Talk:Postdiction

message: Section violates a number of wikipedia guidelines, among them WP:NOR, (where are these "steps" published outside WP?) WP:WWIN, (Wikipedia is not a guide book), and WP:NPOV (the very existence of the section implies that clairvoyance is real and that psychics should take these sensible precautions). I will remove the section in two weeks unless a cogent defense addressing each of these points is posted below. Peace. Argyrios 18:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it two months and deleted the section. Argyrios 14:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for sharing. Just a few nitpicks: Skeptics don't have beliefs, there's no "mini-dictionary of irrelevant words" here, and postdiction is a joke. So I think you could have gotten your point across in much fewer words: "I am an idiot". — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're gonna have a problem with this, you can't talk to other editors this way no matter what your opinions are, those are Wikipedia's rules, and you're going to have to abide by them. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Steps to avoid postdiction" should be removed 

message: The Latin phrase vaticinium ex eventu is the professional Biblical scholar's term for [Literally: Foretelling after the event]. Raymond E. Brown charges that the practice of writing after the event is too rational and simple.[An Introduction to New Testament Christology by Raymond Brown, Paulist Press, 1994. P.45.] For example, the story of Jonah being in the belly of the sea monster for three days was connected (probably due to apophenia) to the story of Jesus being in the grave for three days. To the early Christians doubting the historical truth of the Jonah story was looked upon as denying the historical truth that Jesus was in the grave for three days. In the Gospel of Mark Jesus' spoken words while on the cross are words lifted from Psalm 22. In John 19:28 the author tells the reader Jesus said, "I thirst" to fulfill words of Scripture, probably Psalm 22:16; 69:22 in the Hebrew Bible. 
How does one gently explain these things to the uninformed? Kazuba (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Raymond Brown

message: While it is true that many modern Christians interpret Revelation as a prophetic text (in a futurist or in a historicist sense) it is by no means certain that the book was written as a work of fore-telling. Indeed it would have made the work spectacularly useless to first century Christians if that were its only purpose. It's quite legitimate to regard the text as inspirational, or Jewish-style apocalyptic, or deliberately designed to appeal to tastes and background of the first and second century AD church. I'd suggest we find a wording which reflects this in some way. It is however, true to say that many writers of the historicist interpretative school have retrospectively found prophecies in the book of Revelation. Rob Burbidge (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  John of Patmos 

message: This term is referenced here, but I think postdiction and vaticinia ex eventu are not the same thing. Postdiction means: (1) prophecy, then (2) event, then (3) reinterpretation of the prophecy to show that it really did predict the event, even though it wasn't obvious at the time. Vaticinia ex eventu means: (1) event, then (2) prophecy of that event (written as if it will come in the future), then (3) modern day, where we're unsure whether 1 or 2 came first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seidensticker (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely, and upon further examination I noticed that Vaticinium ex eventu used to have a separate article but was turned into a redirect page. I'm going to restore the ex eventu article and add information clarifying the difference.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  vaticinia ex eventu 

message: <<According to critics of paranormal beliefs,>>
I found this part in conflict with WP:NPOV, I mean the effect exist, does it apply or not to a given prediction is up to debat, but the mere existence of the bias is not part of a biased "against side"
Maybe it will have been better to describe the effect neutraly and then say "it is mainly used by ... in order to ..."
imho  GorkamWorka (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Maybe it's just me but this article has nothing to do with it's subject matter at *all*, and the current text should be moved to another article, maybe one entitled psychic skepticism? with this copy either being completely deleted, or changed to an older version. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is fucked