the version prior to the dispute, must stay while we discuss is disturbing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When you say the content has always been in the article, perhaps you are forgetting that you yourself started the article at 01:11 on April 7, 2014 - so the onus is on you to justify your content. Leaving the article in the state it was in before the disputed edits, well, I can do that: I can delete it and then we'll be where we were before your WP:BOLD addition. I don't think that's what you want. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you just proved my point for me. Just as ONUS doesn't give you authority to unilaterally delete the article, it doesn't give you unilateral authority to remove content and insist it stay out.  What is and is not included in an article is a matter of editorial judgment.  When such judgements disagree, the default is most recent version of the article before the dispute - people who want to exclude something do not get an automatic upper hand as you assert (except for unsourced material, which is what ONUS is actually about).   There is nothing that says your interpretation of policy is correct and mine is wrong.  Please respect proper dispute resolution, including BRD.  Your attitude of "I say so, so it must be" is not conducive to collaborative editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Specific examples
As far as I can tell no reliable sources were removed. Unreliable / non-independent sources to be avoided include lamblion.com and Answers in Genesis. Neither of those can establish the significance or validity of any of the claims made.
 * Both of those sources are critical of the idea, and certainly are independent.  The popularity of those sources among Christians establishes their opinion as notable.  The detailed research (with citations) of the Lamb & Lion article establishes it as reliable.--ThaddeusB (talk)
 * You certainly also removed many citations to sources outside those two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also you introduced factual inaccuracies by equating Biltz's idea that the eclipse is a sign of the end times and Hagee's idea that it is a sign of "something significant", but definitely not the end times. An inaccuracy I carefully documented via a footnote, no less, that you simply removed in your misguided belief that less text=better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

1

 * The Blood Moon Prophecy has quickly gained attention on the Internet after Biltz first proposed it in 2008, and gained mainstream media attention as the April 15, 2014 lunar eclipse approached. Despite the attention, few Christians believe the prophecy. It has been criticized by both mainstream Christian sources and secular astronomy blogs. Skeptics point out that tetrads that correspond with Jewish feasts are not as rare as Hagee and Biltz imply, that the eclipses will not be visible in Israel, and that Bible verses such as Matthew 24:36 state that no one knows when the Second Coming will occur and that it will be preceded by a seven year period of intense disaster.

This paragraph is entirely ujnsourced and an in-universe presentation.
 * Wrong that paragraph is part of the lead, a summary of the body of the article. It is not unsourced. It is a summary of the information sourced below. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You think. As an independent observer, I disagree. Disputed material not clearly sourced to reliable independent sources, goes. That's the rule. Quickly gained attention? My last blog quickly gained attention - a hundred people read it in the first hour. Skeptics point out that Matt 24:36 says no-one knows when the second coming will happen? Which skeptics? Most of the skeptics I know laugh out loud and move on when they see this kind of crank claim, they don't even bother rebutting it! Guy (Help!) 22:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what ONUS is actually about - not the unlimited authority to remove anything you don't like. However it is also long standing policy that leads which only summarize the body of the article do not need separate citations.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

2

 * In John Hagee's book, Four Blood Moons: Something is about to change, he argues that the timing of the eclipse and subsequent eclipse in the tetrad (all coinciding with Passover and Sukkot) and the "rarity" of a tetrad is strong evidence a major change of course in history will occur. Both Hagee and Biltz note that the last three tetrads to coincide with Passover and Sukkot roughly corresponded with important events in Jewish history: the 1493–94 tetrad roughly aligns with the 1492 expulsion of the Jews from Spain and discovery of the New World; the 1949–50 event roughly corresponds with the re-establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the ensuing 1948 Arab-Israeli War; and the 1967–68 tetrad started right before the Six Day War. The tetrad is thus seen a "sign" of things to come. Overall, there have been 62 tetrads since the first century AD, eight of which have coincided with the feasts of Passover and Sukkot.

Note the "LambLion" reference, which is not independent (and an awful lot of cites went to this). The (reliable) IBT reference was left in my edit.
 * It certainly is independent. Lamb & Lion has nothing to with Biltz or Hagee.  I don't know why you assume it does. Note also it is highly critical of his ideas, not even a proponent, let alone a non-independent one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lamb and Lion Ministries is a minor sect promoting an imminent Second Coming. It is not properly independent of the claims (as both advocate an early Second Coming) and it sure as hell is not a reliable source. Whether they agree or disagree is irrelevant: they have no obvious authoritative position from which to comment, it's basically $RANDOMWEBSITE. Remember, you're dealing here with the fringe of the fringe, you need solid sources firmly rooted in a much wider context, not individual disputants in the never-ending argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because both are too caught up in their own particular vision of how many, whereas the real answer is "angels are mythical, who cares?". Guy (Help!) 22:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

3

 * Around 2008, Biltz began teaching that the Second Coming of Jesus would occur in the fall of 2015. He supposedly had "discovered" an astronomical pattern that predicted the next tetrad would coincide with the end times. Thanks in part to Biltz YouTube videos, the idea was quickly picked up by internet blogs, becoming an overnight sensation. He originally wrote that the seven-year Tribulation period would start in the Fall of 2008. When the prediction failed, he pulled the article from his website, but continued to teach on the "significance" of the tetrad.
 * In 2013, Hagee published Four Blood Moons, accelerating the momentum of Biltz's idea. In October, he appeared on Fox News to promote his book and ideas. In 2014, Biltz published his own book, Blood Moons: Decoding the Imminent Heavenly Signs. A third book, Blood Moons Rising: Bible Prophecy, Israel, and the Four Blood Moons, was published by pastor Mark Hitchcock, but attracted minimal attention. On April 15, 2014, Hagee hosted a special event on the Global Evangelism Television channel promoting his ideas.

Non-independent references (LambLion), reliable source for trivial event of no provable importance mentioned within a larger article.
 * Again, Lamb & Lion is independent. The other sources (Fox News, Washington Times) establish the importance of something by covering it.  I should note that this is (was) part of the "history" section.  Hagee promoting his idea is a notable part of the history of his idea if RS say it is.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, it is a minor fringe withing a fringe, along with the loons who promote the blood moon "prophecy". And it has no authority. It's not a WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

4


Popular apologetic website Answers in Genesis wrote a piece on Biltz's ideas. Author Danny R. Faulkner said it was possible that God would use an eclipse as a sign. However, he concluded there was no reason to believe this eclipse was one. He argues that eclipses and tetrads are not as rare as Blitz implies, and that a "sign" not visible in Jerusalem is very unlikely to be a sign. Like McClure and Byrd, Falkner notes that one sixth of all lunar eclipses occur on Passover or Sukkot and also notes that one twelfth of all solar eclipses coincide with Nisan 1. He says that the total solar eclipse of 2015 will be seen by virtually no one, as it passes through few inhabited areas, and that the partial solar eclipse will barely be perceptible. He says "just knowing that somewhere some sort of solar eclipses are happening seems to fall far short of being specific and spectacular signs of end times" and concludes "the timing of the eclipses that Biltz draws attention to, while interesting, falls far short" of apocalyptic signs.

WP:PEACOCK term for WP:FRINGE website, the rather bizarre nature of "if it's not visible from Jerusalem then it's not a sign" exemplifies the navel-gazing nature of this kind of analysis - it may be appropriate on Conservapedia, but not here.


 * The popularity of the source, qualifies it as a valid source for Christian opinion. No one is saying their analysis is correct, just that it is worth mentioning.  Also, who says the idea is bizarre? (Earth & Sky pointed out likewise.) Your opinion (or mine) of the critique certainly is not relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That said, the ideas presented can be sourced to others, e.g. . That would be acceptable to me, but removing the meat of the critique just allows the fringe idea to go largely unchallenged, which is also a violation of WP:FRINGE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No,. it really doesn't, because AiG does not promote a majority Christian viewpoint, it promotes primarily fundamentalist Biblical literalism, which is as far as I can tell not just a minority but a small minority of Christian opinion. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

5
So, we have basically original research, unreliable sourcing and trivia plucked from reliable sources, used to give undue weight to a fringe theory even among the already fringe believers in Biblical catastrophe prophecies.

And that's why it's a problem and why it needs to be discussed and reworked or discarded, not edit-warred back in. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to explain why you think something is "original research, unreliable sourcing and trivia plucked from reliable sources" not just say it is.
 * As to weight is a very bizarre idea that listing critiques of a fringe idea something gives undo weight to the idea. Again, a longer article does not mean more weight is given.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And again, you removed the "trivia" of what Hagee actually believes, which was sourced to completely reliable sources, and replaced it with the factual inaccuracy that his idea is the same Blitz's. (The removed text wasn't mentioned by you as an example above.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you have to explain how it's not original research, per WP:ONUS. It reads to me as a synthesis form published sources. Any disputed text must be sourced form reliable independent sources or it stays out. You know this. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple proposal
If I agree to rewrite the article to only use newspapers and such - sources normally considered completely reliable - will you agree not to simply revert my edits, but instead discuss any points of dispute? Answers in Genesis and Lamb & Lion seem to be your primary concern, and I don't care about using those sources specifically. However, I am concerned you will simply revert and insist your version is best no matter what as you have ignored most of my points (those which do not concern those sources specifically) and you have given a strong impression that what you really want is a short article based on some mistaken notion of WEIGHT. So I don't want to waste my time...

May I use L&L for a few points of basic history (e.g. the Blitz began teaching in 2008) that aren't readily available in recent news reports? I would hope this would be acceptable/better than such info being completely unsourced (as it is now) or to primary sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal
I've looked at WP:MOSCAPS, and it looks like this article should be Blood moon prophecy, not Blood Moon Prophecy. Any objections to moving it? Some policy I may have missed?--~TPW 11:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Heyzeuss (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cached Biltz article
This Wikipedia article stated, even before this 2015 tetrad, that Biltz's prophecy had failed. Does anybody have a link to the cached Biltz article? I was also wondering exactly what he incorrectly predicted would happen even before the tetrad. Heyzeuss (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to actually read anything or watch anything from Mark Blitz about this? I recently watched and read several of his teachings prior to the 2015 date mentioned here and he specifically states he was not making a specific claim about what would happen or exactly when, only that important events are linked to the lunar events throughout history. While I don't agree with Mr.Blitz on a great many things, it seems there are some unjust claims against him here. I'm wondering if the same is true for Mr. Hagee in this article. This whole article seems jaded towards some apparent hatred for Blitz and Hagee and needs a few articles with a more positive tone towards their intentions to be fair and balanced. It seems the editors of this article are all one sided. Maybe add some actual links to articles FROM Mr. Blitz or Mr. Hagee, not just people or organizations that seek to destroy them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.39.64 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protect the page
keeps changing the article. Can someone protect the page from vandilism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.7.119 (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Present vs. past tense
There is no need to correct the wording here. Unless the sources say that the theory's major proponents no longer endorse it since the tetrad is now over, the article should maintain present tense. Just because the tetrad has concluded does not mean it's not something they still believe - for all we know, they're going to find some reason to continue to believe it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, even if their opinion is now a bunch of BS they WILL still believe it. 118.209.254.90 (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Tetrad and jewish holidays
The text mentions Book of Joel, Acts 2:20, and Revelation 6:12, however, this idea about a tetrad, is it mentioned in the bible? Maybe it must be a pentad or sixtad or something. Is it mentioned that the blood moons will occur on jewish holidays? All I am saying that it seems to me that there is plenty of room for interpretation here. Vmelkon (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)