Talk:Rapture Ready

Could JimTS elaborate how it's "quite a bit biased"? I'll review it, but changing some of the article's statements would change its meaning. DavidA 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems quite a bit biased under the surface toward the POV expressed by Rapture Ready. JimTS 15:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Improvements

I've made some general improvements to the article ... there is one statement that concerns me, though. The article says that Rapture Ready has over 11K articles. When I look at http://www.raptureready.com/, I count something around 150 links on the main page. There are 50 or so articles submitted by readers ... http://www.raptureready.com/soap/soapbox.html ... and each link under "Featured End Time Writers" has a few articles ... say, an average of 40ish * 14 = 560. At any rate, that adds up to something less than 1000. Where does the number 11K come from? BigDT 01:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like an ad to me

The article is somewhat sparse and could stand for some revision, but I don't think that it currently resembles a commercial advertisement. The site has been mentioned multiple times in mainstream news sources, is fairly well-known in online circles, and has existed for several years (there's something that should be added to the article).

I think it is definitely deserving of a small article on Wikipedia. Nate 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the small changes made over the last few days the article already looks somewhat less-biased and even less like an advertisement and more like what it is: a report on a late 20th century/early 21st century cultural phenomenon. - Joe The Editor

Rapture Index

(sarcasm warning)

Does anyone know how they actually came up with these numbers or is it a secret? I mean it does seem a bit odd they take something like the Antichrist and just give it a value of two. Also they say when the index hits 145 you should "fasten your seat belts", probably suggesting the rapture is imminent. How do they know 145 is a critical threshold instead of 4242 for example? By the way, shouldn't you rather loosen your seat belts? Anyhow, I'm sure they have arrived to their numbers through solid science and rigorous methodology. I'm just hoping to reach higher level of enlightenment. I mean its not like they just pulled this whole index out of a place into which the Sun doesn't shine just to fool gullible and unducated people, who don't understand numbers are not magic. --Lakefall 15:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed they say: "You could say the Rapture index is a Dow Jones Industrial Average of end time activity, but I think it would be better if you viewed it as prophetic speedometer. The higher the number, the faster we're moving towards the occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture." So, how does "end time activity" speed the approach of the rapture exactly and why does the speed make any difference to us if we have no idea of the distance of the rapture? I have plenty of more questions, if you get tired of these. ;-) --Lakefall 15:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1987!

The internet didn't exist in 1987. Someone fix this.

You might be thinking of the worldwide web. The internet certainly existed from the early 1980s. The example posted on the website shows a Telnet session accessing the Usenet group alt.bible.prophecy in 1989. Usenet started in 1979. ^ross ^nixon 03:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand it says "website" and founded in 1987, that is certainly not consistent. And identifying a website with a newsgroup is also a bit tricky. At the very least it needs some clarification. VLE 21:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, true. Have changed websites to sites. ^ross ^nixon 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The domain Raptureready.com was registered on March 16, 1999 ... although the website could have existed elsewhere before then so that isn't really conclusive. --B 02:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found history page here [1], so first web site was 1995. ^ross ^nixon 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with "there were no websites as we know them today." There were no websites nor worlwide web at all as far as I know. There was certainaly an internet, newsgroups, and and BBS's, so why not just say what it was? 24.160.242.185 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cult?

There have been some edit wars regarding whether or not Rapture Ready is a cult. I would say that it is not by any formal definition. There is no uniformity of belief beyond that of the possible imminent Rapture. Overall, the board reflects conservative evangelical thinking rather than something outlandish or unfamiliar to Christians. One cannot define "cult" as something that is unpopular--there are always arguments on RR over whether Roman Catholicism is cult!GABaker (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in general is a cult, so anything to do with it does have that aspect. Rapture Ready to the Christian cult is like the Citizens Commission on Human Rights to the Scientology cult. JessicaSideways (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether any particular editor thinks RR is a cult is moot. Unless reliable sources say they are a cult, Wikipedia should not say they are a cult. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning SummerPHD

In your revert-comment you said that the announcing of the Antichrist by an organisation has nothing to do with scientific people concerned with nuclear war.

What topic are you talking about ? I'm on Rapture Ready. It's a religious group not scientific. Maybe you mixed up with another page. This is not about science; it's about religion last I checked it. Kindly explain your comment. I thought you must have mixed up with another page. But you're more than welcome to your ideas. Thank you. Geiremann (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary you are referring to was for an edit removing an out of place link. I removed your addition of a minor mention with the edit summary "-minor mention". - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

The only independent reliable source we have is a Time article from 2002. Originally, this was described as a "Time Magazine Interview". It is no such thing. The 8 page article mentions the Strandberg twice: 4 sentences in the first page, two on page 4. The site is mentioned once. This is a world away from an interview with someone associated with the site. Instead, the article is a broad summary of those who believed the supposed "Rapture" was right around the corner.

Notability on Wikipedia requires substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing currently in the article shows this exists.

Over the coming days, I'll see what I can find, weed out some the unsourced material and see what I can come up with. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding off for a few days until we're done with the current Catholic edit warrior. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original editor blocked. One IP blocked as a sock. New IP, so semi-protection will be added shortly. Then I'll get to work. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]