Jump to content

Talk:End time: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cberlet (talk | contribs)
A secondary encyclopedia entry is no place to air a dispute over a quote
Assessment: banner shell, Religion, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Time, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism (Rater)
 
(256 intermediate revisions by 94 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{featured}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{mainpage date|March 17|2004}}
{{Not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in [[Apologetics]]/[[Polemic]]s}}
----
{{Article history
|action1=RBP
|action1date=12:29, 19 January 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
|action1result=kept
|action1oldid=2770166


|action2=FAR
This article is representative of sweeping totalistic claims unsupported by fact or evidence typical of many of Wikipedia articles. There is no survey cited here that reviewed various demonimations' views toward end times. The article lacks even an informed understanding of the diverse governing structures of various denominations. At least one major denomination accepts ''most'' of the end-times belief systems suggested in the article.
|action2date=12:45, 18 Nov 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/End Times
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=7932816


|action3=FAR
But the article states:
|action3date=18:05, 21 November 2006
''No major denomination apart from the Jehovah's Witnesses accepts these beliefs as a standard of Biblical interpretation.''
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/End times/archive1
|action3result=demoted
|action3oldid=89191870


|maindate=March 17, 2004
Some major denominations do not impose central authority on local churches. Southern Baptists, for example, are the dominant religion in most of the American South. But once a Southern Baptist minister is ordained, the denomination makes no other dictates about his doctrinal teachings. There is hardly a mechahnism for central authority over the theology of local Baptist churches. The denomination is organized as a "convention" of independent local churches. Local churches hire ministers whom they believe teach doctrines appropriate to the beliefs of their congregation. The independent Southern Baptist churches have developed doctrines so diverse, the diversity has created deep divisions in the Southern Baptist Convention.
|currentstatus=FFA
}}
{{Old peer review|archive=1}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|Interfaith=yes|NRM=yes}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|jehovah's-witnesses=yes|theology-work-group=yes|latter-day-saint-movement=yes}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism}}
{{WikiProject Islam}}
{{WikiProject Judaism}}
{{WikiProject Time}}
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism}}
{{WikiProject Buddhism}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism}}
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}


==Cyclical vs non-cyclical==
Southern Baptist theologians debate diverse views of the end times, including premillenialism, postmillenialism and forms of preterism. Preterism, then, is not "unlike all the other Christian theological systems;" it is a doctrine accepted or suggested in many local churches as ''amillenialism''.
Does anyone feel like the non-cyclical religions seem kind of cyclical and vice versa? I have been giving consideration to the idea that the division is arbitrary. [[User:Chantoke|<b style="color:#050">Chantoke</b>]] [[User talk:Chantoke|<font color="gray" size="1px"><sup>talk</sup>]]</font> 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:I agree that the distinction is largely arbitrary. One could even say it is based upon something of a false dichotomy, for even in most so-called "cyclical" systems, there is an overall linear progression being made, while in most so-called "linear" systems, there is a return to an "original" state, thus yielding a cycle. And what about so-called "spiral" models? I think it would be best to simply remove the distinction. [[Special:Contributions/84.75.168.38|84.75.168.38]] ([[User talk:84.75.168.38|talk]]) 08:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::The distinction makes sense to me. In this case, "cyclical" is referring to a belief in multiple cycles, not merely returning to an original state. And there would be a lot of disagreement that Christianity, for example, predicts a return to anything close to its original state. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 03:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


==Judaism and all mankind==
Here is a link to a page detailing a debate among Southern Baptist theological professors regarding diverse views of the end times which this article says are rejected by major denominations such as the Southern Baptists:
I'm sorry if I'm asking something obvius, but can somebody knowledgable confirm that "all mankind" will be resurrected and enter the Garden of Eden in Judaism. "All mankind" means "everybody" in this phrasing so this means in effect that everyone regardless of religion or lack of religion will be saved. All the best [[Special:Contributions/85.220.22.139|85.220.22.139]] ([[User talk:85.220.22.139|talk]]) 19:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


:from the Seven Laws of Noah wiki page:
http://www.sbts.edu/news/NewsRead.php?term=Fall2002&article=NR032


:"The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח‎ Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]... Accordingly, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come (Hebrew: עולם הבא‎ Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[4][5]" [[User:Calawpro|Calawpro]] ([[User talk:Calawpro|talk]]) 04:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The Southern Baptist panel discussion asked "do Christians know what they believe? Can Christians make a clear biblical argument in defense of their position? And can they make that argument while acting in a gracious and gentle manner to those whom may disagree?"
::This is now discussed in detail, with citations, at [[Jewish eschatology#Resurrection of the dead]] and [[Universal resurrection#Rabbinic Judaism and Samaritanism]]. The answer appears to be "no", depending on who you ask, and whether you're talking about ancient or modern Judaism. I've noted this on the affected pages. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 03:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


== Zoroastrianism as the "oldest" eschatology? ==
''In brief:''
<blockquote>Three Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professors did just that recently, presenting different positions on what theologians call eschatological doctrine (or end-times theology). <BR><BR>


Wikipedia's own page on Zoroaster states that:
Daniel Akin presented a progressive dispensational (pretribulation, premillenial) position. Chad Brand defended a posttribulation, premillenial position, and Hal Ostrander presented an amillenial position.</blockquote>


"[t]he Gathas in contrast to the mythological Avesta place the chronology of Zoroaster much later in history, with the most conservative being dated to around the mid-sixth century BCE and the most liberal estimate being c. 1,000 BCE. Arthur Emanuel Christensen dates Zoroaster to c. 625 BCE, but Ebrahim Pourdavoud Herzfeld and Johannes Hertel date Zoroaster as existing between 550–523 BCE"
[[User:Bird|Bird]] 06:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


By contrast, the consensus is that at least the J and E sources of the Torah/Pentateuch were written in 1000-800 BC.
----


There's a subtle bias in many sources in which religions claim to be "first" or "oldest" in some aspect of theology. In an encyclopedic and neutral entry, I think consensus dating, particularly by non-adherent scholars, is an important objectifying factor and when in doubt, we'd be better off omitting any reference to which religion "first" developed an eschatology.[[User:Calawpro|Calawpro]] ([[User talk:Calawpro|talk]]) 04:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense edits by 69.167.97.221 reverted to most recent sensible collaborative version.
:The article currently says "one of the oldest in recorded history" and goes into detail as to the uncertainty of dates. This seems fine. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 03:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
--[[User:Quadalpha|Quadalpha]] 22:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


== Merge with Last Judgment? ==
== Merge from [[Apocalypticism]] or to [[Eschatology]] ==


Apocalypticism is simply belief that there will be an end time. Both [[Apocalypticism]] and [[End times]] are simply lists of various religions' beliefs or non-beliefs with regard to apocalyptic end times. It would make sense to merge the two to avoid duplicate content for easier navigation and reduced effort to maintain the articles. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I have removed a label proposing that this article should be merged with [[Last Judgment]]. The Last Judgment is a specific event in [[Christian eschatology]] proposed in the Book of Revelations, and in some form or another is accepted by most Christians.
: '''Opppose'''. Apocalypticism has implications of imminence. Not just that there will be an end some day, but that it will happen soon. [[User:Editor2020|Editor2020]] ([[User talk:Editor2020|talk]]) 19:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
::{{reply|User:Editor2020}} Hmm, does that mean that [[Apocalypticism#Jainism]] should be removed? The "end time" there to the degree anyone thinks it will happen at all is apparently not predicted for about 40,000 years. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not all "end times" are necessarily ''apocalyptic''. Apocalypse in general actually refers more to the period of time immediately preceding the "end," and this apocalyptic period is usually a rather catastrophic period, full of human suffering. [[User:warshy|warshy]] [[User talk:warshy|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥)</sup>]] 22:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
*{{reply|warshy|Editor2020}} It sounds like you're both saying not every end time is apocalyptic, but every apocalypse appears to be associated with an end time, no? There are nine religions that have duplicate listings on both [[End times]] and [[Apocalypticism]]. Jainism and the five contemporary religions listed only on Apocalypticism are arguably missing from End times, since those sections are talking about both. Would you say the Baháʼí sections should be removed from one or both because they don't actually believe in a time of suffering or an end of anything? Or is that useful to include to note the non-belief? Then there's actually a third listing at [[Eschatology]] which adds Taoism and is missing Jainism and the contemporary religions. I can certainly see merging all three articles and pushing detail out into articles on each religion. Would "Eschatology" be a better all-encompassing title and target for a three-way merge? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
::This whole section of categorization and many of the pages included need to be reorganized. Feel like taking it on? [[User:Editor2020|Editor2020]] ([[User talk:Editor2020|talk]]) 01:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
::::{{reply|Editor2020}} I'm happy to do that if we have a clear scope for each article. What would you propose? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
:::I agree that reorganizaton of categories is a good idea. As for merging, I don't think so. I would leave the three different pages as independent pages, with the necessary connections. All three are definitely connected, and there may be multiple connections. End Time and Eschatology are more closely connected, but Eschatology and Apocalypticism are not the same thing by any means, in my view. I'd say that Eschatology originates in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Apocalypticism originates in the post-ذHebrew Second Temple period. There are some areas of overlap, but they are two different things and should be kept separate. The links and correlations in between these concepts should appear on all pages, but in my view there is no need to actually "merge" them completely. Thank you, [[User:warshy|warshy]] [[User talk:warshy|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥)</sup>]] 15:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
::::{{reply|warshy}} One could certainly say that eschatological beliefs become more or less apocalyptic in terms of suffering or tragedy or imminence, but you wouldn't say beliefs about an apocalyse are non-eschatological, would you? These articles do also cover many religions and not just Judaism, so though it's interesting there have been different periods of belief there, I don't see how that translates into a general rule for scoping these lists. "Eschatology" literally means "study of the last", i.e. doctrine concerning the end times. If we want to keep the lists on [[End times]] and [[Eschatology]] separate, what scopes would you propose that would let us clearly decide what content goes on one, the other, or both? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::I haven't looked at any "lists" so far, because I wasn't concerned about them. I actually wasn't even aware there were such "lists." All I wrote was concerning the two separate concepts of Eschatology and Apocalipticism. In that regard, I believe what I wrote is correct. I'd say that beliefs about an apocaplypse are more specifically apocalyptic, besides being eschatological also, in a generic sense. So Apocalypse is a narrower, more determined type of Eschatology, and that is why the two concepts need to remain as separate concepts. Areas where they overlap should be clearly defined (and inter-linked) in each page. That is what I am saying about the idea of merging the two pages in general. Now, regarding these separate lists, I will now look into it further. Thank you, [[User:warshy|warshy]] [[User talk:warshy|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥)</sup>]] 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Many religions (particularly [[Abrahamic religions]])<ref name="Greisiger 2015">{{cite book |author-last=Greisiger |author-first=Lutz |year=2015 |chapter=Apocalypticism, Millenarianism, and Messianism |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8rhRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA272 |editor1-last=Blidstein |editor1-first=Moshe |editor2-last=Silverstein |editor2-first=Adam J. |editor3-last=Stroumsa |editor3-first=Guy G. |editor3-link=Guy Stroumsa |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions |location=[[Oxford]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |pages=272–294 |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697762.013.14 |isbn=978-0-19-969776-2 |lccn=2014960132 |s2cid=170614787}}</ref><ref name="Lietaert Peerbolte">{{cite book |author-last=Lietaert Peerbolte |author-first=Bert Jan |year=2013 |chapter=How Antichrist Defeated Death: The Development of Christian Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Early Church |editor1-last=Krans |editor1-first=Jan |editor2-last=Lietaert Peerbolte |editor2-first=L. J. |editor3-last=Smit |editor3-first=Peter-Ben |editor4-last=Zwiep |editor4-first=Arie W. |title=Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer |location=[[Leiden]] |publisher=[[Brill Publishers]] |series=[[Novum Testamentum|Novum Testamentum: Supplements]] |volume=149 |pages=238–255 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MoKxIeOTkqYC&pg=PA238 |doi=10.1163/9789004250369_016 |isbn=978-90-04-25026-0 |issn=0167-9732 |s2cid=191738355}}</ref> include various eschatological beliefs regarding the end times, but ''apocalypticism'' is not a way of thinking exclusive to religious thought and traditions. It's also prominent in [[Secularity|secular]] catastrophic scenarios ([[Nuclear War]] and [[World War III]]), [[Ideology|political ideologies]], and several [[conspiracy theories]], which are not religions ''per se'', although magical thinking and a religious outlook about the societal collapse and/or the end of the world may also be involved and play a major role in their respective apocalyptic speculation.<ref name="Crossley 2021">{{cite journal |last=Crossley |first=James |date=September 2021 |title=The Apocalypse and Political Discourse in an Age of COVID |journal=[[Journal for the Study of the New Testament]] |publisher=[[SAGE Publications]] |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=93–111 |doi=10.1177/0142064X211025464 |doi-access=free |issn=1745-5294 |s2cid=237329082}}</ref><ref name="Douglas 2021">{{cite journal |author-last=Douglas |author-first=Christopher |date=December 2021 |title=Revenge Is a Genre Best Served Old: Apocalypse in Christian Right Literature and Politics |editor-last=Wilsey |editor-first=John D. |journal=[[Religions (journal)|Religions]] |location=[[Basel]] |publisher=[[MDPI]] |volume=13 |issue=1: ''The Historical Interaction between Nationalism and Christian Theology'' |page=21 |doi=10.3390/rel13010021 |doi-access=free |eissn=2077-1444 |s2cid=245562021}}</ref><ref name="Socrel 2021">{{cite journal |author1-last=Perry |author1-first=Samuel L. |author2-last=Whitehead |author2-first=Andrew L. |author3-last=Grubbs |author3-first=Joshua B. |date=Winter 2021 |title=Save the Economy, Liberty, and Yourself: Christian Nationalism and Americans’ Views on Government COVID-19 Restrictions |editor-last=Baker |editor-first=Joseph O. |journal=[[Sociology of Religion (journal)|Sociology of Religion]] |location=[[Oxford]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] on behalf of the [[Association for the Sociology of Religion]] |volume=82 |issue=4 |pages=426–446 |doi=10.1093/socrel/sraa047 |doi-access=free |issn=1759-8818 |s2cid=231699494}}</ref> [[User:GenoV84|GenoV84]] ([[User talk:GenoV84|talk]]) 03:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:I would also like to point out two more things that motivated my decision to oppose the proposed merge:
#[[Apocalypticism]] (belief in a catastrophic event and/or final revelation at the end of the world), [[Millenarianism]] (belief in a future millenarian kingdom during or after the end of the world), and [[Messianism]] (belief in the arrival of one or more final saviors at the end of the world) deal mostly with the same topic, the end times, which has been accurately defined in the previous replies by user [[User:Beland|Beland]]: {{tq|"Eschatology" literally means "study of the last", i.e. doctrine concerning the end times.}} Now, due to their similarities, merging all of these articles into one, single article (either [[Eschatology]] or [[End times]]) would be the most logical conclusion. Nonetheless, despite concerning the same topic, these are three different patterns of religious and secular belief,<ref name="Greisiger 2015"/> which may overlap or not within the same religion, political ideology, or belief system, therefore they are not the same stuff and should be kept separate, in my opinion;
#Readers and users interested in articles closely related to Apocalypticism, such as [[Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction]], that would come across this article after a hypothetical merge with Apocalypticism would probably find themselves puzzled at the sight of an article that is entirely dedicated to the end of the world according to the various religious traditions and their eschatological beliefs, whereas secular and political scenarios ([[Nuclear War]] and [[World War III]], for example) would be missing or almost completely left out. [[User:GenoV84|GenoV84]] ([[User talk:GenoV84|talk]]) 07:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:::{{reply|GenoV84}} I can certainly see the argument for keeping [[Apocalypticism]], [[Millenarianism]], and [[Messianism]] separate. Are you in favor of merging [[End times]] with [[Eschatology]]? The latter already includes a section on "secular and political scenarios", for which the main article is [[Global catastrophic risk]]. If you want to keep [[End times]] and [[Eschatology]] separate, what criteria would you propose for deciding what content goes in one or both of those? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


So since [[Apocalypticism]] has been trimmed with a somewhat clearer scope, and lots of folks have opposed that merger, I'm withdrawing that proposal. I'm still interested in how to differentiate [[End times]] with [[Eschatology]] or if those two should be merged. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The end times are a ''genre'' of prophecies for the most part proposed by the specific belief system of "premillenial [[dispensationalism|dispensationalists]]", and as such involve a specific set of Biblical interpretations that not all Christians accept, but which involve attempts to relate apocalyptic prophecies from Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel to current events. These prophecies include non-Scriptural specifics such as the attempt to identify the Antichrist, the role of the European community and the state of Israel in Biblical prophecy, and other things that do not relate to the Last Judgment. -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 14:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


:::I believe that the article [[End times]] should contain all kinds of apocalyptic scenarios (religious, political, secular, conspiratorial, technological, etc.), while the article [[Eschatology]] should be exclusively focused on religious traditions and their elaborated doctrines/mythologies of the future events. [[User:GenoV84|GenoV84]] ([[User talk:GenoV84|talk]]) 11:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
: Jehovah's Witnesses don't think that end times or "time of end" ("last days", NW) and "Last Judgement"(Har-Maggedon or Jehovah's day) are the same. This article should NOT be merged with Last Judgement. But they think that end times or "time of end" ("last days") and "[[end of the world]]" ("the conclusion of the system of things", NW) are the same. [[User:Rantaro|Rantaro]]


::::{{reply|GenoV84}} I agree the religious/non-religious split makes sense. [[Eschatology]] needs to have (and does have) a 1-2 paragraph summary of non-religious thoughts on the end of the world in order to explain the term "physical eschatology", and also because the comparison is interesting even to readers learning about predictions across religions. Coverage of all the secular scenarios alone makes for a big article, which is why [[Global catastrophe scenarios]] was recently split from [[Global catastrophic risk]]. It would not be feasible to combine this content along with the long list of religious summaries in a single [[End times]] article. It's possible to keep [[Eschatology]] and [[Global catastrophic risk]] separate and summarize both in [[End times]] in a few paragraphs each. But it seems there's little benefit to having an article that's merely a summary of two articles that already refer to each other; wouldn't it be better to just have a disambiguation page there? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
== NPOV ==
This article reads as if it is written from a selected set of Christian views, rather than the whole range. [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 20:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


:::::A disambiguation page is definitely a viable solution, I didn't think about that. I agree with your proposal. [[User:GenoV84|GenoV84]] ([[User talk:GenoV84|talk]]) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:It would help if you pointed out what those views were. I've tried to make it clear that this article is chiefly about End Times beliefs and prophecies that circulate among U.S. fundamentalists, and attempts to describe those beliefs. [[Christian eschatology]] is about the doctrine of the last things generally in Christianity. [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 20:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Cool, I'll implement that. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


===References===
''<blockquote>The end times are, in '''one version''' of Christian eschatology, a time of tribulation that will precede the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. </blockquote>''
{{Reflist}}
:The first sentance the article explains this is not a cover-all-Christian viewpoint. That said, might help if it explained a bit cleary which version we are talking about (US?Baptist?Fundamentalist?). It doesn't need the NPOV tag though.--[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] 12:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


== Disambiguation links ==
::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; [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] 20:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Making this page itno a [[WP:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page has created multiple ambiguous links - shown at [https://dplbot.toolforge.org/dab_fix_list.php?title=End_time Disambig fix list for End time]. Could those of you with knowledge of the differences between the different articles help to fix some of these links please?&mdash; [[User:Rodw|Rod]] <sup>[[User talk:Rodw|talk]]</sup> 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Because, while [[Ragnarok]] deals with an "[[End Times]]" scenario, it is not THE "End Times". In terms of cultural sensitivity, the correct term (''[[Ragnarok]]'') should be used rather than lumping into some anglo-cover-all-term &mdash; especially when the more appropriate terminology is [[eschatology]]. Perhaps a tag at the front of the article, explaining the term is more appropriately used for anglo-christi-judeo version of evvents, but many more cultural versions can be found in [[eschatology]] (where they belong).--[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] 01:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


:{{ping|Rodw}} Sure thing. I've already fixed some of them, it will take a while. [[User:GenoV84|GenoV84]] ([[User talk:GenoV84|talk]]) 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
::Perhaps what you're looking for is our article on the [[end of the world]], which is perhaps the broadest term in English, and quite properly covers [[Ragnarök]], the Hindu ends of the eras, the Mayan epoch that's due sometime in the next ten years, the sun going nova, and all the various other scenarios including the big crush, or the heat-death of the universe. That article already exists, though it could stand improvement. All of these beliefs should quite properly be added to that page. "End times" as far as I know always refers to the Christian belief that current events mean that the Rapture and Second Coming are imminent. [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Great - there are already several hundred less than the original list.&mdash; [[User:Rodw|Rod]] <sup>[[User talk:Rodw|talk]]</sup> 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:::As of today, these have all been fixed (not by me) except for one, and I'm not sure [[Till the World Ends|what Britney Spears is singing about]], exactly. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
:::If this article is about Fundamentalist views then it should clearly state so in the title. It should be [[End times (Fundamentalist U.S. Christian views)]].[[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 19:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Right, its been moved. '''DO NOT''' move it back until it contains views
::::*Fundamentalist Christians not in the U.S.
::::*Christians who are not Fundamentalist
::::Many of the above consider "End Times" to refer to something specific.
::::[[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 20:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Title==

Should this be more appropriately [[End Times]] (currently a REDIRECT). Both words should capitalised, no?--[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] 02:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:The canonical way is to use lower case. More appears to link to [[End times]] than to [[End Times]] in any case. It isn't really a proper noun. -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 14:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Moved without discussion ==

Why? -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 20:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I have undone the move. Everything linked to [[End times]] or [[End Times]] in any case, so the move really achieved nothing. It was not done right even if there's an argument for moving the page; the new page title contained punctuation and was virtually unsearchable. These beliefs, though most prominent in the USA, did not originate there and are not exclusively American, so the new page title was misleading. -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 14:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Efforts to bring about end times ==

Should this be mentioned here or elsewhere? [http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/ c.f here] --[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] 01:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:There is a bit about that in the article itself: ''"The implications of the prophecies that turmoil in the Middle East is inescapable, that nuclear war is predestined by Scripture, and that it will supernaturally lead to a divine utopia, give rise to some misgivings among unbelievers in the prophecies."'' I'm not sure how much farther we can go with this without straying into seriously POV territory. -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 02:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement: "The fact that in the early 1970s, there were seven nations in the European Economic Community was held to be significant; this aligned the Community with a seven headed dragon in Revelations." is incorrect. The original EEC had six members (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany). This was increased to nine by the additions of Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland in 1973.
There never exixted a seven member EEC, and so, cannot be associated with the 'seven headed dragon'.
EFTA has seven members, but that doesn't exist anymore.

In the new Fox series Point Plesent, the main character who is the devil's daughter has the sign in her eye. It is all three sixes combined into one symbol.


== Watt quote ==

Added James Watt's quote "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." to the end of the prophecies section. 666 is the mark of the beast.

=== not Watt quote ===
NOTE: Internet rumors. James Watt asserts that he never made this statement and the source is questionable. It was published in "Grist", picked up by Bill Moyers, and made a national splash. Moyers has since noted that there is no clear record that Watt ever said this in public. Please do your own research. You can start here.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/021005.html

By the way, I am pro-Moyers, anti-Watt.

:The source may be a questionable person, but it is not unknown. So "and no source can identify a contemporaneous historical document establishing the quote" should be removed. It originated on page 229 of a book called "Setting the Captives Free", by Austin Miles, and was published in 1990. I'm going to go ahead and change it. Note: This reference also appears in the article on Watt himself.

::Yikes! A secondary encyclopedia entry is no place to air a dispute over a quote. If we mention the quote at all, it should be cited over to the Wiki page on Watt, where folks who specialize in Watt-mania can hash it out, but it should not divert readers from the main point, which is aleady made in the text. At the very least we need to discuss the quote here on the discussion page before we agree on the wording that is NPOV and also fair to Watt (and I am also anti-Watt). Could folks here please sign their posts and use the indent format?--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== Neon genesis? End Times or just End-of-the-World ==

Yes, [[Neon Genesis Evangelion]] has a lot of pseudo-Chrsitian motifs, but it takes it's philosophy stuff from just about every source conceivable as well.

I just don't think this peculiar branch of [[eschatology]] is the place to mention it. In particular NGE does not deal with the return of Jesus, an anti-Christ or end-times plagues--[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] 04:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Love NGE. Have the whole series on VHS. It is clearly apocalyptic, and perhaps millenarian, but fits End-of-the-World better than the End Times due to the specific Christian references to the End Times. I know...the series features Angels and Evangelion is a pun...but still--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 04:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== 1000 AD ==

hey, noob here

I don't know if it was mentioned, I couldn't see it there but I was only scanning through the article,
that many Christians alive at the end of the first millenium A.D. were highly expecting Jesus to return around
1000 A.D. (because of all the emphasis on "1000 years" in the bible), and it was a blow to their faith when he did not return.
This is referenced from Geoffery Blainey's "A very short history of the world."

It might be mentioned elsewhere on this site... but it's the kind of knowledge I think you need to know when dealing with a subject like this, since many people reading it are probably half-paranoid delusional internet nuts, and not historians or researchers.

I'd edit it myself but I'm not very interested in this subject and I can't write... good.


CHOW! 09:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Rastafari==
One way of improving this article has been to add bits about the Rastafarian religion, which firmly believes these are the end times. This article has had too much of a Christian POV for me, and I have tried to remedy this by adding the Rasta material. I am surprised that it got to be article of the week without even a mention of the Rastas, as if only Christian groups believed in the end times. --[[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:10, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

==Jehovah's Witness Edits==
I'm reinserting the changes you removed, with possible qualms about one. I'm getting sick and tired of you running around removing any edits anywhere that don't cast Jehovah's Witnesses in the light you want, especially given your clear lack of knowledge of their beliefs (or at least public feigning of lack of knowledge). I'm not gonna keep doing hours of research to please you either when you don't (at least publicly) know what they believe, so you're gonna have to research stuff on your own.

Regarding the change involving 1914, it is indeed just a claim made by them. For one, it is impossible to calculate any date from the Bible itself, because the Bible has no dates. They claim to obtain 1914 based on the date of Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians. Unfortunately for them, that happened in 587 BC, not 607 BC as they claim. Without 607, it is impossible to arrive at 1914 in the way in which they do. You have to then resort to rewriting history to place biblical events wherever it's convenient for you, which is what they do. Beyond that, for Wikipedia to state that such a date can in fact be (meaningfully) calculated from the Bible is equivalent to an endorsement of the correctness of those calculations. Stating that they claim to calculate 1914 from the Bible is sufficient, and all that Wikipedia should say, especially since not a single other Bible-believing group (that I know of) agrees with them. There are enough numbers in the Bible that you could probably 'calculate' anyone's birthdate from it; that does not, however, mean that you can truly calculate anyone you want's birthdate from the Bible, it means that you can screw around with a lot of numbers until you end up with a convenient one eventually somehow, especially if you're allowed to use provably-incorrect numbers and any interpretation of anything that you want to. The same goes with most other doctrines. This also raises the issue of when something stops being a claim and becomes a fact. If I claim to be able to calculate the winning lottery numbers from the pattern of the paint on my wall, is that considered any more than a claim? Especially if I'm wrong, and even change my story after the drawing? All you could say is that I claimed to calculate them, not that I did in fact calculate them. In their publications, they are free to state that 1914 is definitely a biblical number (or whatever else they want to claim about anything else), but Wikipedia isn't one of their publications.

Regarding the 537 one, I inserted the words "they believe" because, as far as I remember off the top of my head, the Bible doesn't say anything that would require the Jews to have returned in 537 instead of 538. They were released during Cyrus' first year according to the Bible, which was early 538-early 537, so it was mostly 538 anyway. That doesn't say when they returned, but, barring another verse clarifying the issue, they could have returned as early as 538. If there's a verse that says they returned during his second year, which was 537-536, that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't return in 536 either, unless a statement of the month of their return eliminates that possibility. But this is the one that I mentioned above that I had qualms about. If you can show that the Bible does in fact demand that they returned in 537 and only 537, then feel free to revert this change.

Regarding the UN change, you're just plain wrong. Research it.

As I said, I'm getting tired of someone who either doesn't know or pretends to not know their beliefs very well reverting any correct changes I make that are less than flattering to Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm fixing to just start reinstating any changes that I know for a fact to be correct and letting anyone who doesn't believe them do the research themselves since I don't have infinite time to do research to convince everyone in explicit detail of every little two-word change I make anywhere that involves Jehovah's Witnesses.[[User:66.158.232.37|66.158.232.37]] 05:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:39, 25 May 2024

Former featured articleEnd time is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 17, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
November 18, 2004Featured article reviewKept
November 21, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Cyclical vs non-cyclical

[edit]

Does anyone feel like the non-cyclical religions seem kind of cyclical and vice versa? I have been giving consideration to the idea that the division is arbitrary. Chantoke talk 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the distinction is largely arbitrary. One could even say it is based upon something of a false dichotomy, for even in most so-called "cyclical" systems, there is an overall linear progression being made, while in most so-called "linear" systems, there is a return to an "original" state, thus yielding a cycle. And what about so-called "spiral" models? I think it would be best to simply remove the distinction. 84.75.168.38 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction makes sense to me. In this case, "cyclical" is referring to a belief in multiple cycles, not merely returning to an original state. And there would be a lot of disagreement that Christianity, for example, predicts a return to anything close to its original state. -- Beland (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and all mankind

[edit]

I'm sorry if I'm asking something obvius, but can somebody knowledgable confirm that "all mankind" will be resurrected and enter the Garden of Eden in Judaism. "All mankind" means "everybody" in this phrasing so this means in effect that everyone regardless of religion or lack of religion will be saved. All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

from the Seven Laws of Noah wiki page:
"The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח‎ Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]... Accordingly, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come (Hebrew: עולם הבא‎ Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[4][5]" Calawpro (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is now discussed in detail, with citations, at Jewish eschatology#Resurrection of the dead and Universal resurrection#Rabbinic Judaism and Samaritanism. The answer appears to be "no", depending on who you ask, and whether you're talking about ancient or modern Judaism. I've noted this on the affected pages. -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism as the "oldest" eschatology?

[edit]

Wikipedia's own page on Zoroaster states that:

"[t]he Gathas in contrast to the mythological Avesta place the chronology of Zoroaster much later in history, with the most conservative being dated to around the mid-sixth century BCE and the most liberal estimate being c. 1,000 BCE. Arthur Emanuel Christensen dates Zoroaster to c. 625 BCE, but Ebrahim Pourdavoud Herzfeld and Johannes Hertel date Zoroaster as existing between 550–523 BCE"

By contrast, the consensus is that at least the J and E sources of the Torah/Pentateuch were written in 1000-800 BC.

There's a subtle bias in many sources in which religions claim to be "first" or "oldest" in some aspect of theology. In an encyclopedic and neutral entry, I think consensus dating, particularly by non-adherent scholars, is an important objectifying factor and when in doubt, we'd be better off omitting any reference to which religion "first" developed an eschatology.Calawpro (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says "one of the oldest in recorded history" and goes into detail as to the uncertainty of dates. This seems fine. -- Beland (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Apocalypticism or to Eschatology

[edit]

Apocalypticism is simply belief that there will be an end time. Both Apocalypticism and End times are simply lists of various religions' beliefs or non-beliefs with regard to apocalyptic end times. It would make sense to merge the two to avoid duplicate content for easier navigation and reduced effort to maintain the articles. -- Beland (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose. Apocalypticism has implications of imminence. Not just that there will be an end some day, but that it will happen soon. Editor2020 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor2020: Hmm, does that mean that Apocalypticism#Jainism should be removed? The "end time" there to the degree anyone thinks it will happen at all is apparently not predicted for about 40,000 years. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all "end times" are necessarily apocalyptic. Apocalypse in general actually refers more to the period of time immediately preceding the "end," and this apocalyptic period is usually a rather catastrophic period, full of human suffering. warshy (¥¥) 22:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Warshy and Editor2020: It sounds like you're both saying not every end time is apocalyptic, but every apocalypse appears to be associated with an end time, no? There are nine religions that have duplicate listings on both End times and Apocalypticism. Jainism and the five contemporary religions listed only on Apocalypticism are arguably missing from End times, since those sections are talking about both. Would you say the Baháʼí sections should be removed from one or both because they don't actually believe in a time of suffering or an end of anything? Or is that useful to include to note the non-belief? Then there's actually a third listing at Eschatology which adds Taoism and is missing Jainism and the contemporary religions. I can certainly see merging all three articles and pushing detail out into articles on each religion. Would "Eschatology" be a better all-encompassing title and target for a three-way merge? -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This whole section of categorization and many of the pages included need to be reorganized. Feel like taking it on? Editor2020 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor2020: I'm happy to do that if we have a clear scope for each article. What would you propose? -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reorganizaton of categories is a good idea. As for merging, I don't think so. I would leave the three different pages as independent pages, with the necessary connections. All three are definitely connected, and there may be multiple connections. End Time and Eschatology are more closely connected, but Eschatology and Apocalypticism are not the same thing by any means, in my view. I'd say that Eschatology originates in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Apocalypticism originates in the post-ذHebrew Second Temple period. There are some areas of overlap, but they are two different things and should be kept separate. The links and correlations in between these concepts should appear on all pages, but in my view there is no need to actually "merge" them completely. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Warshy: One could certainly say that eschatological beliefs become more or less apocalyptic in terms of suffering or tragedy or imminence, but you wouldn't say beliefs about an apocalyse are non-eschatological, would you? These articles do also cover many religions and not just Judaism, so though it's interesting there have been different periods of belief there, I don't see how that translates into a general rule for scoping these lists. "Eschatology" literally means "study of the last", i.e. doctrine concerning the end times. If we want to keep the lists on End times and Eschatology separate, what scopes would you propose that would let us clearly decide what content goes on one, the other, or both? -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at any "lists" so far, because I wasn't concerned about them. I actually wasn't even aware there were such "lists." All I wrote was concerning the two separate concepts of Eschatology and Apocalipticism. In that regard, I believe what I wrote is correct. I'd say that beliefs about an apocaplypse are more specifically apocalyptic, besides being eschatological also, in a generic sense. So Apocalypse is a narrower, more determined type of Eschatology, and that is why the two concepts need to remain as separate concepts. Areas where they overlap should be clearly defined (and inter-linked) in each page. That is what I am saying about the idea of merging the two pages in general. Now, regarding these separate lists, I will now look into it further. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out two more things that motivated my decision to oppose the proposed merge:
  1. Apocalypticism (belief in a catastrophic event and/or final revelation at the end of the world), Millenarianism (belief in a future millenarian kingdom during or after the end of the world), and Messianism (belief in the arrival of one or more final saviors at the end of the world) deal mostly with the same topic, the end times, which has been accurately defined in the previous replies by user Beland: "Eschatology" literally means "study of the last", i.e. doctrine concerning the end times. Now, due to their similarities, merging all of these articles into one, single article (either Eschatology or End times) would be the most logical conclusion. Nonetheless, despite concerning the same topic, these are three different patterns of religious and secular belief,[1] which may overlap or not within the same religion, political ideology, or belief system, therefore they are not the same stuff and should be kept separate, in my opinion;
  2. Readers and users interested in articles closely related to Apocalypticism, such as Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, that would come across this article after a hypothetical merge with Apocalypticism would probably find themselves puzzled at the sight of an article that is entirely dedicated to the end of the world according to the various religious traditions and their eschatological beliefs, whereas secular and political scenarios (Nuclear War and World War III, for example) would be missing or almost completely left out. GenoV84 (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GenoV84: I can certainly see the argument for keeping Apocalypticism, Millenarianism, and Messianism separate. Are you in favor of merging End times with Eschatology? The latter already includes a section on "secular and political scenarios", for which the main article is Global catastrophic risk. If you want to keep End times and Eschatology separate, what criteria would you propose for deciding what content goes in one or both of those? -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So since Apocalypticism has been trimmed with a somewhat clearer scope, and lots of folks have opposed that merger, I'm withdrawing that proposal. I'm still interested in how to differentiate End times with Eschatology or if those two should be merged. -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article End times should contain all kinds of apocalyptic scenarios (religious, political, secular, conspiratorial, technological, etc.), while the article Eschatology should be exclusively focused on religious traditions and their elaborated doctrines/mythologies of the future events. GenoV84 (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GenoV84: I agree the religious/non-religious split makes sense. Eschatology needs to have (and does have) a 1-2 paragraph summary of non-religious thoughts on the end of the world in order to explain the term "physical eschatology", and also because the comparison is interesting even to readers learning about predictions across religions. Coverage of all the secular scenarios alone makes for a big article, which is why Global catastrophe scenarios was recently split from Global catastrophic risk. It would not be feasible to combine this content along with the long list of religious summaries in a single End times article. It's possible to keep Eschatology and Global catastrophic risk separate and summarize both in End times in a few paragraphs each. But it seems there's little benefit to having an article that's merely a summary of two articles that already refer to each other; wouldn't it be better to just have a disambiguation page there? -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is definitely a viable solution, I didn't think about that. I agree with your proposal. GenoV84 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll implement that. -- Beland (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Greisiger, Lutz (2015). "Apocalypticism, Millenarianism, and Messianism". In Blidstein, Moshe; Silverstein, Adam J.; Stroumsa, Guy G. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 272–294. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697762.013.14. ISBN 978-0-19-969776-2. LCCN 2014960132. S2CID 170614787.
  2. ^ Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan (2013). "How Antichrist Defeated Death: The Development of Christian Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Early Church". In Krans, Jan; Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J.; Smit, Peter-Ben; Zwiep, Arie W. (eds.). Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Novum Testamentum: Supplements. Vol. 149. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 238–255. doi:10.1163/9789004250369_016. ISBN 978-90-04-25026-0. ISSN 0167-9732. S2CID 191738355.
  3. ^ Crossley, James (September 2021). "The Apocalypse and Political Discourse in an Age of COVID". Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 44 (1). SAGE Publications: 93–111. doi:10.1177/0142064X211025464. ISSN 1745-5294. S2CID 237329082.
  4. ^ Douglas, Christopher (December 2021). Wilsey, John D. (ed.). "Revenge Is a Genre Best Served Old: Apocalypse in Christian Right Literature and Politics". Religions. 13 (1: The Historical Interaction between Nationalism and Christian Theology). Basel: MDPI: 21. doi:10.3390/rel13010021. eISSN 2077-1444. S2CID 245562021.
  5. ^ Perry, Samuel L.; Whitehead, Andrew L.; Grubbs, Joshua B. (Winter 2021). Baker, Joseph O. (ed.). "Save the Economy, Liberty, and Yourself: Christian Nationalism and Americans' Views on Government COVID-19 Restrictions". Sociology of Religion. 82 (4). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association for the Sociology of Religion: 426–446. doi:10.1093/socrel/sraa047. ISSN 1759-8818. S2CID 231699494.
[edit]

Making this page itno a disambiguation page has created multiple ambiguous links - shown at Disambig fix list for End time. Could those of you with knowledge of the differences between the different articles help to fix some of these links please?— Rod talk 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Sure thing. I've already fixed some of them, it will take a while. GenoV84 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great - there are already several hundred less than the original list.— Rod talk 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of today, these have all been fixed (not by me) except for one, and I'm not sure what Britney Spears is singing about, exactly. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]