Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians


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

The result was Consensus is that no article should continue with this name - but the material may be useful. A "list of unfulfilled predictions by Christians" is as POV as "list of promises broken by Bush" - it self-selects only negative instances. I am leaving the history undeleted and redirecting this to Famous predictions - to allow people to merge it. Debate should continue on the talk page to generate a consensus either to complete the merge OR to recreate the article with a new name, or to merge it somewhere else (e.g. 'Christian prophecy' or 'historical predictions by Christians' etc.)-Docg 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is so blatantly POV that the whole article needs to go. StAnselm 11:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would we allow a page on "unfulfilled historical predictions by women"? "unfulfilled historical predictions by black people"? No, this categorisation demonstrates a bias against Christianity. StAnselm 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt the earth, problems with WP:NPOV, and verifiability. Madmedea 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, ridiculously POV. -- Phoenix  (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure where the NPOV claim occurs except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article even says "It should also be noted that the vast majority of Christians have never believed in these extra-Biblical prophecies.". Practically all of the information is extremely well sourced.  The only suggestion I'd have that this article could usefully be expanded to include other religions (List of unfulfilled religious prophecies?).    Eliminator JR  Talk  16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "This page attempts to list time-specific historical predictions ...". WP:OR anyone? Stammer 17:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment From WP:OR " Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked:" .. look at those sources!  Eliminator JR Talk  17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is actually "an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it [...] constitute[s] original research".Stammer 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What position is it attempting to synthesise (see WP:SYN)? All I see is a list of predictions, duly sourced.  The only possible synthesis that I could see is that all Christian predictions turn out to be untrue, a claim the article does not make.  It's similar to the nominators original reason for deletion; would we delete List of war crimes because it doesn't include every war crime ever, and is therefore biased against the countries that it does mention? Eliminator JR  Talk  13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since the original intention of the article was to function as a list, I would make it absolutely essential that the predictions mentioned are explained in more detail on linked articles. See the criteria I come up with below. --One Salient Oversight 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. StAnselm makes a good point, similar to my article renaming request. I have to side with delete due to WP:NPOV if a proper non-slandering title for this article cannot be found. It would be useful to have a record of failed predictions, but minus the slander please. "article could usefully be expanded to include other religions as 'List of unfulfilled religious prophecies'" would also be acceptable. JLMarais 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons I thought that failed predictions should have been deleted back whenever it was nominated. GassyGuy 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a good example of articles that are well sourced but are so POV that it distortes the orginal aim of Wikipedia.Knobbly 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. I created this article originally back in 2004. Check out one of my earlier versions. The original intention of the article was to have a list of failed prophecies made by those within the historical Christian church. These included Elizabeth Barton's failed prediction of the death of Henry VIII and David Berg's obsession with Comet Kohoutek in 1974. The idea was simply to be a list rather than a detailed explanation. Along the way a bunch of editors got together and decided to expand the definition to include "predictions", which is much less of a focus upon the supernatural as was my original intention. I tried to convince these editors otherwise but I lost the vote. I would much prefer to revert the article name and content back to what it was before the renaming. I think it is important to have a list of leaders within the Christian church who, for whatever reason, heard the "voice of God" about the future, then disseminated this message to the church, and was then shown to be unfulfilled. I don't think it is bias to have a record of these sorts of events. Moreover, if you think this article is WP:OR, then why isn't this article one? --One Salient Oversight 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Staying with the mentioned original intent seems acceptable. If so, no biblical prophecies should be mentioned and the article should clearly state that (something like it originally did) to prevent any from being added. The title should definitely be changed. It is slanderous as demonstrated above. JLMarais 08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. But the article as it stands does not suit the 'tone' of other articles already dedicated to this topic eg Predictions. If there are valid elements in the article then it should be broken up.  For example the section about Baptists put with the Baptist article.  Straight up predictions if they exist need to be put in the main predictions article alongside Islamic etc predictions. Knobbly 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was originally intended to be a list. It is not about how these predictions were made or whatever. It was just supposed to be a list. --One Salient Oversight 11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and prune. It isn't bias to show that some Christians have made prophecies that have not come true. This is a demonstrable fact. It's happened and it can be sourced and attributed. Prophecies (such as those made by various members of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other sects) can be extremely notable, and it makes sense to lump Christian prophecies together since Christianity is one of the main divisions of world religions. I don't see why an article based on One Salient Oversight's original article could be objected to by anyone. -- Charlene 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. But wouldn't it make more sense to put predictions from the Jehovah's Witnesses with the Jehovah Witnesses article?Knobbly 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - No it wouldn't. The article is a list, which means that it is summary. The Jehovah's Witness articles already have these failed predictions in them (or they did the last time I looked). Because it is a list, the details will be brief and readers can choose to read more in depth by clicking on the relevant links. --One Salient Oversight 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR (the article tries to create a new synthesis of published material); per WP:NPOV (its bias cannot be cured); and per common sense, because the article undiscriminately mixes all possible churches and sects, all possible ages and countries and is not possible to manage and define clearly. But merge the notable and sourced content where appropriate.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rename: "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" is an obvious POV title. It should be renamed to "Unfulfilled predictions (Christianity)" or "Unfulfilled religious predictions" with a section for Christianity. --Yancyfry 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What about Unfulfilled predictions with subcategories for race, gender and religion? Knobbly 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - regarding Christianity, we already have Millennialism and in my opinion, we do not need many POV forks but rather one well written article. Regarding other races / genders / religions, this either borders on nonsense or can be done with categories.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As the group of editors before discovered, the title of the article is notoriously hard to pin down. I think that whatever the title is, or what the article is about, it should somehow answer YES the following questions, and the criteria of entry must satisfy them:
 * Does the prediction or prophecy occur within the historical Christian church?
 * Is the prediction or prophecy based upon alleged supernatural revelation?
 * Is the prediction or prophecy not directly found in the Bible but sourced from a notable individual or group within the historical Christian church?
 * Did the prediction or prophecy fail to take place?
 * Is the prediction or prophecy explained in more detail on another page in Wikipedia?
 * --One Salient Oversight 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The questions cannot be answered because there is nothing like the historical Christian church. There are many churches, some of them historical (in the sense that they have a long tradition) and some rather recent. I think that this is one of the problems with this article - it supposes Christians as one body which is somehow responsible for "its" predictions like a political party for its government. But there is no such body and there was never one, except perhaps for the first ten years after the Good News started its spread through the ancient Roman world.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your argument is unhelpful Ioannes. We're looking at history here and the "Christian church" is a very broad definition that has been defined time and again. If we took your attitude to this then we'd have to modify or delete most of the Christian articles here on Wikipedia. --One Salient Oversight 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is well known to me that the "Christian church" has been defined time and again. The problem is that (almost) no two definitions are identical. The Roman Catholic definition excludes Jehovists and vice versa, for example. Even in the New Testament, the term ekklesia is used in at least three clearly different meanings. - I see that my arguments are unhelpful to you, but I fear that it has nothing to do with their quality.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ioannes, perhaps you need to argue this with WikiProject Christianity and see how far you can go. We're not talking here about personal opinions but historically agreed fact. I personally have a very narrow definition of what it means to be a Christian... one that essentially excludes the majority of "Christians". Despite this I am very supportive of a broad-based definition based on historical research. This broad definition allows the "mapping" of events and denominations over time. I suggest you also look at the Christianity infobox. If you're going to run with this argument of yours then I suggest you also remove the following categories from that infobox: Eastern Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Syriac Christianity, Eastern Catholic Churches, Western Christianity, Roman Catholic Church, Protestantism, Anabaptist, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Baptist, Methodism, Evangelicalism, Fundamentalist Christianity, Unitarianism, Liberal Christianity, Adventist, Pentecostalism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity Church. In fact, I also suggest that if you are going to remain true to your argument here that you also place afds on each of the articles I just linked to since, in your opinion, you can't define what Christian is. The Bottom Line - leave it to WikiProject Christianity to determine the details of what constitutes historical Christianity. --One Salient Oversight 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also suggest you put an afd on this: [[Image:Christianity major branches.svg|400px]]
 * Comment One Salient Oversight, you oversighted that we did not started this thread speaking about Christianity (which is somewhat defined, although not without distinctions and controversies), but about the historical Christian church, which does not exist and never existed. Read please your own original questions once again. Because there is no wikiproject "Unfair discussion tricks", I have no place where to send you, but I start to doubt, whether this is really only an oversight from your side.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment --- After a second thought --- Probably the misunderstanding is caused by the formulation; you should perhaps have written "a Christian church" instead of "the Christian church". OK, let it be, I'm going to start the article "Unsuccesful definitions by Australians".--Ioannes Pragensis 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Check this out: Documents of the Christian Church by Henry Bettenson. This historian calls it "The Christian Church". --One Salient Oversight 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - has Ioannes broken WP:NPA here? --One Salient Oversight 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I never denied that the term "The Christian Church" is often used, even in titles of books. But the problem, I repeat, is that the definitions are quite different and/or unclear. The term is more theological than historical, even if some Church historians use it. Take for example the book you cite: Because the author was a member of the Church of England, he included Luther's 95 Theses. An Orthodox historian would hardly do this in a book titled like this one because in his opinion, Luther was clearly outside of the Christian Church. On the other side, this book does not include citations of Book of Mormon, although some other scholars would say that The Church of Christ is a part of Christianinty. Do you understand the differences? - Regarding your question, I hope that a bit of humour is not a personal attack. By the way, you started to bite with my allegedly "unhelpful" argument.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Ioannes point, but ecumenism (see this also) is probably the problem. Some people try to keep the distinction between the true church and false churches. JLMarais 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I had problems with this early on in the article's life. However I will point out that it should be defined broadly within the historical Christian church. See my point above to Ioannes for more details. --One Salient Oversight 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians, the current article title is of course obviously ridiculous at present, but thanks to disastrous results in the last poll concerning its title, that was what the title ended up being. The article was never meant to just be "predictions" about anything, but only about prophecies, and notable ones to boot. I believe the predictions thing came up because it was somehow less offensive supposedly, rather than actually being a more accurate or appropriate title. The article lead already affirms that it is about prophecies anyway, but of course, the lead is much too long to be a title. Homestarmy 11:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The title is good Homey but I would now prefer List of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians because the article is not meant to be a discussion of the issue, but merely a recounting. --One Salient Oversight 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians is a step back since the word prophecy relates to the Bible. The title therefore implies even more that Christianity is associated with false prophecy. This is exactly the impression the title should not make. List Of Failed Predictions is ideal in terms of this concern. The fact that the coverage would then be lacking is, IMO, a minor concern that can be addressed over time. JLMarais 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I adisagree. "Predictions" could mean anything, like the Pope saying it could rain tomorrow, or the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that the Anglican church will split in ten years. "Prophecy" implies alleged divine communication. It is THAT which this article is focused on. --One Salient Oversight 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding your comment - The title therefore implies even more that Christianity is associated with false prophecy. This is exactly the impression the title should not make. The fact is that unfulfilled prophecy HAS occurred within Christianity and likely WILL keep occurring. We are not arguing about whether unfulfilled prophecy has occurred. But does the fact that is has occurred mean that a title saying that it has occurred make it somehow wrong? You could have an article about child abuse by American politicians but does that somehow negatively associate the two? And if so what would be an alternative? --One Salient Oversight 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The existence of History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians as a redirect link is also a problem. JLMarais 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The lead of the article is quite clear that the article does not deal with Prophecy in the Bible. To tell you the truth, I don't care much of it's "History of" or "Timeline of", list or article, I think either would work. Prophecy is not related only to the Bible, it can apply to any religion, and of course, in the Bible, there were many accounts of false prophecies, I see absolutly no valid reason to take offense here. (Well, except that it implies that a Christian could be a false prophet, but that's a problem of Wikipedia standards of who is and isn't a Christian, and I don't think that can be solved easily here) Oh, and on the Redirect, there was a small revert war over the article title, it caused several weird redirects to appear, sorry about that. Homestarmy 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep although I'd prefer to see this expanded (and renamed, obviously) to include predictions related to other religions. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - No no no. No other religions. Just those within the Christian church. The problem with the article as it stands was that it was not tightly defined. If you want a list of unfulfilled prophecies within Islam or Hinduism, then create separate ones for them. --One Salient Oversight 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune - I tried to tidy up the structure of this article last week, but may not have got it quite right. Unfortunately the boundary between a prophecy and a prediction is not clear.  However I would suggest removing prediction by American tele-evangelists about political events, as too ephemeral to mention; similarly older preachers who referred top something once.  On the other hand, where something has been consistently preached over a significnat period and then not happened, it is clearly notable and hecne encyclopaedic.  The question with a given event (prediction) should be whether it is notable.  The articel clearly has significnt notable content and so should remain.  If articles are desired on other religions, I would suggest these should be in differnet articles.  Peterkingiron 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the person or group is notable and has a Wikipedia article then they should be included, televangelist or not. --One Salient Oversight 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tidying it up would be good. SmaleDuffin 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep seems to have some notability. tidying up would be the best solution.--Sefringle 05:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Famous predictions -- Not all of the content here would survive the merge, but the notable predictions would be better suited there than in this article. The current article is leaning heavily towards POV as it currently stands. -- Kesh 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merging into Famous predictions seems like a good idea. I agree with the POV comment. JLMarais 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.