Talk:The Late Great Planet Earth

message: The source for the assertion that this book was ghost written is the website of an article from an Internet ministry that starts off with the question "Are some of the most cherished books in your personal Christian library written by ghostwriters, some of whom may be homosexuals, atheists, and New Agers?"  The article itself gives no sources for the claim and seems rather hysterical in nature.  I'm not questioning that it is ghost written but is this really a reputable source to be used in Wikipedia? Ajcomeau (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghostwriting Source

message: I converted this article into more of an encyclopedic entry, citing LGPE's place in popular culture as justification for a separate article about it.  In the process I eliminated all comparison and reference to Herbert W. Armstrong and his "1975 in Prophecy."  Since "LGPE" and "1975" are but two of hundreds of similar titles, there is no grounds for isolating "1975" for comparison on this page.  It belongs in a broader context such as the Eschatology article.--Gosteli (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete rewrite, January 2008

message: The introductory sentence to this section:
"While some suggest that Planet Earth is an example of pre-millennialist, dispensationalist Christian Zionist literature, the book is predated by works ..."
is a non-sequitur.  Is the intent of this sentence to suggest the book might not be an example of premillenialism etc., or to show that LGPE was not an original thesis?  --Gosteli (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities with other literature

message: Removed:
:Some consider it to be a "scare tactic" by an evangelical.
Such as? Ellsworth 23:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An old complaint 

message: Note the use of 'generation' as below in the Bible. It does not denote X amount of years.
Both John the Baptist and Christ referred to Israel in a special way as a "generation": "generation of vipers" (Mt 3:7; 23:33); "an evil and adulterous generation" (Mt 12:39); "this wicked generation" (12:45); "wicked and adulterous generation" (16:4); "faithless and perverse generation" (17:17); "evil generation" (Lk 11:29), etc. That generationIsrael as a whole in unbelief and rebellion against God and His Wordwill continue until all is fulfilled. That will be when "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him..." (Zec 12:10). JLMarais 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read in several places that the Greek word for generation [genea] as seen in the Bible could also be translated to mean the Jewish race, meaning that the Jewish race will not pass away before his prophecies were fullfilled. Granted, this theory don't seem to be bery popular. 170.215.105.75 04:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, this qualification merely suggests that Lindsey misinterpreted the passage. They were clear in saying a generation is 40 years. I've edited accordingly.JQ 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" 

message: "Unfortunately for Lindsey-Carlson and Armstong, none of their predictions have come to pass in the order and manner and timeframe that their respective storylines predicted and adds these works to piles of failed prophecies of the past."
This has strong POV where the author seems satisfied that the predictions did not come true - note the sarcasm "Unfortunately for ...".
If this is presented in the article it needs to be verifiable without buying a copy of the book. From that point of view I think it could be considered OR since it cannot be cited online. JLMarais 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it verifiable that _any_ of the claims did come to pass? Maybe that would be a better way to approach the situation, putting the burden of proof on the person making the original claim. It might be a copyright violation to list all the predictions and their hit/miss status, but maybe a simple count of successful/unsuccessful predictions would be okay. Thanks. CSWarren 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  100% unsuccessful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.70.30 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Bart D. Ehrman in his TTC course on the historical Jesus says that the discussed book was bestseller no. 2, bestseller no. 1 being the Bible. He discussed the book in detail in the lecture Jesus Prophet for a new Millenium, but mentions it in other lectures as well. The course can be downloaded by torrents or Usenet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for deleted stance

message: Someone above was curious about the co-author (who I note is actually credited as "C C Carlson'" on the cover of the book, I surmise in order to obscure the fact she's a woman). Presumably she's this lady here (pdf), the Rev Carole C Carlson, who retired in 2005 at the age of 67 (making her 32 in 1970). Surprisingly no mention of the book though. Appears to have returned to work shortly afterwards. Born of Ross and Mary Carkeet, who died in 1998 and 2008. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlson 

message: I have examined 20+ title citations for this book in various locations on the web -- including every digital image of the covers and title pages of this book encountered.  Essentially the only one which places a 'comma' punctuation mark between the words "Late" & "Great" is THIS wikipedia article (and two concomitant spots in the 'Hal Lindsey' article.  I want to fix this anomaly here, and make the corrected & other references hypertext in the 'Hal Lindsey' article.  However, I don't prefer to change this unilaterally or without fair-notice to the editor community or previous contributors.  It's not so urgent that it cannot seek consensus in this 'talk' page before implementation.  I presume the concept behind these 'talk' pages include the idea that interested editors would be following additions to this 'talk' page (i.e., which propose drastic-enough changes to the article itself) and would get *notified* ... and promptly file any needed adjustment commentary here to the proposal.  That stated, I propose to remove the extraneous comma between those two title words everywhere I can find them in wikipedia.  Please concur or object here -- I will hope to try to 'follow' this thread.  I never fixed the syntax of a book-title in Wikipedia before and am concerned that such an alleged 'error' would be made unintentionally.  Therefore:: I could be wrong.  I will regard 'no valid objections' put here within a week as tacit approval of the proposed change.  (P.S.: does the wikipedia help pages state somewhere that the pre-editing modus_operandi IS the process described? If so, where described & 'how long' is the officially recommended 'wait-time' between proposal on 'talk' & edit of article?) Thank-you! James Rodriguez 15:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous comma in title citation.