This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Blood moon prophecy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
This paragraph is entirely ujnsourced and an in-universe presentation.
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.
Non-independent references (LambLion), reliable source for trivial event of no provable importance mentioned within a larger article.
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.
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)
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)
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?--~ T P W 11:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
( Personal attack removed) 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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Blood moon prophecy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
This paragraph is entirely ujnsourced and an in-universe presentation.
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.
Non-independent references (LambLion), reliable source for trivial event of no provable importance mentioned within a larger article.
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.
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)
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)
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?--~ T P W 11:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
( Personal attack removed) 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)
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)
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)