Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

2027 - Prophecy of the Popes

Would the prophecy of the popes count in this section (Malachy's prophecy)? Alimsts (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it could fit if worded well: I read the wikipedia article on Saint Malachy and another on the Prophecy of the Popes, and it sounds like the date, even the count of the 'last pope', is pretty wishy-washy. I guess it would depend on getting a good citation of a commonly held interpretation. Rjmail (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it could fit well at present. The prophecy of the popes 'prediction' was deleted from this list a long time ago on the grounds it isn't a clear predicted date and the range of dates could span decades even after we reach the final supposed number of popes. (See here). I agreed with the removal. You definitely can't add it as is right now. You'd need a good citation that predicts a clear date/narrow date range as consistent with the rest of the predictions in the article. If such a source was found, it would likely become an 'attributed' prediction to that source, as Saint Malachy definitely didn't predict a date (assuming he made this prediction at all). Damien Linnane (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The list of the Popes is: The Popes in ordinary time until Pope Benedict XVI.

Pope Francis I was elected 2013, as part of the 5th (of 10) Warnings from God about the Apocalypse to come. Francis I was the proxy for Pope Peter II, who will be born about February 2029, the man-child in Revelations. He is elected Pope: 2033 and fulfills The Quran's Surah An-Nasr as the 12th Imam aged 5: 5th March 2034.

As Pope Peter established Judeo-Christianity, Pope Peter II will establish Islamic-Christianity.

This Pope is the one who guides the Roman Catholic Church to its destruction, with the Vatican, the Temple to our Lord Christ, partially destroyed 4th November 2029; the opening of the 6th Seal. The Roman Catholic Church is then without a Pope for 1260 Days: 4th November 2029 is day 1. Pope Peter II is made Pope for the Easter Vigil Mass.

The associated earthquake is due to the statue Christ the Redeemer being pulled off St. Peter's Basilica, leaving a space for the Abomination unto Desolation to replace it. The Abomination of Desolation is a statue of the anti-Christ (he is the Beast of the Beast of the Sea, and the Beast of the Land).

The 6th Warning: 2016 was the election of President Trump: to warn about the anti-Christ's benevolent Reign: Trump pronounced 30,000 lies, averaging 21 lies a day.

The 9th Warning: 2025 was the election of President Trump: to warn about the Beast of the Land (MAGA) and the Reign of Terror. ... look-up Trump Reign of Terror on DuckDuckGo, as Google is in Trump's pocket. Get ready: Trump has only just started: but has already presented himself as a King (the anti-Christ kills the Great Monarch/the Imam Mahdi in March 2038, and declares himself as King of the World), and Trump has put up a photograph of himself as Pope (the anti-Christ kills Pope Peter II/the 12th Imam October 2041), and declares himself as the Pope, and resurrected Messiah, putting the Abomination unto Desolation on top of St. Peter's Basilica while the Jewish 3rd Temple is still being built, started 2038, finished March 2045 when the Sin of Desolation, the Parah Adumah (Numbers Chapter 19) is performed, and then the Pasch: causing the consequential Wrath of God, starting with the 3 Days of Darkness.

Elias the Prophet (The Prophecies of Malachias Chapter 4, Surah Al-an'am v85). 80.0.210.108 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No reliable sources provided = no consideration of adding anything to the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The reference to 'Aggai' does not exist

The article currently says this about 1997 and Bishop Aggai:

"The 1st-century bishop of Edessa predicted this date to be the birth date of the Antichrist and the end of the universe."

The reference is to a book by Stephen J Gould, Questioning the Millennium on page 72. The book contains no such reference to Bishop Aggai on that page, nor does it contain any reference to Bishop Aggai anywhere in the book. I have only been able to check the revised edition, so unless it was in the first edition, this never existed, and if it were in the first edition, then the author removed it.

I can't find any reference to Bishop Aggai making any such prediction anywhere, in any historical or contemporary source. This appears to be completely made up. DrJNCU (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be useful if someone could check the first edition, and if it's in there, to add a note that Gould claimed it in the first edition, but removed it in the second. Otherwise, I agree this entry should be deleted. Rjmail (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The information was added by an IP back in 2017 with no explanation: . The IP made no other edits to the article, though the article was receiving a lot of non-constructive edits from IPs in general around the period. It may have been subtle vandalism. Accordingly, I'm removing it now. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Sept. 23/24 2025 prediction

There's another rapture prediction that is/was in the media, promoted by many influencers. Now with the hashtag #RaptureTok.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/us/rapture-tiktok-sept-23.html
• https://apnews.com/article/rapture-end-times-evangelical-christians-tiktok-e7d065520186503a6223ee12df1f02dd
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2025/09/23/rapturetok-tik-tok-apocalypse/

Kevinhevans (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The criteria for modern predictions thus far has been both a reliable source and either a notable claimant (as a rule of thumb notability is shown by either the individual or organisation they represent meeting WP:GNG by having their own article) or an article about the prediction/issue (For example, Year 2000 problem). This prevents the list being bloated with the many, many social media claims that occasionally get a tad of media coverage in a source that just scrapes through WP:RS. There are indeed several high-quality sources for this claim though, so I'm more open to it remaining included in the list. Happy to hear other opinions. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the sources are probably there, here's a CNN: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I see it got a mention at Rapture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Secular apocalypses

I've thought of adding more secular apocalyptic events on this article. For example, Geert Vanden Bossche has made 7 guesses at when a virulent COVID variant wipes out vaccinated populations, but most of the articles are on his website, and through YouTube and Rumble videos. Unless this is mainly for academic sources. Patty J H (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

While academic is not strictly necessary, see thread above, Wp:SPS will not fly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Error

2000 is 20th century not 21st ~2025-31304-46 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You're right. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice catch! Rjmail (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate summary of cited source in lead; plus one non-RS source

In the current lead, there is a quite problematic paragraph in the first section:

"Little research has been carried out into the reasons that people make apocalyptic predictions.[4] Historically, such predictions have been made for the purpose of diverting attention from actual crises like poverty and war, pushing political agendas, or promoting hatred of certain groups;[5] antisemitism was a popular theme of Christian apocalyptic predictions in medieval times, while some French and Lutheran depictions of the apocalypse were known to feature English and Catholic antagonists, respectively.[5][6] According to psychologists, possible explanations for why people believe in modern apocalyptic predictions include: mentally reducing the actual danger in the world to a single and definable source; an innate human fascination with fear; personality traits of paranoia and powerlessness; and a modern romanticism related to end-times, resulting from its portrayal in contemporary fiction.[4][7] The prevalence of Abrahamic religions throughout modern history is said to have created a culture that encourages the embracement of a future drastically different from the present.[1][8] Such a culture is credited for the rise in popularity of predictions that are more secular in nature, such as the 2012 phenomenon, while maintaining the centuries-old theme that a powerful force will bring about the end of humanity.[8]"

The first sentence plain contradicts the second: if there is little research, how is it possible to make a bald statement such as the second? Furthermore, the cited article [4] is not a Scientific American article, but a blog post on their social site with no attributed citations and no actual research studies as evidence, where the quoted scientists specifically use words like "suspects": it is of zero credibility as a WP:RS.

The second sentence quotes [5] an article from the Smithsonian magazine, yet that article merely quotes the same source as [6] (O'Heirs), so it has little value as a WP:RS in its own right. Furthermore, the Smithsonian article does not even give an accurate summary of the OHeirs article: first, because the OHeir article is about depiction and art (hence the title of the article ("apocalypse now our incessant desire to picture the end of the world") and speaks of the anti-semitism, and anti-English etc as sources of contemporary figures for art that fills a human apocalyptic psychological need, not about any prediction of dates themselves; second, the Smithsonian article misses the point and summarizes the O'Heir article that apocolypticism is the figleaf for numbing against famine and war, for pushing political agendas, and for promotion of hatred of certain groups. Now it may be that this is true, but it simply is not what the OHeir article is saying. Consequently that Smithsonian article [5] is not a good source, and the summary from it should be removed.

The third sentence again cites the useless blog post [4]. But it also quotes a Newsweek article [7]: it turns out that this article only has one relevant source who is not just making things up: "According to Sullivan, this global fascination may stem from our desire to mentally reduce the actual danger and evil in the world." This seems like the only statement that is comes close to being from an WP:RS (reliable because they are an accredited expert who has actually done research in the area of their speciality, according to the article, though no hard citation is provided of course.)

The fourth sentence seems irrelevant (regardless of how true it is): looking at citation [1] it actually has nothing about predicting specific dates: indeed, the people given as examples seem to deny that specific dates can be given. And, indeed, [1] has a problem that it does not define "apocalypse" as a sudden catastrophic event but merely that the future will be different from the present: so I don't think it is relevant to this article. For the citations of the Aveni book[8] there are no page numbers, so checking is difficult: however, Aveni specifically mentions in his introduction non-Abrahamic religions, and states his thesis that the modern apocalypticism came from Zoroastrian sources in (p.8) antiquity that entered Christianity in the early Middle Ages, so I am very doubtful that he is being correctly summarized. Indeed, he has a whole chapter on Madame Blavatsky, who was hardly "Abrahamic"! And he even quotes the "perennial philosophy" idea that we want to go back to a golden age, not advance to some new future. So since the summaries of the citations for [1] and [8] are highly dubious, the fourth sentence should go too.

The fifth sentence (the last one) also uses the Aveni book as the citation. Because I don't see that "such a culture" is fair to the book, I am dubious about this sentence too: even if a statement on Abrahamic religiou could be found in the Aveni book, it would be cherry-picking to quote it: Aveni is clearly more interested in other theories.

By the time we get rid of the dodgy citations and poor summaries, there is basically nothing left of value in the paragaph. Consequently, I think either that whole paragraph should be removed (and the corresponding call out in the first paragraph of the lead to Abrahamic religions) or it should be completely re-written with better WP:RS and less sloppy summarization. (Or, I suppose, convincing citations could be found instead.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead section was peer reviewed in 2018 as part of the FLC process. You appear to be the first person to have a problem with it since 2018. I don't see any contradiction in the first sentence. The first section is referring to modern predictions; the second clarifies that we have more data on historical reasons. I thought this was obvious, but I've just reworded it in the hopes that it makes it even more obvious now.

I think the Scientific American blog post is WP:RS. It was was written by Daisy Yuhas, who is a columnist for Scientific American and a science journalist. Considering the author and hosting website, I'll be surprised if WP:RSN think the source has "zero credibility" and is "useless" as you allege, but you're welcome to take it there and ask them if they think it is acceptable or not.

Contrary to your comments, the Aveni source clearly cites page numbers (page xii in this paragraph). Go down to reference No. 8 in the reference list and see the page number right there. So you're going to have to be very specific about why the content on that page doesn't back up the claim, rather than using original research to explain why you think the book wouldn't support that. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Abrahamic

> the Aveni source clearly cites page numbers.

Yes, I see that now. So going and looking at page xii, there is absolutely nothing there about Abrahamic religions, is there? (Indeed, the word Abrahamic does not seem to appear in the book: Abraham as a person does, once.) Nor any some substitute for Abrahamic religion, that I can see. Therefore it does not support the last two sentences (and the mention in the first sentence.). And citation [1] also does not refer to Abrahamic religions either. So these sentences (4 & 5) are not summaries of the cited sources, and should get proper citations or be removed. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

A source doesn't necessarily explicitly have to state a word, if it's clearly referring to it. When Aveni talks about the religious beliefs of Christopher Columbus in the source, and the religions of early American settlers, he's clearly referring to Abrahamic religions. If you're this hung up about the word Abrahamic, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, feel free to propose a substitute word. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking back over the History, I see that the Aveni reference earlier gave page 7 not page xii. But there is nothing on page 7 that justifies the statement that Abrahamic religions are especially prone to apocalyptism. Actually, it seems that the Aveni reference was originally on a subsequent sentence: the sentence was moved or removed but the citation reference was not removed, and has hung around like a zombie. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you originally missed that the source used page numbers, when the page numbers were clearly visible and formatted appropriately, indicated a lack of understanding on your part of referencing on Wikipedia, though I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. After reading your comment above, I'm no longer willing to do that. Contrary to your claims, page 7 was never used to justify anything about Abrahamic religions or apocalyptism. Page 7 has always been used exclusively to support the statement that religious predictions can be based on mathematical equations. The sentence wasn't "moved or removed", and it hasn't "hung around like a zombie". It has remained exactly where it was deliberately placed, and continues to back up what it always has. I'm happy for other people to weigh in on this discussion, though I don't intend to reply to you further about sources at this stage as you've clearly demonstrated you can't figure out which references support which statements, even though they're formatted correctly and clearly. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Daisy Yuhas

The webpage explicitly says it is not a Scientific American article: "This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American". It is a blog or opinion piece, not peer-reviewed etc: "Most editorials, op-eds, reviews, blogs, and advice and essay columns are not high-quality primary sources" I have identified two specific problems: first that the blog piece merely cites another more authoritative article (O'Heirs) that is also cited in the article and therefore is otiose; second that the summary of the O'Heir's article is untenable. (This is not original research, it is verification of a cited source.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, it doesn't explicitly say it's not a Scientific American article, it says it "was published in Scientific American’s former blog network". I'm well aware it is a published article on their blog network, as opposed to in their magazine. I think that's neither here nor there. Secondly, Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy, which you've linked above, explicitly says "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" (emphasis mine). Thirdly, the keyword in "Most editorials, op-eds, reviews, blogs, and advice and essay columns are not high-quality primary sources" is most. Even self-published sources can be used on Wikipedia, depending on who wrote them. This article, while indeed published on the blog of Scientific American, was written by a columnist employed by the Scientific American. Most blog posts aren't written by experienced science journalists who are employed to write by the magazine publishing the blog in question. Until WP:RSN rules this source is unacceptable to use, I consider it to be WP:RS. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

PROPECY OF 2026

SUGGEST TO ADD THIS TO THE ITHEMS 2026 (September 3rd): The Second Coming on Messiah, signalled by the opening of the 7th Seal, according to Christian Gaviria Alvarez, based on the Book of Revelation. That is the beginning of the millennial Shabbath of the Earth, during which The "two witnesses" will die on 2026-SEP-17. The Gathering of the People of God (a.k.a. The Rapture) will occur on 2026-SEP-20. . Rapture on Sept 20th 2026. The Final Judgment and throwing of unsaved persons into the Lake of Fire in the Valley of Jehoshaphat on the south side of Jerusalem will ocurr on 2027-FEB-22 the Messiah will rule the Earth for 1,000 years.
Sources: https://www.wisdomofgod.us/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210316212008/https://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl21.htm אליהו אשד (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

On his website, Mark Corneillie has published statements expressing his belief that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will take place on September 26, 2026.”

sources :

https://web.archive.org/web/20240515082604/https://www.thegreatinvitation.net/

https://web.archive.org/web/20210316212008/https://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl21.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by אליהו אשד (talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

None of those sources pass WP:RS. In order to add any prediction to the list you need two things. Firstly, a reliable source (see WP:RS), and secondly, also a claimant who meets WP:GNG (either the person making the predictions needs to have their own Wikipedia article, needs to be a spokesperson or leader of an organisation that has their own Wikipedia article, or the prediction itself needs to have its own Wikipedia article (such as 2012 phenomenon)). Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding some of the wikilinking

I have noticed that up to the header "19th century" the article does not avoid wikilinking the names of the claimants and more whenever possible, but it does avoid "doubles" and "triples" from the header "20th century" and onward, so why the two different approaches? ~2026-87373-2 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, articles grow over time, and no one has yet bothered to unify the style used across all sections. You could, if you want to. The relevant section of the Manual of Style is MOS:REPEATLINK. Important bit: Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. LightlySeared (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If there's any duplicate links within the same sections, I.e. duplicated within the '19th century', they're almost certainly unintentional. Feel free to remove them. If things are duplicated in different sections I'd say that's probably intentional for the reason mentioned above. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)