Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/End Times

End Times

 * Article is still a featured article.

This article looks as if it has been restricted to just a few sets of viewpoints. It seems highly POV. CheeseDreams 20:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The article is reasonably explicit about the viewpoints it is supposed to be about: the adventist, dispensationalist, and Jehovah's Witness beliefs that various current events indicate an imminent apocalypse. Can somebody be more specific about what viewpoints are supposed to be neglected?  Smerdis of Tlön 12:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Just because the article makes clear what its purpose is, doesn't mean that the article is NPOV. "End times" is clearly an end-of-the-world concept, but I see nothing here about non-Christian ends of the world, like the Norse Ragnarok. Are there similar concepts in Chinese, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Maori, or other cultures? One would not know from this article. The phrase "end times" may be, in English, most associated with Christianity (maybe even just U.S. fundamentalism), but can anyone say this authoritatively enough to justify the complete absence of any other scenarios? I think that's the issue here. Certainly the current article is robust enough to deserve to be a separate article, but perhaps it should be titled "End times in Christian fundamentalism" and be referenced in a more general overall article. &mdash; Jeff Q 20:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. The article also focuses so heavily on the three viewpoints it wants to dicuss that it ignores the fact that all Christians that believe in the bible believe in this concept to some extent simply by Revelations being a book of the bible.  Support removal. There is little chance this can be rectified quickly. - Taxman 01:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Object to removal from Featured Article status. To remove this article from Featured Article status merely because the Ragnarok and Die Götterdämmerung stories are not included is ridiculous. This page is already too big!  What is this? A witch hunt? :))  All you have to do is rename the page to End times (superstition) or End times (christian) which ever would score more points in your witch hunt. :)) No need to try to remove the names of the week from the dictionary just because the names of the week are named for God.  She, it, they will not hurt you.  You are letting your superstitious fears show in the sweat of your brow as you look furiously for some way to remove from Wikipedia pages what you fear.  :((  This page is in no way POV defective in covering what it covers.  ---Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think its my fault this is here. I had absolutely no problems with the neglection of Norse stories after realising that the correct term was eschatology ("End Times" being used to refer to this is now seems to me as Anglic insensitivity). My problem was that it seemed to be quite jumbled and full of bickering on cross-denominational differences. On closer look it seems a bit better than I thought, but I still don't think it is up to Feature Article status.--ZayZayEM 02:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoa, Rednblu! Where did all that conspiracy theory stuff come from? You responded as if someone suggested that we murder someone. No one is suggesting that this article be deleted. The question is whether it should be a featured article, which is what this page, Featured article removal candidates, is about. According to Featured articles, this rare status is reserved for "Wikipedia articles we think are particularly well-written and complete". It may be very well written, but it's clearly not complete, unless the phrase "end times" is expected to represent only the eschatology covered in the current article. To use (or perhaps abuse) your own analogy about days of the week, one would not expect an article titled Days of the week to include only Sunday and Monday. One might hope to find detailed information on these days (including origins, connections to religion, interesting cultural connections, etc.) under appropriately titled articles, but one would expect Days of the week to include all seven in the calendar currently in greatest use around the globe. (Even these qualifications might reasonably lead to further discussion.) Wikipedia has a place for all information on properly-presented topics, and a thorough discussion of any and all Christian "end times" beliefs is completely appropriate. But it should go under a title that doesn't assume it is the be-all and end-all on the subject, which is no doubt what triggered the POV complaint. That's all I was saying. Taxman is quite right that the issues here are not likely to be fixed quickly. Just renaming it would leave a gap where an overall article should be, and it takes time and to create a solid encompassing article. Therefore, End times should be removed from featured status until these issues are resolved, at which time it may very well be featured again. Don't have a cow, dude. &mdash; Jeff Q 05:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using my analogy quite well. :) This is an article only about weeks, so there is no reason to expect that it would also include explanations about time periods generally.  No need to remove from Featured Article status a Featured Article quality article about weeks just because there is a missing article on time periods generally! This is how I read Filiocht's comment below.  What you are implying is that there should be a disambiguation page Time period (disambiguation) which should contain links to weeks and months.  So in this case there should be an End times (disambiguation) page that would link to this page renamed End times (Christian) and also having links to Ragnarok and Die Götterdämmerung.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, what's difference between end times and end of the world? I think it's the same. Are they explaining Biblical terms? Rantaro 06:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral - can we define its scope closely enough that it is comprehensive in its limited field? (Incidentally, I added a link to Ragnarok, but someone correctly changed that to eschatology; the article also refers to Christian eschatology, which is more general than the article and more specific than eschatology.)  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. Doesn't need to include things it is clearly not about. Filiocht 11:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. The term "End Times" is pretty closely connected to these particular opinions and I don't see any need to turn it into an article that is so long that it can't be featured for that reason (which it would be if it tried to cover all of eschatology). As ALoan says, all that is needed is to define the article's scope and link to the parallel articles representing other traditions about the end of the world. Mpolo 13:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Now oppose removal. Much improved. Neutral, close to remove. The new explanation header is helpful, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the article has no references and the lead section is way to long and not all that well written. - Taxman 18:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree. Everyone seems to be going crazy about Ragnarok, what the point was with nominating it here was that it is simply not up to scratch for feature Article status. - I am now voting to REMOVE--ZayZayEM 02:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This begins an attempt to retrospectively impose new FA standards on old articles. Refs were not required at the time this was featured, and much less stress was placed on lead sections. Filiocht 08:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * All FA's should meet the same basic standards. If they don't, they should be removed.  If not that, then what is the point of this page?  This gives the page's author's a chance to improve the article to stay featured; if not it goes.  At least one article was improved enough after listing here to stay featured. - Taxman 13:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have added a references/further reading section to the article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you. But can you split the ones that were actually used to write or fact check the article into the proper references section, and put the ones that weren't as further reading? That's more valuable and correct policy also.  Also can you have a go at reducing the lead section?  I don't think I could do it without badly hacking it up. - Taxman 16:44, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's getting hard to count the stars. AAR, I divided that section into references, Bible commentaries, and further reading, and added some more recent works to the further reading section.  Smerdis of Tlön 20:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good work. - Taxman 13:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the phrase "end times" does not appear in those words, not in the KJV Bible anyways. "End times" refers to a belief system that interprets Christian apocalyptic texts to support a claim that  the Rapture and the Second Coming are imminent.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 12:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)