Talk:Left Behind (novel)

message: As currently presented this article is pure religious POV advertising and totally unacceptable as a NPOV work. It should be deleted immediately. If the intention is to create a NPOV review then all of the attached and equally obnoxious POV religious advertising on those pages should be removed and all of them combined into one single article.
:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a review site.  That includes giving more or less accurate descriptions of notable book series.  Being based on a religious work doesn't make it NPOV.  Get over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.241.54 (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the article be. It meets Wikipedia criteria for existing and can certainly be improved. CyberAnth 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DELETE THIS POV RELIGIOUS ADVERTISING!

message: I removed the section about the video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces because the game does not appear to be based on this specific book, but on the series as a whole. Also, the paragraph was extremely biased against the game, showing no semblance of neutrality. The game is already mentioned on the main article for the series, and I moved the info provided here to the article about the video game. Citadel18080 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game Adaptation Section removed 

message: The sentence that claims that the book brought new believers to Christianity is clearly POV and not facutal.  There is zero evidence shown to support such a claim.  Even if someone were to find some evidence, such as a person specifically saying that they joined a religion because of the book, it would probably be that the person joined the same religion as the writer.  Those that are and those that are not considered Christian is a hotly debated topic and clearly sets up a POV problem for the statement.  We must consider the fact that a lot of people that self describe themselves as Christians would not be described as such by other Christians or by objective observers.  I do not even need to mention the utimate objective observer that really counts do I?  There are some Muslims that claim that they can be Muslim and Christian at the same time.  There are Hindus that do not accept the dual nature of Jesus but call themselves Christians, and then there are Hindus that do accept it but would never call themselves Chrisitans.  There are actually a lot of Hindus that worship Jesus as an avatar of Krishna.  Then we have the fact that the writer of this book does not accept Catholics as Christians, clearly showing that he did not look up the word in a Greek-English dictionary.  Many Catholics do accept some but not all protestants as Christian but many Catholics, myself included in case you were wondering, specifically do not accept any outside of the Catholic Church as Christian and never will.  Eastern Orthodox do not accept protestants as Christians either but they do accept Catholics.  
I hope I have made a point with all of this.  The sentence needs to go.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to rant about nothing. Can you site a source saying no one, ever, has converted to Christianity because of these books? Unless you can, you're just as biased as the sentence you accuse of being so. Hypocracy and POV have no place in Wikipedia. 72.178.246.124 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note the fallacy, can you cite any source saying no one, ever, has been turned into a dragon because of these books? Heck, I'll allow original research in this case: all you have to do is prove that no one's been turned into a fire-breathing dragon by reading these books.64.47.69.254 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete suggestion

message: The author of this entry may have gotten carried away with enthusiasm, to the point of seeming absurdity (at least for those who haven't read the books): millions upon millions world-wide have vanished, the dead and alive,[...]
Pray tell: how could the living left behind ever know that dead people have vanished in their millions - by digging up coffins? I suggest that this particular phrase be deleted. Textor (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you like the idea or not is irrelevant. The point is, the authors see this as plausible. This is ignoring that fact that it would be pretty obvious that dead people disappeared when the morgues were randomly missing people. Wouldn't take long to realize it. Morte42 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially laughable Statement

message: This news report refers to the series as "thriller" novels. Should a thriller-related category be added to the article? Or should this genre be mentioned in the article? And I also want to say this book is great, it tells a lot of useful things. Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thriller genre? 

message: Someone ought to write a really plot summary rather than borrow the one from the film version's article. It looks idiotic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.192.175 (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: In one part of the article, she's driving to take a high school exam.  Later in the article, she's a student at Stanford.  I'm skeptical that the college admission process continues during the chaos of the rapture, so which is it?  Is Chloe in high school or college in the book and/or film?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I am reading the Series (Note:  Spoiler Alert!)Chloe is in intended to be in College.  An you are correct she left Stanford not to return after The Rapture happened.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etineskid (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Chloe in high school or in college? 

message: The "plot summary" section currently needs a whole lot of work... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Left Behind (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Journalist Fred Clark has been publishing an ongoing series going through the Left Behind books (and movies) in detail since 2003, http://slacktivist.typepad.com/archives/2011/08/left-behind-at-patheos.html.
It is both comprehensive and popular. There are few resources on the LB novels as detailed and few discussions as revealing and animated. It does comply with WP:EL on the grounds of notability. Garth M (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Clark/Slacktivist Left Behind exploration 

message: Sadly two of the links to Christian views, one Catholic, one Protestant, on this meretricious little pile of pulp are dead links.
http://www.ilcatholic.org/bins/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=cci-pages-Tyndale is a "not here" page, and the one listed above it gives me a "This page cannot be displayed."
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Left Behind (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131114004658/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/08/business/media/08book.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/08/business/media/08book.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://torinmonahan.com/papers/MOB.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Left Behind (novel). 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/20100427015915/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cohen_21_2.html to http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cohen_21_2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414170017/http://slacktivist.typepad.com/archives/2011/08/left-behind-at-patheos.html to http://slacktivist.typepad.com/archives/2011/08/left-behind-at-patheos.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125072625/http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/bins/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=cci-pages-tyndale to http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/bins/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=cci-pages-tyndale
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209145418/http://www.met-uk.org/met/article.php?cat=general&id=166&PHPSESSID=8ad757ca16cf2787c16b37cc03b3b1ce to http://www.met-uk.org/met/article.php?cat=general&id=166&PHPSESSID=8ad757ca16cf2787c16b37cc03b3b1ce
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125071242/http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/onlinetv/?portal&video=432 to http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/onlinetv/?portal&video=432
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) 23:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified