text:
Talk:Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

Archives
This is an index of archived portions of the discussion at this page. Archives help keep pages fast, accessible, and more usable. Scroll down to see current discussion for this article.

 * /Archive 1 Contents: Disclaimer, Prophecies of Millenium, William Branham, Papal Prophecy, US of Europe prophesy, JW and failed 1975 prophecy, Pat Robertson, 15th Century Taborites, 1st Century, Hal Lindsey, Edgar Cayce entry needed, Neutrality, Minor predictions removed, Article Deletion debate, Is this a joke?.
 * /Archive 2 Feb 2006, contents: Wording, Not Christian Prophesy.
 * /Archive 3 The Feb - Mar 2006 debate over re-naming.

Martin Luther Prophecy
I have removed this entry for several reasons:

 * 1) As a Luther scholar of a sort, I have never heard of Luther making a statement that either he, his companions or students of any generation took seriously as a prophecy. # It is hard for me to figure out what the source the book cited has for this passage, although it appears to be Table Talk. Luther scholars rarely cite this work because the accuracy of those writing down Luther's words has been often questioned. # It has all the feel of a typical Luther rhetorical exaggeration, not meant to be taken seriously.

It is as follows:

 * 1830-1850: Martin Luther had predicted the Second Coming would happen during this time period.

 * 1) The Familiar Discourses Of Dr. Martin Luther, translated by Henry Bell and revised by Joseph Kerby (London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818), 7, 8. "I persuade myself verily it will not be absent full three hundred years longer."

If no one objects, I will leave it off the page. If there is an objection, I will try to pin down the actual quote. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 * To tell you the truth it doesn't even sound like a prophecy, it sounds like a personal opinion, thats not exactly fair game for this page anyway..... Homestarmy 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Heh... --Oscillate 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It looked well referenced to me, but I have never heard of that book so I can't say if it is accurate or not --T-rex 23:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Table talk is a collection of sayings that Luther and his friends made while dining at Luther's home. These were written down by folks with a varying degree of accuracy. The most we can say about these sayings is that Luther may have said some thing likr this -- maybe. 8-) That and what Homes said; it's not really a prophecy. --CTSWyneken 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * IMHO, if a specific entry in this list could not reasonably be re-phrased as "so-and-so said that the Christian God told them / gave them the power to predict that ..." then it should be removed post-haste. This is one of the core problems that I've had with switching the title of the article from "prophecy" to "predictions". It opens the door to this becoming a collection of musings by any random Christian instead of a collection of prophecies associated with Christian faith throughout its existance (as every religion has had, I'm certainly not saying this is in any way a "deficiency" of Christianity). -Harmil 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't even think the article will become important if it's just "predictions", so probably so much for me getting to help people beware of false prophets..... :(. Homestarmy 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Harmil you are one of the people who voted for "predictions" rather then "prophecy" --T-rex 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to attend to citations
This page especially needs to be very carefully cited. --CTSWyneken 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Using primary sources or at least the actual text of the prophecies, an number of the entries are pretty bad cases of putting words in someone's mouth or implying rather more than was said. Dalf | Talk 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey and Israel
Look, we have solid attribution here, and this insistence on removing Lindsey's claims (which he claimed were based on scripture) is just silly. The full quote is very clear. It bases its claims on scripture, and specfically refers to them as "The prophetic indication". I will soften the statement slightly, as Lindsey did say "could", but the work done on annotating Lindsey's book is an excellent resource, and claims that it is somehow biased... well, if most Wikipedia articles were as fact-oriented and well referenced as that page, I'd be a happier camper. Please refrain from further removal of that text without discussion. Thanks. -Harmil 06:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This is an article for unfulfilled Prophecy not inaccurate interpretation of prophecy, there is a difference. Further since Hal Lendsey goes to such length to say that he is not a prophet and since not only did he say could he also did not give a date then putting it in a time line seems a bit wrong to me.  Those entries do not belong in a time line nor in an article on prophecy, nor in an article about unfulfilled since the near future is subjectively still at hand.
 * My point that we should reference the book directly and not a web page taking excerpts out of the book still stands. Further that article has a tendency to misinterpret Mr. Lindsey by ignoring the disclaimers liberally sprinkled thourgout his book.  The point I am trying to make and the fundamental error of the resource you are citing here can be found on the conclusion to the article.  It shows that the whole article is been written on a false premise:
 * For that reason, Hal Lindsey must suffer rejection as a prophet, according to the command of God
 * The whole article is working on the permits that Mr. Lindsey is trying to give prophecy rather than scholarly analysis of prophecy based on his personal (not divinely inspired) beliefs. If you want to split hairs and look for any instance in which he seems to use language that implies that he is speaking through divine inspiration then that is fine but if you are going to split hairs then it is only fair to not accuse him of saying things he did not and putting dates on "predictions" that came with out them is dishonest at best. Dalf | Talk 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Let me just quote from the introduction to the article:
 * The "prophets" listed here include anyone who has prophesied about the future within visible Christian churches (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) — even where they were considered heretical, at the time or later. New Religious Movements that have their original basis in the Christian church are also included here. It should also be noted that the vast majority of Christians have never believed in these extra-Biblical prophecies.
 * Now it seems to me that Lindsey fits this description exactly. What do you think? Tex 15:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * So you think that:
 * He was making and not giving interpretation of Prophecy?
 * That prophets speak in conditionals?
 * That the date range 1980's was given somewhere in the quote from his book?
 * On its own #3 is sufficent to exclude these entries as it makes them factually incorrect. We have no right just because we don't like him to put woprds in his mouth for the purpose of discrediting him (which is also why I objected to using the secondary source of the website set up to discredit him rather than his books for "things that he is purported to have written"). One of the things that struck me as NPOV about this article that I have always had trouble putting my finger on until now is that we take the most "benifit of the doubt" stance about calling anyone who wants to be callsed such christian, but then take the opposit tact in labling what they have said as unfulfilled prophecy.  In this case I dare say Mr. Lindsey would say everything that I have said about the rist of the predictions and point to a somewhat large amount of evidence that his second prediction is well on its way to comming true (though he never actually put the second one is quite as strong of terms as we have quoted him he said the leadership of many denomanations who have not offically said that they did not think the bible was literal would "begin to go down hill as well". Dalf | Talk 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, let's go by number. However, I don't see that your numbered points stand in contradiction to the introduction that I quoted.

 * If I get my old dictionary out and look under prophesy, it says 1. to declare or predict (something) by or as by the influence of divine guidance; hence, 2. to predict (a future event) in any way. So, yes, I think that I, and most native speakers of English, would say that Hal Lindsey definitely undertook to prophesy about the future, according to either definition. I would also say that if he was giving interpretation of prophecy, he just might be doing that with divine guidance. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
 * I don't claim to know. I suppose I think that if a conditional expression was consistent with the divine guidance a putative prophet had, then he or she would use it. I wouldn't venture to say that no prophet ever spoke in conditionals; apparently you think so. They have been known to speak in riddles, though, or there wouldn't be a minor industry in interpreting prophecy, would there?
 * Without a copy of his book at hand, I wouldn't care to offer an opinion. I am old enough, however, to remember that most readers of his book somehow got the idea that the 1980's were the time frame of his predictions, and he didn't attempt to persuade them otherwise. Apparently not only did Lindsey interpret prophecy, but we now need someone to interpret Lindsey.
 * Thanks for a stimulating discussion... Tex 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * And replying by number:
 * The definition of prophecy:
 * Prophecy in a religious context has a slightly different meaning (the first oneyou listed). As a rule we like to be percise in wikipedia and the colloquial meannings of words are only appealed too when there is no ambiguity of fact.
 * The argument that he just might be doing that with divine guidance is also problematic because, might does not get you into an encyclopedia, might be true is not good enough especially when the person in question had specifically said otherwise. In this case Mr. Lindsey has said he was not thougth out the book in question. Putting words in his mouth is one thing claiming a might when he is said the opposite is dishonesty.  I have ordered a copy of his book and will be providing (primary) references of his disclaiming being a prophet or that he thinks his interpretation was under divine guidance.
 * The point is you can't say that a prediction was unfulfilled if the prediction was never made. If I say it might rain tomorrow have have not predicted anything I have made a statement of probability, that means that regardless of the weather tomorrow my statement was neither true nor false because it did presume either condition.  Further if I said "I believe that it will rain tomorrow" still I have made no prediction, I have made a statement of fact about myself NOT the weather.  Even the less strict nonreligious definition of prophecy which does not include divine guidance does not obtain here.  In general and especially on controversial topics taking liberties with the language to prove a person or group of people wrong is not appropriate on wikipedia.
 * I read his book about 15 or so years ago, I think there were several places in the book where he did say he personally felt that the time period between the publishing of the book and the end of the millennium was a very likely time period but every time he did so he qualified it that he believed that it was a sin to actually make predictions of dates. He went to significant pains to say that he was NOT claiming that the prophecies he was studying implied those dates but that his personal belief was that he was seeing the signs.  I have just order a copy of the book as I stated and will provide actual excerpts with page numbers, but I think it says a lot about neutrality to take someones words remove the part where they disclaim that the words are anything but a personal opinion and then label them as prophecy associate them with a religion then use it as evidence of failed prophecy in that religion.
 * Dalf | Talk 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry to return to such an old point, but I think we're muddling two terms which have been flung around in this conversation. One is "prophet". The other is "prophecy". "The Stand is actually a warning, which predicts the coming plague," is a prophecy, but if I say that, I'm not the prophet. I am, in fact, pointing the finger at Stephen King as the prophet in question. If I were to do that (and The Stand were a holy book of Christianity), then you could include me on this page, saying that I said that. It is, after all Christian (for sake of my contrived example) and also quite clearly prophecy.

 * Now, if there is a clear disclaimer about the dates, and we can cite that, then the entry should be left out, certainly. Let's get a page number on the disclaimer and I'll certainly back the removal. -Harmil 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I am perfectly happy with the first definition I quoted. Note that it says "by or as by the influence of divine guidance." Here when it says "as by" I take that to mean "as if by". I wanted to check that, and the very next dictionary I tried (Oxford American) says, "to declare beforehand (what will happen), to foretell things as if by divine inspiration." No doubt you are thinking he didn't foretell things as if by the influence of divine guidance. We shall come to that later.
 * I don't think that I put my words into Hal Lindsey's mouth. It is clear, however, that you don't hesitate to do so, when it suits your argument. Of that, there is direct proof. (see above, "I dare say Mr. Lindsey would say everything I have said...")
 * I find your example about predicting rain very instructive. Let us take it a step further. Suppose you went on television every day for 35 years as a weatherman and said that it might rain, and it never did. And then suppose you tried to tell your listeners that you hadn't really made any predictions, because you only said it might rain! Your listeners would still say that you were a lousy weatherman. And this is precisely the position in which Hal Lindsey finds himself.
 * It is interesting to note that you read his book (Late Great Planet Earth) fifteen years ago. It was twenty years old at that time. Stacks of these books were blocking the aisles of every used book store in America, their original owners having long since tumbled to the fact that the events foretold were not forthcoming. What is more, by that time, he had also published yet another book, in 1980, titled "The 80's: Countdown to Armageddon". It is difficult to see how he could have meant to do anything by using such a title, other than imply that the 80's were the decade that would bring Armageddon. But no, you tell me he had escape clauses in the book! Well, that is exactly what our hypothetical weatherman said.
 * But enough of bandying words. Here are the facts. In 1970, Hal Lindsey published a best-selling book that predicted, by referring to the Bible, many events which, if they took place, would be of great importance to everyone. Literally millions of people bought the book, somehow under the impression that the author had an inside track to predicting the future of the world. Then, in 1980, he published the book I have cited, obviously meaning to reinforce the impression that the 80's were going to be the decade that brought Armageddon. It is perfectly clear that most of the purchasers of those books were relying on Lindsey's status as a Christian clergyman. They were not expecting to get mere idle speculation on the future of the Earth by a guy named Hal. They were expecting to learn the meaning of Biblical prophecy, as revealed to them by someone whose calling is to mediate between God and man. In the event, all his predictions turned out to be not just wrong, but spectacularly so. And all his believers were disappointed, or almost all. And everything in this paragraph is as plain as the nose on your face, and you know it perfectly well.
 * No amount of disclaimers, weasel words, or legalistic, logic-chopping arguments can dispel the glaringly obvious fact that Hal Lindsey convinced millions of people to give credence to his predictions, based on his status as a Christian clergyman and a student of the Bible. They thought he was speaking with the force of divine prophecy, his many disclaimers which you cite to the contrary notwithstanding. Now I put it to you that if you cause millions of people to believe you are a prophet, and then all your predictions turn out to be miserable failures, and all those people find they were deluded, then you are a prime candidate for listing in this article.
 * What is at stake here is whether Hal Lindsey's prophecies go on a list in Wikipedia, frankly not a big deal as far as I am concerned. But if you want a prophecy, here's one you can rely on. Hal Lindsey will go down in history on the list of those who have purveyed false prophecies under color of the Christian religion, a distinction he richly deserves.
 * I'm surprised I have to explain these things. Tex 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Tex seems pretty right about this :/. Plus, now that the title of the article basically includes everything, it seems pretty clear Mr. Lindsey predicted at the least something, in an empirically measurable manner, which was most certainly rendered falsified. What's the problem? Homestarmy 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * First let me say that I have no clue who Hal Lindsey is, but obviouslly there is enough discussion here to show that it is warented within the article, if we are worried about this being taken out of context then we may as well just include a lengthy quote, a full quote shouldn't be debatable --T-rex 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds reasonable to me. -Harmil 04:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, that's fine. The longer a quote you use, the better, within reason. Tex 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, heh the article got moved I was working on the assumption that there was going to be a persistant fight over that. In that event (with the word prophecy removed) form the title and depending on how the opening paragraph is worded I with draw most of my objections. I still object to listing the 80's but you can leave it there for now untill I find actual refrences to his saying otherwise.  Doh!  I gues I shoudl read all the comments before I reply. I still think we should make sure that we are carful about what we say he is saying.  I think actual quotes would do rather than highlevel paraphrasing based on book titles.  I also still think that Hal Lindsey is the right place if you really want to devote some time to calling him a quack. Dalf | Talk 08:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Going to respond here again tot he numbered points, but first I want to respond to the Stephen King example. In that example if you were not making a prophecy but instead stating a conclusion form it then, form this article you woudl need to list the ACTUAL prophecy in quesiton and the basis for concluding fomr that prophecy that it ment what you were saying and based on the solidity of that basis that the prophecy was therefor unfullfilled. In other words, and moving away fomr this example, Hal lendsy saying that any specific biblical prophecy means X and then X not happeneing does not maked the prophecy itself wrong. It makes his intrapratation of it wrong without implying the rightness or wrongness of the prophecy itself. Someone above mentioned that many prophecyies are written as riddles, if I listen to one and think I have it figured out and then we fined out I am wrong does that make the prophecy itself wrong or just make me a fool? Hal Lindsey speaks boldly about what he thinks "it all means" and on a great many things I personally think he is wrong, but they are just is solution to the riddles and nothing more.
 * 1) I misspoke when I said "I dare say" I was not putting words in his mouth what I shoudl have said "He has said as much", the "I dare say" was simply applying the things he has said to this specific situation.  That is he has not as far as I know seen this page but he did write a section in his book about people who will accuse him of trying to be a prophet.  I spoke in conditionals since I have not actually read anythign by him for about 15 years.  When amazon sends me his book I will find a actual quote.  You on the other hand take his words out of context and directly contradict the words you have left out.  THe fact that the disclimer may not have appeard on the same page is immateral since you are appelaing to implications elsewhere in his writing for your timeline.  Its that sort of double standard that I object too.
 * 2) You say: I find your example about predicting rain very instructive. and in doing so you maike the exact same mistake with me that you are making in the article.  My example was NOT one of predicting that was infact my whole point.  The point was in that case, I was talking about makeing a (possibly informed) statment of belief.  You are right in the contenuation of your example it would make me a lousy weather man and I don't think that Mr. Lindsey is got a lot to stand on for a lot of the stuff that he says, but just because he is someoen who's beliefs on a great many thigns are a bit out there does not mean that you can say things that are simply not true about him on wikipedia. Saying that he is essentially claiming divine guidance in his writings (which is as you said you accept the first definition) what you are saying.  When he not only never claims he is doing so but specificially disclaimes it is wrong, and I am inclined to ass  if it goes back in the article.
 * 3) Again my example did not actually include a weather man only myself stating a possibility.  I actually saw and read part of (though nto the whole thing) the second book which you refer to, and if you look at the book you will see that there is no need to guess what he ment by the title, infact there are a number of pages after the cover in which he details what he means by the title.  I wont repeat what I write above but suffice it to say that no where in that book does he actually say that the end of the world *IS* comming in or at the end of the 80's.  Call it hyperboli, if you will, do I think he believed it?  He writes in it that really thinks its a possibility that it [armageddon] could be tomorrow, but then he also says it coudl be in 100 years.
 * 4) I can agree with almost every word of your 4th point I might quibble with one or two words but for the sake of argument let us say I agree with you.  Infact let me add emphisis to the parts of your argument that align with the poitns I am trying to make:
 * 5) *It is perfectly clear that most of the purchasers of those books were relying on Lindsey's status as a Christian clergyman.
 * 6) *They were expecting to learn the meaning of Biblical prophecy
 * This is to me a convincing argument that he is a quack. Infact if you want to lay out the evidence that he is a quack and document it then you shoudl feel very much empowered to add that to the approprate article, but you are wrong on one part of yoru 4th point.  You are right that they were not expecting to get mere idle speculation no they were expecting the OPNION of a respected Christian clergyman.  That is what they got, I might take issue with exactly how you charterize the quality of what they got but the thing that is as clear as the nose on your face is that it does not belong in this article. Dalf | Talk 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oral Roberts (1981)
The article states: "Acting on the commands of a 900-foot-tall Jesus, Oral Roberts builds the City of Faith Medical Center." The source (NYT) backs this up. Wikipedia's article on Oral Roberts backs this up. So what's unfulfilled? The hospital was built and used for 8 years before being turned into the Orthopedic Hospital of Oklahoma. If no case is made for keeping this line (with additional information showing a prophecy was unfulfilled), I propose it be dropped. Comments?--Kibbitzer 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think I see it, the problem was it never found a cure for cancer like Oral said it would I think, did it turn into a compleatly orthopedic clinic or what? Homestarmy 23:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The building of the hospital is one entry (1981)--and it was built. The cancer cure is a 1983 entry that says there'd be a cure for cancer in "a few decades"--again, that doesn't seem to be a problem, especially if "a few decades" means 3 or 4. Both entries seem very weak, unless there are more details I/we are unaware of--and it's just that these entries need to be better presented. Otherwise, I suggest their removal.--Kibbitzer 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "Few decades" is also a bit problematic, as 1 day can be 1,000 years to God :). Therefore, I agree that this entry should probably be removed. Homestarmy 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Does (the title) "Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians" mean "those yet to be fulfilled", or "Look at all the false or mistaken predictions by 'Christians' [or Jews or Muslims or Hindus, etc.]"--which has a distinct prejudicial tone? Also, there's no hermeneutical consideration, as there are multiple ways to interpret prophecies--some prophecies are literal, others allegorical, and there are physical and/or spiritual fulfillments--not to speak of those that are conditional.

 * Just a list of seeming unfulfilled predictions seems shallow and has a "nya, nya" tone. What can be done to make this article more worthwhile? Are we talking about making a list of heretical predictions? That's more clearcut, but perhaps there are more positive ways to use our time. A list of fulfilled predictions sounds fun.

 * To sum it up, there are (at least) two possible deletions due to weak statements, and possible insertion of the "interpretation of predictions" factor. Food for thought: Are any of Nostradamus's historical predictions unfulfilled? (His Wikipedia article reports that he generally had good relations with the Church.)--Kibbitzer 02:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * And therein lies the problem with the current title, unfulfilled predictions just plain apply to a much more wider field than outright prophecy :/. I was in favor of "Prophecy by Christians", but it seems we lost it badly in the runoff because people wanted the predictions one far more :/. I think we're going by the introductions definition however, which definently deals more with prophecy than predictions, but with the title seemingly contradicting the introduction, it does seem a bit odd. These prophecies that are being noted should be exactly as the intro states, emiprically measurable and falsifiable, for example there aren't too many ways to take "And a giant meteor will hit the earth next year!" allegorically, and of those ways, they don't take away or replace the literal definition of such prophecies. So for instance if you had a New Age prophet who said something like "The next echelon of human evolution to a higher planar of existentionalization will occur within the time period of 1/3rd past the equinox of 1987 and the events of an as-of-yet un-named and obscure ritual known as "farfigtuban" That kind of wouldn't belong in the article. Homestarmy 02:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Guys, the idea behind the vision of the 900ft Jesus giving instructions was that Oral Roberts believed that God wanted him to build the City of Faith medical center. The fact that it closed down after less than a decade with its promise unfulfilled essentially means that the prediction that it would be used by God to cure cancer was flawed. --One Salient Oversight 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * So you're saying Roberts built a medical facility in response to his (1981) encounter with a 900-foot-tall entity said to be Jesus. And that at that facility (according to the 1983 entry) a cure for cancer would be found "in a few decades"? If so, perhaps the entries could be edited to reflect those linked points, as currently they are completely separate and unattached.--Kibbitzer 04:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New Additions
Johanneum... I like what you've done! It may need a little wikifying to meet the Style Manual standards, but I think people will step up to help. Tex 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is good, but, Johanneum, can you confirm this is not copyright violation? That's a lot of material to have dumped in one go. JGF Wilks 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Luther (Again)
I'm at a loss as to how this is a prophecy or a prediction of a time-specific nature. There is a difference between "God has told me this will happen next year" and the general conviction, held by a very large number of Christians that theirs are the last days. If we go there, almost every Christian leader throughout history will go on the list.

Does anyone object to removing this and any general feeling that so and so believed they were living in the last days, from this page? --CTSWyneken 11:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't have an objection, unless a specific year or time period is named in a prediction or prophecy, there isn't much grounds for it to be on this page :/. I mean "soon" to God could be a day or 1000 years, and for us, its at the very least a vauge term. Homestarmy 14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that if you believe you are, as you say, "living in the last days", that amounts to a prediction that the last days will occur during your life. If you then die, and the last days haven't occurred, that prediction was incorrect -- especially so if another few hundred years ensue. It would appear from the entry, that Luther not only believed this, but communicated a sense of urgency to his contemporaries.

 * So, yes, I would object to a general removal of this type of item from the page. At the very least, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

 * PS It's getting to be time to archive some of the above discussions, I think... Tex 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Then I will not remove it. Someone needs to add St. Peter, Paul and John, all of the early church fathers, almost every medival figure, especially those who lived in the 10th Century, Reformed fathers, and me, since I once thought so. (although now I leave the whole thing to Jesus, Who will come at the end of days, or the end of my days, whichever comes first. I suppose that Homes should be listed, too... ;-)--CTSWyneken 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think we're in the last days too, yaaay! Just cus we're in them doesn't mean they'll come soon in our understanding of the word :). I mean people were in World War 2 but um, well, not all of them were there to see it end..... Homestarmy 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Tex, I agree with your PS. I've archived the debate on re-naming as it should probably be kept together where it can be referenced as a single discussion. -Harmil 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * As far as the debate over removing Luther's comments... I think they should be kept, but I also think that it should be moved. We should have a section at the start of the article, something like this:

 * End time predictions

 * There are three forms of end time predictions:
 * General statements about impending end times
 * Interpretations of scripture
 * Specific predictions of a prophetic nature
 * Famous figures such as Saint Peter, Martin Luther and many others throughout history have made general statements suggesting that they believed the end time to be near at hand, but without providing a specific time-frame, these statements fall outside of the scope of this article. As an example to the contrary, Martin Luther said, "For my part, I am sure that the day of judgment is just around the corner." This statement seems to make specific predictions, but because "just around the corner" can be interpreted in many ways, and the statement cannot be clearly defined as a "prophecy", it is not suitable for this list.

 * In the final two cases, examples are evaluated on the basis of their notability, independent predictive qualities, and available disproof.
 * I hope this suggestion helps. I'll stay out of it either way. -Harmil 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree witht he majority of the edit. I think a fundamental problem is trying to discern when a man speaks as a man and when is he speaking as a prophet. The Joseph Smith "prophecy" as it is termed is, nor was it ever, held to be a acutal prophecy. Were it so, it would have been included in LDS cannon scripture such as the Doctrine and Covenants. This book was specifically reserved for revelations of the prophet Joseph Smith.

The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do the LDS people believe these are the last days? Most definitely. Does the church or any of the latter-day prophets define a day of the return of Christ? None to my knowledge. The early apostles spoke of the last days in their time, many have spoken throughout the last 2000 years of the last days throughout Christiandom, but we have yet to see the 2nd comming of the Savior to the earth.

We did choose the title "predictions" so maybe we do include everything, but with the caveat and distinction that none of these predictions were spoken as prophecy or held to be such. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * In the case of Luther, they were not seen as predictions, but rhetoric. He loved hyperbole. --CTSWyneken 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * If the quote from Headley in the entry may be taken at face value, Luther had a sense of urgency in his work, based on the belief that the end was at hand. This belief seems to have been communicated to his contemporaries, at least to Nachenmoser, who was serious enough to write a book on the subject. The evidence presented in the entry, then, weighs in against Luther's end times statements as being merely rhetorical or hyperbolic in nature. Is there any evidence which can be quoted, to the contrary? Tex 11:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it applies to Luther, but Harmil's point is something that needs to be considered for most everything on this page --T-rex 22:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Endless. To use hyperbole, almost everything Luther said was hyperbolic. 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox
Where any of the sources cited actually Orthodox as claimed in the beginning? Montanus was a heretic and certainly not Orthodox.

Many of St. Kosma Aitolos came true, and many that have not yet come true are consistent with nuclear war. See:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Kosmas_Aitolos

http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/St.%20Kosmas.htm

Read II Esdras last two chapters, and note that stars and hydrogen bombs are powered by nuclear fusion.

Edward Irving
Edward Irving is described in this article as the founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church. However, Irving's own article says he is widely but incorrectly thought to be the founder. It does not follow the matter, unfortunately, but the article on the Church itself says that its members regard Irving to be in a similar relation as regards the Church as John the Baptist was to the early Christian Church: not the founder, but a paver of the way. Can we clear this up? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Crist Governor of Florida Prediction
I'm surprised to see that the Dozier prediction that Charlie Crist would be the next governor of Florida has been removed. It's a prediction, it's unfulfilled--as yet. If Election Day comes and the prediction is fulfilled, that should be the time to remove it.

Tex 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * But is it a prophecy? Even though the title is mis-leading, the intro still says this is on prophecies, not predictions :/. Homestarmy 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think i removed this. because it implies that he will not be elected governer, please wait until after the election, if he doesn't win then add it to the list, but if he does then it doesn't belong here, until november we do not know --T-rex 18:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * With respect to "the intro", here's what it says... "This page attempts to list time-specific historical predictions (or prophecy)".

 * Tex 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought it used to say just "prophecy"? We shouldn't make an indiscriminitly large collection of various Christians making bad predictions about everything from politics to world events, that doesn't strike me as having any sort of point at all. Homestarmy 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * As I'm sure you remember, that argument was made during the last renaming of the article. I was in agreement at that time. For my part, I have been sticking to predictions that have the explicit claim of divine inspiration, like the Dozier prediction.

 * Tex 23:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pat Robertson Prediction
Here's another one from P-Rob I'd like to insert. It is true that things could still turn around for the Bush administration, but right now, "a series of dramatic victories" is not the description that would occur to many people. Any objections? Or should we wait for the verdict of history in forty or fifty years?

"Well, the Lord has some very encouraging news for George Bush ... What I heard is that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff. ... He'll have Social Security reform passed. He'll have tax reform passed. He'll have conservative judges on the courts. And that basically he is positioned for a series of dramatic victories which I hope will hearten him and his advisers. They don't have to be timid in this matter because the wind is blowing at his back, and he can move forward boldly and get results." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 3, 2005

Tex 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No comments on this one at all?

Tex 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * He vetoed that stem cell thing, does that count? :). I think there's probably still time to wait for this one however. Homestarmy 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And now?

Tex 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I know things look bad, but I really think even though its fairly obvious how this'll end up, its still crystal balling :/. Homestarmy 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Centuries and Dates
''The Baptist Church also has a history of date and time predictions that have failed. One of the first Baptist groups "the Anabaptists of the early Sixteenth Century believed that the Millennium would occur in 1533."'' - Surely this is a contradiction in terms? Will someone please edit this out with whatever it's supposed to say? Mahakala 04:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as the twentieth century was 1901-2000, the sixteenth century was 1501-1600. So people in the early sixteenth century could have expected the millennium in 1533 without any logical problems. There was no year zero, so the first century was 1 CE to 100 CE. You continue counting from there. The second century was 101 to 200, and so on, counting 100 years in a century. Tex 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That still doesn't follow --T-rex 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the best explanation I can give. Perhaps the articles on the 16th century or century as a unit of time will help.

Tex 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone
The article is written in an inappropriate tone. Comments such as:

 * "The Roman Catholic Church also has a history of failed predictions about the "time of the end.""

 * "In volume II of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, author Leroy Edwin Froom tells us about a prominent Anglican prelate..."

 * "No more needs to be said about this prediction."

are hardly the types of things you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Hence I have added the template.

It is also evident that the article is in further need of general cleanup; I will try to help out with this when I can. BenC7 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Valid points, though the direction of this article is still somewhat obscure. I suspect many of the prophecies may still not have adequate references, it's possible some of them aren't even supposed to be here. Homestarmy 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure
There is as lists of religions changing in a list by dates. Shouldn't that be two lists?

In the list by dates ordered by the time that the prediciton was made or the time the prediction should have happened?

Point of view
This whole page seems to violate the NPOV policy of wikipedia. I was unable to find similar pages for unfulfilled historical predictions by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, or any other religion I can think of. Why should Christians be singled out? Do they have a greater tendency towards fuzzy prediction? If so, include that in the article and heavily source it. Otherwise I would suggest that this whole page be grouped with another page about false predictions, either in general or as specifically part of religion. GutterMonkey 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what has happened is that so many people who claim to be Christians often make very, and yet highly notable prophecies, which have occasionally profoundly affected the western world. I think the most notable of them all would be the Millerite thing since that was huge back when it was supposed to come to pass and the entire failed prophecy got spun into something influencing the creation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, though many faulty sorts of prophecies often end up in the media occasionally. Homestarmy 23:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gutter, you may have a point and the question should be addressed again or in more detail. Personally, it is a gray area and I have yet to come to a conclusion.
 * Christianity does seem to produce its fair share of prophecy. This is evident from the very first days after the resurrection of Jesus when the apostles proclaimed His return was imminent.  Since that time Christians have been in a state of expectant hope and faith.  I suspect that many individuals’ desires overcame their personal sense for the Spirit and thus we have ended up with false prophecies.  I tend to think of them as unfulfilled hopes, but false nonetheless.
 * The question remains, does this article violate WP:NPOV or not? We need input from others before any decision could be made. Storm Rider (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having spent some time in Catholic school and grown up in a (mostly) Christian household, I am more than familiar with the copious amounts of predictions that come out of Christian mouthes, and that point about historical predictions (the Millerate thing in particular) is a good one. But the earlier discussion about an inappropriate tone in this article plus the fact that this is the only page of its kind kinda screams witch hunt at me. I'm looking on Google and I can't find anything pointing to Christians being any MORE prone to making things up than any other religion. Perhaps somebody better at finding stuff than I am could get a link or two, but considering the magnitude of the claim (2.1 billion people follow a religion that is noticeably more prone to pulling things out of its rear than most other comparable belief systems) they would need to some seriously heavy sources. If, as I suspect, no such evidence could be found, then perhaps pages for unfulfilled predictions of other major religions could be created or the historically significant examples from this page (again, Millerates and other predictions of such magnitude) could be folded into failed predictions or prophecy or some other such page where a list of unfulfilled Christian predictions could fit nicely alongside a list of other unfulfilled religious predictions, should people wish to add them. Maybe a page dedicated to religious predictions in general would fit the bill. GutterMonkey 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, this article doesn't state anywhere that Christians who make bad prophecies are "making them up". It's not our religion that's making bad prophecies, its the people who claim to be a part of it. We had a huge fight over the title of this page concerning the issue, I wished it had said "prophecies" instead of predictions because that's so much more clear, but alas, now the page's mission is only defined by majority opinion as opposed to the meaning of the title. (Literally speaking, this title would be a horrible choice for an article, since it could encompass any bad prediction propechy or not made by anyone claiming to be a Christian). There was a short discussion about merging other religions into this article somehow, but the problem is I suspect most of the material would still be about Christianity, since there's the most notability there. (I suspect if we dug enough New Age type religions would surpass it, but then the article might be making an implicit statement about a religion based on how much material on them is on this page). Homestarmy 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: "Why should Christians be singled out?" -- Who's saying they should be? Feel free to create similar articles if you have enough sourced material to base it on something. Just because there's only one page doesn't imply there should be no others, or that one religion should be singled out. Wikipedia articles are often written in the order material exist for them. Please don't make this into something it isn't. -- 213.114.118.87 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New Pat R prediction
TERRORISM 2007: PAT ROBERTSON HAS BEEN TALKING TO GOD AGAIN.

During a recent prayer retreat, God told him that a terrorist attack on the U.S. late in 2007 will result in a "mass killing".

Robertson relayed God's message to "The 700 Club" on Tuesday.

"The Lord didn't say nuclear, but I do believe it will be something like that." "I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

--Tex 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * "Sometimes I miss"? I gotta say, that sounds kind of desperate, none of the prophets in the Bible "missed", and true prophets are only supposed to get everything right....But anyway, I guess we'll see what happens eh. Homestarmy 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it should only be included in the article if it fails to materialize. We can't keep track of ever possible prediction made by everyone, but if he's proven wrong it might be worth noting. — Aiden 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BENC7&Jehovah's Witnesses
Ben it appears your hatred is becoming obsessive. Ben I quoted what they actually did say, and you replied, "who said anything about Franz." What Franz said is what they taught! Can you please show even one article that supports what you continue to present? This is an encyclopedia, please try and put your personal beliefs and feelings, about a religion, away and present facts. The facts are they did highlight the potential and the possibility or even probability, However they did not say it would but it could. Ben there is not excuse for this misbehavior. Please live up to the standards of Wiki. We have been thru this enough. Johanneum 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ....Is something going on here? :/ Homestarmy 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuff to be removed
There are several things in here that are inacurate. First of all you stated that these prophecies are excepted by most Christians. That, is an outright, biased, intentional lie meant to make the church look like a bunch of idiots. Wikipedia is not the place to practice such malice. I have been a christian for many years and have been in a missionary family since I was 2. I can state as an observed fact that most of these prophecies, at least the modern ones, are laughed at by all except a small handful. What is the point of this article? I believe that you are using it to intentionally attack the church. If I made an article on failed profecies of the muslims, everyone would be outraged. I'm making it clear that I'm not outraged, just very troubled by your efforts and I am going to try to stop them. Another thing that is inaccurate about this article is the inclusion of the Mormons and Jehova's Wittnesses as Christian groups. Only an ignorant person could do that much research and not realise that these two groups are strongly rejected as cults by Christians. Do your research. Also, I've done alot of study on church history, and have never heard of many of these. Saksjn 12:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, I never noticed anything like that in the article, in the intro (though it is poorly constructed), it states " It should also be noted that the vast majority of Christians have never believed in these extra-Biblical prophecies.". Alas, this article's future and purpose as a whole is seriously questionable since the title change, a topic with a title as vauge as this probably would of been speedied instantly if it had been created recently, all that keeps it dealing with prophecy at all instead of silly things like not being able to predict what will happen in the future based on personal intuition is the consent of editors, its quite a lousy article title.... Homestarmy 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I skimmed to much and should haveread slower. Besides, I was already a little mad, which I shouldn't have been. Sorry for making a big deal. Saksjn 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Define the topic, please.
OK, being saksjn's Wikipartner, I thought I ought to jump in and see what's going on.

I agree with those that say that the title is just too vague and opens the article to being a list of any speculation by anyone related Christianity. As best as I can discern, it's supposed to be about unfulfilled prophesies by leaders of sects/denominations/cults stemming from Christianity, but that is still vague:

 * What counts as prophecy?
 * How prominent must a prophet be?
 * How closely related to Christianity should the sect be?

My thoughts on definitions here:

 * Prophecy is a prediction, preferably written or published, that was claimed to have been inspired by God and that was intended to be taken literally and definitely.
 * The prophet in question must hold a following; if all during his/her time disregard the prophet, it doesn't count.
 * If this is going to include the cults and sects, the title needs to be changed (say, "Unfulfilled prophecies of cults, sects, and denominations related to or stemming from Christianity," although that is painfully long.)

Defining who is a prophet is especially important, due to some churches' doctrines relating to the subject. Some doctrines state that, during the time post-Jesus' ascension, individual believers may receive prophecy from God, but that these statements are not absolute because human subjectivity distorts their messages. Usually, these are personal in nature, and dozens may be made over a week. If the definition of "prophet" is not explicitly stated, these minor prophecies could become included in the article, which ought to be for more definite, hisorically related prophets and their claims.

What are you people's thoughts on this?

--Autumn Forrester 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although this may seem a bit too simple, I really think its all in the title. If one of the title's I liked had been picked for this article, I think I would of been all over this place, but its just so lousy there's little guarentee I can see that any work going one way or another on this topic would go towards anything useful if people decided to take the article whatever way they want. I think a more simple definition of prophet than your's would be a bit better, because if the prophet doesn't hold a following, I think their notability on Wikipedia at all is highly suspect. And the same would go for prophecies that aren't actually exclamatory in nature per se, chances are, there aren't going to be many refs for that kind of thing.
 * I think what the article was trying to encompass wasn't just Christianity, but anything related to groups which claimed to be Christian, however, an article title that has all this "claimed Christians" business just doesn't seem right, and I think several of those kinds of titles all failed. Although I don't like the term, I think it was trying to compass more of the prophecies in the, well, Judeo-Christian historical sense, and minus the "Judeo" part, is a term encompassing enough which, in my experience, seems to cover just about everyone, whether people agree that various groups are actually Christian or not. If there was just some sort of synonym for that term that wasn't far out, that'd be great....
 * There's also something I never thought about awhile ago I think, and that's over the word "Unfulfilled". The article is talking about prophecies which specifically did not come to pass at the time the so-called prophet in question said it would, but an "unfulfilled" prophecy isn't necessarily like that, for instance, a prophecy that predicts something will happen in 2009 would be unfulfilled right now, but it wouldn't necessarily be failed, because the time hasn't gone past for whatever the prophecy is. The correct word, namely failed, if I remember correctly, was rejected when we voted on titles earlier because, as you may already be thinking, it seemed too negative. However, (and this is just my opinion and idea) it's really not Wikipedia's job to purposefully obscure information on a topic just because the topic highlights something negative that has resulted from self-proclaimed prophets who likely hoodwinked a bunch of people during the course of Christianity-related history, so I seriously think usage of the word "Failed" in the title would be a pretty good idea. (Especially because, as I would hope most fundamentalist types like myself would quickly realize, if its an article on failed prophecies, all of the people contained therein must be false prophets, so there's no logical reason as far as I can tell for people to get defensive unless the article itself is wrong.)

Good point.

Alas! There is no synonymn for "religious groups claiming to be or related to Christianity!"

Maybe "expired" would suit the title better than "failed" or "unfulfilled;" it's more specific to the article's purpose.

--Autumn Forrester 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Autumn Forrester on this one, expired is the most correct term. Saksjn 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I dunno, an Expired prophecy doesn't necessarily mean one that has failed either, just one in which the time for it to happen has gone by. Homestarmy 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, the title should be changed because you can only say a prophecy has failed when it's prescribed date has been reached and passed. The change would specify what can go in the article, and only prophecies with passed deadlines would be incuded, making discussion much easier. Saksjn 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 * So would the article then cover both failing and successful prophecies in history? That seems kind of doable, but the level of coverage will vary based on how the article develops over time. Homestarmy 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved paragraph from article to discussion since it self-refers as "discussion"
I undertook to move the following paragraph, having no idea what a long history of revisions and counter-revisions this article has seen, but I'm not surprised. Here's a little hint for anyone who wants to slip a message into a Wikipedia article: Don't self-refer to what you write as "discussion"! That's like painting a big target on your behind. Just spend a little time with the text and weave that passive-aggressive end-times message into it more subtly. The subtle method works, trust me. My Rapture nightmares [see description below] didn't fade away until years after I stopped being bombarded with this sophistry as a youth at Bellevue Baptist Church and that madrasah I attended, Briarcrest Baptist H.S..

 * - NB: There is a difference between using reason to try and understand Scriptures, and people claiming to have a prophetic word from God about the future. Many of the failed predictions cited below are examples of false prophesy, while others are examples of misinterpretation or misuse of biblical texts. For example, Chuck Smith, of Calvary Chapel, is not prophesying, but trying to interpret the meaning of Jesus' prophecy given almost 2000 years ago, that "Jerusalem shall be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.," (Luke 21:4). What should be noted in this discussion, is the fulfillment of the prophecy by Jesus that Jerusalem would both be destroyed by Rome, its people sent again into exile, and then, at some time in the future, be restored to Jewish hands,  a sign which Jesus himself links to the coming of the Kingdom of God and the return of the Son of Man, (Luke 21:5-36).

But all those quirky predictions by televangelists and tent preachers (who likely assume they are exercising scriptural "reason") don't really bother me. It's the more corporate-style dispensationalists who always follow "no man knows the hour" with a pregnant "but," soon followed by justifications for all kinds of foreign and domestic policy non-sequiters, including the wholesale destruction of Creation. If you really believe America will cease to exist as we know it "before this generation shall pass"---regardless of which party holds on to power---then you really ought to recuse yourself from any kind of leadership role. As you can tell, I'm probably incapable of sustaining a NPOV on this topic, so I'm recusing myself from further involvement, but I will monitor the discussion. I'm sure I owe somebody an apology.

My recurring Rapture Nightmare: I would "wake up" finding myself still in my bed, but it was flying straight up into the night sky at about Mach 3)

Riskplaya 06:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, I don't think I even know any Dispensationalist types who watch this page, (I'm assuming that's where your Rapture Nightmare thing is coming from) so you might very well need to apologize to nobody :/. Homestarmy 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming suggestion and slandering complaint
This is slandering to the Christian religion. I have no complaints about the content other than this (although I didn't review it in detail). It is good and useful to have a list of false prophets & their prophecies (to highlight the pervasiveness of false prophesies), but this cannot imply that Christians dream up false prophecies. If a similar article existed per religious group, that could have been acceptable - referred to in the 'see also' section of each.

Note this article nominated for deletion that tries to balance unfulfilled prophecy / predictions with fulfilled prophesy. This was heavily opposed with no suggestion of a rewrite or corrections. This negative unbalanced view of prophesy on Wikipedia should not remain. I applied some modifications to the 'evidence of prophecy section' of the 'prophecy' article as well to ease up on this negative view. JLMarais 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not like we haven't tried to rename the page before, but as the wording in the introduction states, its only about people who self-identify as Christians. Plus, none of the people listed in this page are part of Christianity the religion, only self-proclaimed adherants to it. (Or, of course, genuine adherants, some of these entries might be a bit specious...) "Religious groups" as I assume you propose is much, much too broad, this article would probably easily balloon past 300 Kb if it was anywhere near compleate, which it likely could never be due to the obscene number of false prophets which have prophecied for various religions. Homestarmy 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I am against the proposed name. To attempt to open the door to cover all religions defeats the purpose. Christianity is not unique as a religion and there are far too many religions to attempt to cover all false prophets. What is important about this article is demonstrating there have been false prophets from the very beginning of Christianity and there are false prophets today within Christianity. Critics of Christianity have accused even the first apostles as being false because they were so urgently looking for Christ's imminent return and he obviously did not return when they thought he would.
 * Also, I think the introduction needs to be changed given the majority of individuals and churches covered are what is viewed as "mainstream". --Storm Rider (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose a change of name. The entire content is about the claims of Christians and Christian splinter groups, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I have been through this article and provided more structure in terms of headings. I hope that by doing this, I have dealt with some of the problems. I hope I have not caused offence in drawing a boundary between mainstream and other: if I have, no doubt some one else will correct it. The sections with whcih I am least happy are those now headed 'Late 20th cnetury' and '21st century'. There is a need to distinguish between serious predictions and mere rhetoric on the part of tele-evangelists, which are probably mere wishful thinking that does them no favour. Peterkingiron 10:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When this article is cited or shows up as a search result, the title alone leaves an impression. Often the link may not be followed to investigate the details, but the impression that 'Christians make false predictions' remain. I would prefer a change to reflect church groups rather than the direct Christian association. JLMarais 02:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's important to be able to claim victimhood when challenged, to be able to identify mortal enemies, isn't it? It's the only way you can feel truly alive. That's what I observed in the megachurch where I heard a fair share of prophecies that have since been revised. Bridgman 05:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate
This article was redirected to [[Famous predictions]]  as a result of an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Docg 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection
I have resurrected the article, minus the specific Christian lead paragraph, at Unfulfilled religious prophecies.  Eliminator JR Talk  01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * JR, if that's what you want to do, then clean it up as a matter of priority. For one thing, make sure that every single prophecy here is distinctly religious. Not political, not cultural, but religious. Also, I think it would be better if the whole thing as done as a timeline. StAnselm 05:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania

Status
Again, what is the exact status? My understanding is that "town" has no technical meaning in PA. Is this just an unincorporated community? john k 20:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is a "First Class Township" operating under a "Home Rule Charter". Clarkbhm 15:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mount vs. Mt.
The home rule charter for the city reads "The name of this home rule municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipality,' shall be 'Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania.'" This is clearly different then the Mount Lebanon used throughout the article. If there are no objections, I'll make corrections throughout the entire article to fix it... Clarkbhm 03:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be. I learn something new every day -- the Muni government definitely uses "Mt." exclusively, never "Mount".  People still call the geographic location "Mount," but the government should definitely only be referred to with the abbreviation.  I wonder why they did that.  I'll have to check & see if North Versailles, Pennsylvania is really "N Versialles" like it says on all the maps. :) --M @ r ē ino 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There really is no controversy here. If the official name of the town in Mt. Lebanon and the town is never referred to as Mount Lebanon, the article should be moved. joturner 19:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation, JoTurner. The town is OFTEN referred to as Mount Lebanon (references in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).  The town government is the only organization that consistently uses only the abbreviation for "Mount".  --M @ r ē ino 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The government of Mt. Lebanon Township, the Mt. Lebanon School District, the Mt. Lebanon library, Mt. Lebanon Fire Department, and Allegheny County all refer to Mt. Lebanon and not Mount Lebanon. Even the aformentioned Pittsburgh Post-Gazette link has 41 links to "Mount Lebanon" versus 12,400 links to "Mt. Lebanon". My guess is that those 41 slipped through the the Post-Gazette's editorial process, but I would think that 41 references its vastly overshadowed by the 12,400 references in the same paper. Clarkbhm 03:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Look, Clark, I agree with you that the government refers to the town as "Mt.", and I agree that the Post-Gazette prefers "Mt." but it's not correct that the "town is never referred to as Mount Lebanon".  The abbreviation is preferred, but not the only, way to refer to the town. --M @ r ē ino 03:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * lol... I didn't mean any harm by it. I'm not the one who stated that it was never referred to as Mount Lebanon. I just wanted to show JoTurner that it was very frequently referred to as Mt. Lebanon. We're both on the same side... :-) Clarkbhm 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania → Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania – Mount Lebanon desribes the geographical location. Mt. Lebanon is the official name of the city. The article is about the town so this should be renamed to Mt. Lebanon. A short discussion in Mount Lebanon supported this idea, but another user set up a redirect for Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania (to Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania) before the article could be moved.
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support. Olessi 05:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but allow editors to use both Mt and Mount in the body of the article. I set up the redirect, and I did not view doing so as a means of blocking a page move.--M @ r ē ino 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Clarkbhm 15:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beth El
Is Beth El congregation in Scott Township? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.235.164 (talk • contribs)
 * My understanding from this map is that it's just barely inside the northern border. I am open to considering better evidence.  --M @ r ē ino 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

@user:maerino According to the county Parcel, it is scott township. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mt. Lebanon Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412203801/http://www.hsmtl.org/history-of-mount-lebanon-1/how-mt-lebanon-got-its-name to http://www.hsmtl.org/history-of-mount-lebanon-1/how-mt-lebanon-got-its-name
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913040427/http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/302/chapter27/chap27toc.html to http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/302/chapter27/chap27toc.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927082258/http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentView.asp?DID=18 to http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentView.asp?DID=18
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612122613/http://www.mtlebanon.org/index.asp?Type=B_DIR&SEC=%7B24D913FD-1EBA-4D86-84D6-A698382827CA%7D to http://www.mtlebanon.org/index.asp?Type=B_DIR&SEC=%7B24D913FD-1EBA-4D86-84D6-A698382827CA%7D
 * Added tag to http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentView.asp?DID=886
 * Added tag to http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentView.asp?DID=1839
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20060522172551/http://www.mtlebanonlibrary.org/libhistory.html to http://www.mtlebanonlibrary.org/libhistory.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailydealmedia.com/985groupon-a-brief-history-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-andrew-mason/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.safar.pitt.edu/content/news/2003/Safar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mt. Lebanon Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html to https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Lebanon"
As a local I know we pronounce "Lebanon" as \ˈle-bə-nən\ but I wasn't aware that it was unusual until my wife pronounced it \ˈle-bə-nän\. Is this worth noting in the article? 75.140.2.110 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania


text:
Talk:Drive shaft

Redirections

 * Power transmission
 * Chassis
 * Differential (mechanics)
 * Thrust vectoring
 * FF layout
 * RR layout
 * Rear wheel drive
 * Pratt & Whitney J58
 * Powertrain

All those pages link to Driveshaft, and we delete a new article on the subject and refer our readers to a non-existing Wiktionary article. |l'KF'l| 20:05, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Difference between a keyed shaft and a splined shaft
Could someone add some information (if possible with pictures), on the difference between a keyed shaft and a splined shaft? Wiki-uk 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle driveshaft
I just removed "*Loss of power" from the bicycle driveshaft list of disadvantages, since this makes no logical sense. There are already several statistics listed, and 94% efficiency vs. 75-97% efficiency is not a consistent loss, comparatively, using these numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.72.92 (talk • contribs).
 * The disadvantages are actually just the advantages to the Chain, not the actual disadvantages of the driveshaft. Looks like someone was biased to the chain.--201.132.16.215 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Connection between a gearbox and drive shaft
Could someone add some picture on connection between a gearbox and drive shaft? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnajib (talk • contribs).

Driveshaft material and manufacturing process
What materials are used to make a driveshaft? What manufacturing processes are used to fabricate driveshafts?

Drive shaft is two words
This article needs to be moved to correct the title spelling. Webster's, Funk & Wagnalls, and The American Heritage dictionaries all agree that drive shaft is two words, and the plural is drive shafts. The body text of this article needs to agree. Occurrences of halfshaft and halfshafts in the body text should also be corrected to half shaft and half shafts and be made to link to the (already correctly spelled) Wikipedia Half shaft article. The redirect from Drive shaft to Driveshaft needs to be reversed once this article is moved. Another Stickler (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * OK. I have fixed the body text, but I'm asking for help from someone more experienced to move the article name from "Driveshaft" to "Drive shaft, and fix the redirect. It's currently redirecting from "Drive shaft" to "Driveshaft". It should instead redirect "Driveshaft" to "Drive shaft" and might need a disambiguation for the fictional band name "DriveSHAFT". -- Another Stickler (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 * All done. The article's spelling is fixed thanks to help from  Gtstricky  and KieferSkunk who moved it and changed the redirect. I have not changed the bad spelling on this talk page since it is historical commentary and not part of the living article. -- Another Stickler (talk)

Car-like handling???
The article states: "This is a favoured design where the torque is biased to the front wheels to give car-like handling..." And when you channel more torque to the rear wheels you get what? Boat-like?--Psirus1988 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Difference between input torque and load?
I don't get the description: "Drive shafts are carriers of torque: they are subject to torsion and shear stress, equivalent to the difference between the input torque and the load." Am I missing something, or isn't the input torque equal to the load (except for very minor losses in the universal joints)? The input torque IS the torque in the shaft - isn't it? Mfhall (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Only under static conditions, however, the driveshaft is more often in a dynamic state then a static state. Wizard191 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prop shaft
At Automobile layout we have a difference of opinion about whether a prop shaft or drive shaft connects the engine to the rear wheels in a RWD car. The difference of opinion seems to be based on these two sentences in this article (my underlining): "In British English, the term "drive shaft" is restricted to a transverse shaft that transmits power to the wheels, especially the front wheels. A drive shaft connecting the gearbox to a rear differential is called a propeller shaft, or prop-shaft."

I would like clarification of a few things:
 * 1) Does "In British English" apply to both sentences or only the first.
 * 2) Can we say that a prop shaft can connect a front engine to a rear transaxle (ie is the term prop shaft strictly tied to gearboxes at the engine end). Thanks.  Stepho  talk 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 * British English use is that the longitudinal shaft is called the propeller shaft, not a drive shaft. This applies for RWD, rear transaxles or even for 4WD vehicles. In some 4WD cases there could be two propeller shafts from a transfer box to each axle. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Motorcycle driveshaft
O.k, three are not necessary. But how about just one showing beautifully an exposed shaft on one of the "best known brand." Or am missing the point. Is it that a photo took and uploaded should be deleted just because I took it? If that is it, just let me know and I will stop trying to contribute excellent and appropriate photos to Wikipedia. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Excellent and appropriate" is subjective and is exactly why you shouldn't be pushing your own images on Wikipedia. Please let others decide whether your images should be added to an article. I removed three images of motorcycles and replaced them with a single that shows a closeup of a motorcycle shaft drive. I am very happy to enter into discussion with you and other editors on what images should be used in this section of the article. Your BMW picture - hardly the best known brand - is again a picture of a bike not of a drive shaft i.e. it doesn't give enough focus on the shaft itself as I think it should. But Wikipedia is based on consensus so let's see what others think. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already replaced the BMW picture, precisely because it is a picture of a bike, rather than a driveshaft in isolation. It's also one of the few where the drive shaft is visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I believe uncounted thousands of photographs on Wikipedia have been uploaded by a person who then inserted them into an article. Is there a rule about this?  If so, please give us all the citation.  I do not think this is the issue at all.  What we have here is Biker-Biker Photo Rule for Jeff Dean.  It is apparently your intent to continue your ancient vendetta against me and prevent me from uploading fine photos and adding them to articles.  I assume you must have some sort of "tracker" on me to alert you of my (rare) activities so you can undo them.

 * As you know I have withdrawn my activity on Wikipedia for a long time because the sort of thing you have done to me. To make you happier, I will continue my absence.

 * BTW, there are hundreds of other photos I uploaded an "pushed" (your word, not mine) into articles. It should give you hours of amusement to chase them all down and delete them.  Please, be my guest. I just wonder where you find the time to do all that you do on Wikipedia.

 * Finally,the photo I "pushed" into this article is absolutely perfect for it, considering the context of the article. For those who have not seen the photo that so offened Biker Biker, here it is. It looks like Andy reinserted it (thank you Andy). Biker Biker will have to get busy again; it is still my photo. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Ancient vendetta? See WP:AGF. As for the photo in question I found an even better one of an R32 which shows more of the exposed shaft drive. I still think we should show one picture, in which case I'd be happy to see the CARC photo dropped. What do others think? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Amazing the lengths B-B will go to eliminate a photo of mine. Search for another one to replace it!  Which is the better and clearer photo? The one that shows clearly where the driveshaft comes from and goes to. You folks decide. Which is the better and cleaner photo as a photo? I am done with this.  Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm happy with two images, if there's a contrast between them. A BMW bike and the opened-upp drive shaft seem to both add something. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Any mention of motorcycle drive-shafts should keep in mind the drive-train fundamental of motorcycles: depending on the model of motorcycle, there will be one of three possibilities:  Drive belt; Drive chain; and Drive shaft.  Per some info I was reading, the shaft results in reduced power.   The drive belt on a motorcycle is refered to as the final drive-belt.  The primary belt is the belt which runs from a crank shaft to the gearbox.  Final drive belt connects the gearbox to the wheel.206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Could it be clarified that Vespa scooters of the manual geared variety are not drive shafted as is hinted at here, they are a constant mesh crankshaft/clutch to cush drive to gearshaft which the wheel is attached to, the inference here is that Vespa's are shafted a la BMW per se which is certainly not the case, its a tricky term to define because technically it is 100% correct whilst being 100% incorrect at the same time, ratio of power is changed by a cruciform which moves up and down the rear gearshaft engaging on the relevant gear cog which in turn directly connects it to the "christmas tree" layshaft governed by power cutting in and out simple wet clutch on the cush drive. Lambretta's are chain driven but only in as far as to elongate the almost identical Vespa system to allow Lambretta engines to have long, smaller footprints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.64.33 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Relation to Shaft (mechanical engineering)
Could someone explain in the article what is the relationship between 'Drive shaft' and the presumably more general 'Shaft'? I haven't been able to discern the difference from comparing the two. Crom daba (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Shaft covers the physical principle, as an idealised and simplified structure in mechanics. Drive shaft covers the physical device, with the additional engineering needed to make it useful in practical machines and vehicles.
 * Shafts cover the physical and mechanical principles of torque, inertia, stiffness and balancing. Drive shafts have to adapt for varying position in installation and in service. They need joints and sliding splines, sometimes also vibration dampers.
 * There are also articles, and articles needed, on quill drive, quill shaft, lineshaft, jackshaft, jackshaft (locomotive), layshaft, countershaft and PTO shaft. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete
Suggest we remove Crompton from History. Autocar did first drive shaft in an auto in 1901. By 1903 was old news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedimentary (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 * With that line of reasoning, 'drive shaft' was first mentioned in 1861, so we may as well delete everything after that. The early 1900s were a time of flux, with many competing terms for almost everything as inventors literally making things up as they went without reference to each other. It took a while for things to settle down to the terms we use today.  Stepho  talk 22:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Drive shaft


text:
Jean-Bernard Gauthier de Murnan

Jean-Bernard Gauthier de Murnan (1748 in Bourg-en-Bresse – 27 September 1796) was a French officer for the Continental Army and a French general during the French Revolution.

Jean-Bernard Gauthier was born in a family of jurists in Bourg-en-Bresse (now Ain département) of France. He was baptized on 28 November 1748. He became an officer in the French Royal Army. When he was young, he had to leave France after a duel. He served as a cavalry officer and then military engineer in the Imperial Russian Army. He was hired as a lieutenant in a regiment of dragoons in Smolensk. He was under the command of Prince Golitsyn until 1776, when he became Captain-Engineer, after studying at the Moscow University.

When he returned to France, he was sent to support the newly born United States as a Lt. Colonel of the Engineers in the Continental Army. In the French Revolutionary Army, he was appointed Colonel of the Infantry, then Colonel of the Cavalry, and then promoted to a Brigade General in command of the cavalry.

American Revolutionary War service
He was later sent to the United States with a group of military engineers, including Captain Pierre Charles L'Enfant and Colonel Louis Lebègue Duportail to support the Americans, who lacked military engineers, during the Revolutionary War. It is pointed out that the massive French military participation took place in 1781. Starting in January 1777, he was under the direction of General John Sullivan. In March 1778, he was promoted to major in the US Army Corps of Engineers by the Continental Congress. He participated in the Massachusetts Campaign in 1778.

Then, with General George Washington, he served in the Sullivan Expedition against the 'six Indians Nations', up to the current Wyoming. Under French Brigadier General Marquis de Choisy, he took part to the besieging of York and Gloucester in 1781. Following a special decision of the US Congress, he was commissioned in September 1783 lieutenant colonel by brevet by the Continental Army.

French Army service
In 1784, he returned to France. He married Andrée Claudine Sain on 30 September 1784, in Lyon. He was back in the French Army when the First Coalition against the revolutionaries in France took place (see also French Revolutionary Wars).

In 1791, he was promoted lieutenant-colonel, serving in the infantry, then serving as Adjudant-Général from May 1791, namely in Sedan retrenched camp. He was then promoted colonel, serving as Chief-of-Staff of the Army on the Sambre. In 1792, he became Colonel of the 35th Infantry Regiment. Therefore, he was at the Battle of Valmy on 20 September 1792 and the Battle of Jemmapes on 6 November 1792. In January 1793 he became colonel of the 13th Dragoon Regiment. Promoted as Brigade-General, he commanded the right flank of the Northern Army with General Adam Philippe Custine. Tired, he left the army and retired around Bourg-en-Bresse. He was twice arrested during the La Terreur in spring 1794. He died on 27 September 1796, in Villereversure, Ain.

For his duties, he received Croix de Saint-Louis in 1791, and for his services during the American Revolutionary War he became member of the Society of the Cincinnati in 1783.

He was the uncle of First French Empire General Aubry, killed at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813, and cousin of the member of the revolutionary French National Convention Gauthier des Orcières, also called Gauthier de l'Ain.

title: Jean-Bernard Gauthier de Murnan


text:
Talk:Penn Hills, Pennsylvania

town?
Confusion once again...in Pennsylvania only the terms "city," "borough," and "township" have any specific meaning. To use "town" is misleading - we should say "community" or some such, since some states use the word "town" to have a specific meaning. And, of course, if it is in fact a borough, we should say that, too.john k 20:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Penn Hills is officially a "municipality" just like Monroeville. The page should probably be changed and renamed to reflect this. 71.182.242.215 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Municipality of Penn Hills → Penn Hills, Pennsylvania – Standard naming convention for U.S. towns.  Dough 48  72  04:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Support Seems pretty straight forward.  Skinsmoke (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on Penn Hills, Pennsylvania
Cyberbot II has detected links on Penn Hills, Pennsylvania which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://g.co/maps/fe948
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 04:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Penn Hills, Pennsylvania


text:
Category talk:Dancehall musicians

something wrong with the alphabet here... don't know how to fix it tho. help anyone? cheers. wathiik.

Riddims list
Hi does anyone know what happened to the page on wikipedia with a list of dancehall riddims? I swear I remember there being one, it was how I learnt the name for the riddim of pitbull's song culo. TeePee-20.7 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Dancehall musicians


text:
Motion detection

Motion detection is the process of detecting a change in the position of an object relative to its surroundings or a change in the surroundings relative to an object. It can be achieved by either mechanical or electronic methods. When it is done by natural organisms, it is called motion perception.

Methods
Motion can be detected by monitoring changes in:
 * Infrared light (passive and active sensors)
 * Visible light (video and camera systems)
 * Radio frequency energy (radar, microwave and tomographic motion detection)
 * Sound (microphones, other acoustic sensors)
 * Kinetic energy (triboelectric, seismic, and inertia-switch sensors)
 * Magnetism (magnetic sensors, magnetometers)
 * Wi-Fi Signals (WiFi Sensing)

Mechanical
The most basic forms of mechanical motion detection utilize a switch or trigger. For example, the keys of a typewriter use a mechanical method of detecting motion, where each key is a switch that is either off or on, and each letter that appears is a result of the key's motion.

Electronic
The principal methods by which motion can be electronically identified are optical and acoustic. Infrared light or laser technology can be used for optical detection. Motion-detection devices such as PIR motion detectors have a sensor that detects a disturbance in the infrared spectrum. A signal can then activate an alarm, and/or a camera to capture an image or video of the event.

This method's chief applications are:

 * Detection of unauthorized entry
 * Turning lights on/off when an area is entered/vacated
 * Activating a camera to record new events (e.g. human activity)

A simple algorithm for motion detection by a fixed camera compares the current image with a reference image and monitors the number of different pixels. Since images naturally differ due to factors such as varying lighting, camera flicker, and CCD dark currents, pre-processing is useful to reduce the number of false positive alarms.

More complex algorithms are necessary to detect motion when the camera itself is panning, or when a specific object's motion must be detected in a field containing other, irrelevant movement—for example, a painting surrounded by visitors in an art gallery. With a panning camera, models based on optical flow are used to distinguish between apparent background motion caused by the camera's movement and that of independently moving objects.

Devices
Motion detectors are often integrated components of systems that automatically perform tasks, or alert users of motion in an area. An occupancy sensor detects the entry or movement of a person or thing within a certain space.

Motion controllers are also used for video game consoles as game controllers. A camera can also allow the body's movements to be used for control, such as in the Kinect system.

title: Motion detection


text:
Military education and training

Military education and training is a process which intends to establish and improve the capabilities of military personnel in their respective roles. Military training may be voluntary or compulsory duty. It begins with recruit training, proceeds to education and training specific to military roles, and sometimes includes additional training during a military career. Directing staff are the military personnel who comprise the instructional staff at a military training institution.

In some countries, military education and training are parts of the compulsory education. The organizers believe that military education can bring some benefits and experiences that cannot be obtained from normal class like setback education. Moreover, participants are able to learn survival skills during the military education, like co-operations and resilience, which help participants improve the capabilities of military personnel in their respective roles.

Recruit training
The primary and initial form of military training, recruit training, makes use of various conditioning techniques to resocialize trainees into a military system, to ensure that they will obey all orders without hesitation, and to teach basic military skills. Resocialization as a sociological concept involves the process of mentally and emotionally "retraining" individuals so that they can operate in a new environment; it promotes changes to an individual's attitudes and behaviours. The drill instructor has the task of making the service members fit for military use.

Role-specific training
After their recruit training, personnel may undergo further training specific to their military role, including the use of any specialist equipment. They are then normally deemed fit for military service.

Further training
Military personnel may continue to receive training during their career.

title: Military education and training


text:
Corel Photo-Paint

Corel Photo-Paint is a raster graphics editor developed and marketed by Corel since 1992. Corel markets the software for Windows and Mac OS operating systems, previously having marketed versions for Linux (Version 9, requiring Wine). Its primary market competitor is Adobe Photoshop.

In 2006, Corel released version 13 as Photo-Paint X3, employing this naming convention for subsequent releases as well as for CorelDraw, included with Photo-Paint in CorelDraw Graphics Suite. The current version is Photo-Paint 2020. Corel has marketed a limited edition of Photo-Paint called Corel Photo-Paint SELECT with HP scanning hardware, e.g., the HP ScanJet 5p scanners.

Features
Photo-Paint's native format is .CPT (Corel Photo-Paint Image), which stores image data as well as information within an image, including objects (layers in some raster editors), colour profiles, text, transparency, effect filters.

The program can open and convert vector formats from CorelDraw and Adobe Illustrator and can open other formats, including PNG, JPG and GIF files — as well as competing photo editor formats from Photoshop, GIMP and Paint Shop Pro (the latter also a Corel product). The program also supports plug-in functionality including those developed for Adobe Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro. Other extensions such as brushes are also compatible with Photo-Paint.

Corel Photo-Paint X6–X7 supports OpenType font features. With X7 Update 4 the Font List new additional features in X7 Update 4 allows for filtering type fonts by weight, width, supported scripts, font Technology, Character Range, Style.

As other raster graphics editors, Corel Photo-Paint allows an image to be edited in multiple layers, called objects here. A gradient line going from opaque to transparent, for instance, can be used to have a darker foreground color fade into a lighter background color. The UI is highly customizable, and the user can freely move dialogs or adjust button sizes and such. Effects can be applied to a picture including Smart Blur—a type of Gaussian blur effect which however retains sharpness around sharper edges—Mesh Warp, Camera Lens Flare, Trace Contour and others. There is limited support for vector paths to be integrated. Depending on personal preferences and work style, users may prefer Corel Photo-Paint over Adobe Photoshop or the other way round, though in terms of market share, Photoshop is clearly more represented.

As a component of the CorelDraw Graphics Suite, Photo-Paint can exchange data with other programs in the suite, including Corel Connect (Version X5 - X7), which enables users to share files between different computer software and drives on the user's computer. CorelDraw and Photo-Paint are also copy-paste compatible, with format and effects retention — and without file conversion.

Just like in CorelDraw, Photo Paint tasks can be automatized by scripts and macros, using both COREL Script and Microsoft's VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) and VSTA (Visual Studio Tools for Applications). Corel calls the smaller macros created with COREL Script "Scripts", and the scripts created with the Microsoft tools "macros".

title: Corel Photo-Paint