Talk:Signs of the coming of Judgement Day

Purpose of the article?

The article seems to be a duplicate of the edited Islamic eschatology. While the article has been slightly improved over the years, this article seems to have copied the exact issues of the previous one. Furthermore, the article does not seem to improve over time.

Thus, I would like to inquire what the intentions of this article are.

As the article is now, the article seems to violate guidlines, including WP:NOTABOUTYOU, WP:ABRAHAMICPOV, WP:PODIUM. The parts which comply by WP:MOS are covered in the section "Apocalyptic Literature" of the main article. If the article cannot be expected to comply by WP:GUIDELINE in the foreseeable future, the article is at best turned into a redirect.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Sunni signs content

Hi VenusFeuerFalle — I noticed in Special:Diff/1308830448 that most of the content, including the "Signs in Sunni Islam" section, was removed. That section cited secondary academic sources such as Jean-Pierre Filiu (*Apocalypse in Islam*) and Barbara Freyer Stowasser (*The End is Near: Minor and Major Signs of the Hour in Islamic Texts and Contexts*).

Could you clarify which specific policy concern you had in mind for this deletion (e.g. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE)? If the issue is with presentation, synthesis, or balance, I’d be glad to work with you on revising the section into a more concise and clearly attributed form rather than removing it entirely.

Liquid64 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the issue with the article is that it is mostly promotion of apocalyptic narratives and also WP:ABRAHAMICPOV. The users who contribute most on this article moved from Islamic eschatology - after I added the historical and religious context for the beliefs in the signs - to a new article where they could promote their Apocalyptism again. Even though there are some reliable sources thrown where and here, the overall article is written uncritically as an intra-religious essay. The few reliable sources can be readded if they are actually used for what they say and not just to have a few valid citations in an otehrwise unreliable and uncritical text.

To be blunt: I think there is no purpose on this article apart from trying to evade criticism, as I already pointed out above. This is almost a year ago, and substantial differences between this article and Islamic eschatology are yet to show. If this article does not get better towards the end of the year, I may consider proposing a deletion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A few thoughts from my side:

On the point that the article is “promotion of apocalyptic narratives”: I don’t see it as promotion, but rather as a description of what Islamic tradition says about the signs of Judgment Day—similar to how the Islamic eschatology article describes those beliefs.

Regarding WP:ABRAHAMICPOV and the concern that the article is “written uncritically”: I tried to bring in reliable secondary sources, especially for the “Signs in Sunni Islam” section (e.g., Filiu, Stowasser). That said, I’m open to correction if I’ve misapplied them.

On the “intra-religious essay” point: there are no primary sources being used in that section, but I do see what you mean. What I did was compile the signs listed in Stowasser and Filiu into a summary list. I agree that more context and interpretation would be preferable—would it be better practice to integrate the lists with commentary from those scholars?

About the overlap with Islamic eschatology: I understand that this article may duplicate content. Personally, I think there’s value in having the “Signs of Judgment Day” covered explicitly, whether as a stand-alone article or as part of Islamic eschatology, since they are an important aspect of Islamic belief.

Finally, I’d like to mention that I’m still fairly new to Wikipedia editing, so I’d really appreciate any guidance on how best to approach improvements here. Liquid64 (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Islamic tradition says about the signs of Judgment Day"

sure, but Islamic tradition is not a monolith and presenting a specific narrative as an Islamic belief as a whole, is pushing for a certain belief.

" tried to bring in reliable secondary sources, especially for the “Signs in Sunni Islam” section (e.g., Filiu, Stowasser). That said, I’m open to correction if I’ve misapplied them." I think it is the broader context. Just ebcause there are a few reliable sources covering something does not mean it is notable. Imagine me picking, lets say, a reliable source about Turkish demon beliefs where a specific water demon from Bosporus is mentioned and then I describe this as "Muslim beliefs in Jinn living in the water" as an entire article.

"I agree that more context and interpretation would be preferable—would it be better practice to integrate the lists with commentary from those scholars?"

Lists are generally discouraged. If you want to rewrite the good parts of the article, feel free to go to the View History and play around in the Sandbox of your userpage and then Copy&Paste it back to the article. But make sure, the context of the subject itself is clear. Apocalypcism is, as evident from the Eschatology Main article, only relevant in a specific context. I think a good analgy would be a Christian example. Many US Americans fear the rapture, while the rapture is not a thing in Western Europe. Both are Christians. Context is key.

"Finally, I’d like to mention that I’m still fairly new to Wikipedia editing" and you do already better than many other users I came across simply by going to a discussion and learning about the project rather than going key-pad warrior and accuse everyone around as being par tof a satanic conspiracy to "stray away people from God's path" just for critically approaching religion. If a religion is true it does not need to fear criticism. If a religion is wrong, there is nothing lost. So I don't get why many (obviously) adherents to a religion get so easily mad.

That being said, I am still on a tight schedule. So I may or may not be able to have a closer look at the article. As recommanded, take the Sandbox you can asscess then opening the portray of your User in the right top corner, first. And when you think you have a substantial text - which shows notability, a non-religious viewpoint, and historical/religious context - feel free to add it. I then want to make some improvements if necessary. As you have expressed a wish to improve the article, I gained some hope for it again. Oh, by "religious context" I meant something the line of of this from Islamic eschatology - Wikipedia: "There is no universally accepted apocalyptic tradition among either Sunnis or Shias. The Quran is primarily an eschatological work, not an apocalyptic one. The Quran, concerned about the impending Day of Judgement, leaves no room for apocalyptic events in the far future. Apocalyptic narratives are only composed 150-200 years later from different religious elements. The first known complete Islamic apocalyptic work is the Kitāb al-Fitan (Book of Tribulations) by Naim ibn Hammad." This is good because now, everythign afterwards, is defined as part of a specific part of the religion rather than discussing the religion in itself. And make also sure that the name of the article is justified. Are there (other) encyclopedias which discuss this subject? Does it appear in academia frequently or only in theological texts? If "Signs of Judgement Day" is not widely of scholarly interest, maybe just add it to the Islamic eschatology article. And rememmber to write in prose, and avoid lists if possible. cheers VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Many US Americans fear the rapture" Why do they fear it? The rapture is one aspect of the Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead, and the relevant predicted events are mostly depicted as hopeful promises instead of threats. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)