Talk:The Late Great Planet Earth

Ghostwriting Source

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)

Complete rewrite, January 2008

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)

Similarities with other literature

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)

Can't you tell? It seems pretty clear to me that it is that latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.71.143 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

An old complaint

Removed:

Some consider it to be a "scare tactic" by an evangelical.

Such as? Ellsworth 23:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Material about C.C. Carlson

Added:

Information and links on the ghost writer Carole C. Carlson who probably was the real author of the book (follow links added to read about this writer), and added links and references to the earlier origins of this same story (with slight modifications.)

The Hal Lindsey entry needs serious modification since his work seems to be built upon that of a professional ghost writer whose name has now been added to reprints of the book as a "co-author". - Comment added 20:34, 21 Aug 2006, by 70.129.159.248

You have greatly rewritten this page, presenting Carlson as the author of this book. I have three major problems with your edits:

1. If you are going to claim that a book -- any book, much less the best-selling U.S. title of the 1970's -- was not in fact written by the purported author, you need much more evidence than a single website. Especially since the website you linked to does not itself claim that Carlson wrote the book, but merely suggests that it could be true.

2. Your section on "Armstrong version compared to Lindsey-Carlson version" borders on original research.

3. The term "storyline" seems to imply that LGPE is fictional. I think you need a more NPOV term for this. I'm not a dispensationalist myself, but it is POV to imply that dispensationalism is fiction.

Since I'm short on time, instead of rewriting the article I am presenting my objections, hoping you will correct the problems in your recent edits! - Lawrence King 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Lawrence King:

1. I am not claiming anything at all. I was researching something else when I came across this entry. Further investigation shows that the same book was listed as being the work of a single author but that Carlson (about whom I can find little to link to, and I would love to know more - who she is, etc.), obviously reached some sort of legal agreement with Lindsey so that her name appeared on reprints and on other works by Lindsey. Her name also comes up in connection to Dale Evans of Roy Rogers fame, and several others. This suggests that Carlson is a professional author and since this book was the first in a series by Lindsey-Carlson it begs the question of where the storyline popped up from. Now with regards to the word storyline, Lindsey, like Armstrong did set a date which did not come to pass. So does that make the work fact or fiction? You answer. (By the way, the history of WWII is a storyline, but the term does not imply fact or fiction, merely a story - as in HIstory.) As for the material itself, Lindsey had no history as a writer or claimant to the rise of Europe as a superstate, but Armstrong did. Now I would like to know whether Lindsey or possibly Carlson had connections to the Armstrong group in some form or other. I don't know. So I am not claiming anything about anyone other than what Wikipedia and others already reports about Armstrong - which is very well documented, and what others - including Wikipedia - report about Lindsey. Finding stuff on Carlson - other than Amazon and Albris listings for her other works is proving to be more difficult. That is why I listed the single source that I could find because at least it told me what "C.C." stood for and that the author is a woman.

2. Stating that Armstrong wrote the same stuff for years - not exactly a secret since it appears in books, magazines and web sites as well as radio and television broadcasts, is hardly "original research". Stating that Lindsey-Carlson had one minor difference in their version which did not affect the storyline itself, is hardly original. Since millions of both versions were published there is a very good chance that at least a million have also noticed the difference in Rapture and Place of Safety.

3. I am not claiming any belief, either pro or con. I am just improving an article. I don't buy either the Armstrong or the Lindsey-Carlson versions, but you seem to dispute the meaning of the word story - as in history, please check out dictionary.com: "STORY: An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious ..." The word "line" is added as in "outline" and that word has no implied meaning as to truth or falsity. It is NPOV.

4. You are not the only one short on time. If you can improve the article without inserting POV or inserting misinformation or deleting knowledge found elsewhere on Wikipedia and other web sites, please go ahead. That is what Wikipedia is all about.

Further investigation by whom? If yourself, that's original research. "It appears in books, magazines, and web sites..." Can you cite some? If not, that's not verifiable, and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy. If there's a "very good chance", surely it shouldn't be difficult to find a citable source. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You lost me. Are you suggesting duplicating citations that are already listed on the Armstrong site/s on Wikipedia, or what? If that is what you want you could do it yourself. As for original research, what original research? I sense comments from people who would rather complain than contribute. Surely you could find the sources and list them just as easily as me, and since it bothers you more than it bothers me, why not look up the list and list them?

I just twigged to what your "further investigation" comment is all about. You don't read before you comment, do you? That comment is explained above in connection with C. C. Carlson and who she is. That investigation was, as stated above, carried out by someone at a web site that is already cited and linked - not by me!!!!!! Please read before adding time wasting nonsense!

In reply to "The term "storyline" seems to imply that LGPE is fictional". It behoves us to treat ALL mythology or books on mythology as fiction. That is being POV. Any prophecies derived from religious texts or books about such prophecies should be treated as fiction. Otherwise, we'll get everything, from the Mayan Long Count of 2012 to the fate of Islamic martyrs in Paradise being presented as cold fact. Morandir 05:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing that has been Left Behind

One website that does not cite its sources either; "quietly revealed that..." By whom? When? Is that information reliable? It's not up to others to search out sources: it's up to you to provide them so they can be verified. I repeat: the onus is on you to show your sources, not for you to tell people to look for them. If the references are present at the Armstrong articles or other external cites, provide them, as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey buster, listen up! Stop being a lazy git. If you don't like any of it = delete it. If you want to improve it = improve it. But don't start dictating to others. Got it? So shut up and do something and that goes for the other lame brains who have made similar comments.

While I am at it, why don't you take a look at the vast number of pages devoted to "Left Behind" which I stumbled across while posting my original contribution. If ever there was an abuse of Wikipedia in POV advertising for a religious book, those pages have to be it. They need a hatchet taken to them immediately!!!!!! Go there first - delete them or merge them all as a footnote and create one topic on this entire subject of "end of the age" via a European Beast, 666, dislike of the Pope as "antichrist" and so on and so forth. Then you can merge this page with all of that.

You want that job? Go ahead. But in the meantime stick a sock in it and belt up!

Please note WP:CIVIL. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be civil one needs to be civil. What we have in the reactions shown here are those of very uncivil people who don't know the meaning of words (ie: "story" and "outline" - but who think they can edit - pleeeeese!) Then we have those who decide that they don't like a source so they ignore that source and then we have you who delete information without reason and lie about their reason for doing it! This is the reason why Wikipedia is considered a joke by many due to the roving uneducated critics of the works of others while contributing nothing themselves, except to present POV by deleting material they don't like. I am sure that the reason that you are hovering over this topic has something to do with the comments of "Mr. Storyline" above who thinks that the Lindsey-Carlson book is fact rather than conjecture that has already been revealed by current events to be a false prophecy (if there is such a thing as true prophecy.) Now raise your hands, all of you who are now trying to remove the pages of POV bull**** advertising under the multiple headings of "Left Behind" (all of which is against Wiki policy.) What, no hands?

I have been perfectly polite in asking for sources: the Left Behind articles are a red herring - if you're questioning their validity, you can raise that in those articles. No one is saying that an editor should handle Wikipedia as a whole, an impossible task given the number of articles; not to mention that the improvement of the encyclopedia is an ongoing process with dozens, if not more, of articles being reviewed every day. You are also assuming bad faith on our part which is simply not true, and I find the suggestion that I believe in the "prophecies" of Hal Lindsey amusing given my edits on Hal Lindsey themselves. Bottom line: you have to cite reliable sources. If not, your essays are OR. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me to cite sources for the millions of copies sold for this book - those comments were inserted by someone else much earlier! The idea that the word "storyline" denotes fiction is pure fiction on your part and it is a novel OR idea that you are buying into. The dictionary says no such thing. As for the "Left Behind" BS, it is smeared over several pages in blatant POV religious advertising form which receives no attention from you! You are indeed demonstrating bad faith in your comments.

If you don't have a cite, then don't add it, but don't remove the tag; it's there to note that a cite is needed. My edits were mostly for grammar and to conform with WP:MOS requirements as well, and stated in the edit summary. The word choice of thesis over storyline is to make it more neutral, since storyline can be misconstrued, irrespective of what dictionary.com has said. Once again, Left Behind is a red herring - you go ahead with that if you want. I personally am not obliged to have to deal with it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh that is rich! So now you are saying "forget what dictionaries say, my POV is the only standard you need!" Balderdash and poppycock! Come off your pedestal before a gust of wind blows you off. As for the citation, there is no need for one since the person who made the claim did not offer one, so I have removed their claim! Problem solved: you go and research the sales and then I will accuse you of OR using the same lack of logic that you use in editing. As for the POV advertising on "Left Behind" and its clones, you seem to be looking for specs when "Left Behind forms a mountain of dirt covering a chunk of Wikipedia's pages.

"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled"

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)

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)

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)

POV

"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)

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)

100% unsuccessful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.70.30 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Source for deleted stance

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)

Carlson

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)

Extraneous comma in title citation.

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)

Okay, three months later, I have effected all these changes on this artucle's page and on the "Hal Lindsey" page, and had to request an uncontroversial technical move of the article name (I could not 'move' it myself) -- which has been effected. The book cover's jpg filename still has a comma in it -- it could or should be moved to a name without a comma -- but it would require admin help to effect that marginally-useful perfection. James Rodriguez 12:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodor (talk • contribs)