Talk:Great Disappointment/Archive 1

Untitled

Anything that uses Scripture as base bears comparison to Scripture for test of accuracy.

http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/dovenet/sda2300.htm

sure, everybody is having a good time doing so :)

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/sanct&itscleansing.htm

Quote from the article: "Psychologists see this event as an example of Cognitive dissonance." This is not a factual, encyclopedic statement, and violates the NPOV policy. Flagging it as such.

Attributing it to unspecified psychologists is a bit vague, and there should be some explanation of why it is so. But disappointment by prophecy is a typical example of cognitive dissonance, so it is factual. MartinPool 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

At first I thought that the quote "Psychologists see this event as an example of Cognitive dissonance." was some sort of subtle jab against the belief systems mentioned on this page. It did seem to require explanation. I'm not sure whether this event is mentioned by psychologists; the statement seems to be a reference to Professor Stone's book regarding failed prophecies, which does refer to the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. Stone himself is a Professor of Religious Studies [1], not a psychologist. The addition of a few more pertinant facts would probably be less offensive to those who see religious significance in this event.

Martin, I wasn't sure from your response whether you meant that the Great Disappointment is a typically cited example in Psychology, or that the Great Disappointment is characteristic of typically cited examples of cognitive dissonance. Is the Great Disappoinment specifically mentioned in a prominent psychology text or university syllabus outside of Religious Studies? If so, there should be a reference to such a work here (to maintain peace with the afore mentioned religions). I am rewording the text to allow for either possibility.--CheerfulPaul 06:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't studied cognitive dissonance at any more than undergraduate level but never in my classes have I heard about the Great Disappointment. It would make a great textbook example of the 'cognitive dissonance' idea, but I haven't seen any actual textbook or other source use it.--NZUlysses 08:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No mention of "Ryan Giggs is the Footballer named on Twitter as having a Superinjunction"

Were social media used by this campaign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.221.20 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention of "that day and hour"

No comparison to Matthew 24:36 (referencing Matthew 25:13) or Mark 13:32 is mentioned. These are the verses where it is written that Jesus Christ said that only the Father knows the hour of Jesus' coming, not Jesus nor the angels in heaven. Valid comparison to Miller's methods for computing his dates, or certainly noteworthy to put perspective on why he attempted to do so at all, from the point of view of his beliefs (i.e. why he neglected to consider same).

71.241.98.140 08:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that most likely is worth mentioning, but not as "original research" - i.e. quote an authoritative figure saying that. I wonder if Miller himself focused on those texts later - if so, such a reference would be very useful. Colin MacLaurin 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I want to give an explanation of the changes that I have made to this article, so that future editors will have an easy time sorting it out:

• Cosmetic improvements -- linking years and spelling adjustments
• Additional sources (Please note: For NPOV and objectively stating beliefs, these are from sources favorable to the interpretation of the respective religious groups mentioned. In particular, Bible Student's Online supports Charles Russell, even though the section on their website mentioning how Russell was connected to Millerites has a misleading subtitle: "Unlearning Error".)
  • Miller's 14 rules of interpretation
  • Miller's method of arriving at the year 1844
  • Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists
  • Bible Student's Online history of Charles Russell
• Additional content
  • Relation of the specific date to Day of Atonement mentioned -- October 22 was the Day of Atonement in 1844 according to Karaite Judaism at the time
  • Relation of Millerite and Jehovah's Witness eschatology mentioned (this is also mentioned at Millerites, Jehovah's witnesses, and Restorationism, but it seems to be relevant to the Great Disappointment article as well)
  • Relation to cognitive dissonance explained (see MartinPool's comment above) NPOV maintained by mixing term cognitive dissonance w/ individual struggle of faith (which can also have a secular meaning). Hopefully this would not offend too many people.
• Removed content
  • The date October 22 is not mentioned in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. In fact Ellen White (co-founder) only mentions the season of fall, and some Adventists believe(d) that the investigative judgment began in the spring of 1844 ( see [2], #70) I found out that Seventh-day Adventist scholars seem to favor the Millerite date of October 22, but that doesn't seem worth mentioning in this article. Maybe it could say "Many Seventh-day Adventists maintain..."? It seemed easier just to remove the date as it requires too much explanation to connect it to a specific source.
  • Psychologists... was replaced by a more accurate statement regarding Religious Studies.

--CheerfulPaul 06:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I hope you're still around. Looks like you have some good content, and respect Wikipedia policies! Colin MacLaurin 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í perspective

I wonder if the paragraph on the Bahá'í perspective should come after the discussion on cognitive dissonance. This event is not central to Bahá'í theology as they are not waiting for Christ Himself to return; so there's no dissonance to resolve. MARussellPESE 15:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Baha'is think that Baha'u'llah himself *is* the return of Jesus - so, since the Baha'i Faith dates its origin to 1844 they think that Miller's calculations were correct, and that Christ really did return in 1844, in the person of the Bab. While Miller's predictions of Christs return have often been used by Baha'is in books/pamphlets aimed at a western/Christian audience, I reckon the Baha'i angle is only of tangential relevance to an article like this. I don't think this article should have a Baha'i reference at all. PaulHammond 10:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I do agree 100% that the Bahai paragraph is not helpful here. This article is about a certain aspect of church history of a certain religious group. It is only of interest for this group and its spiritual heirs. (e.g. Seventh-Days-Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses). The Bahai-paragraph can be put to the Bahaii article or to 1844, but it is out of place here. I have therefore removed it. Heiko Evermann 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the page a little while re-inserting the Baha'i reference. I think I made it a little more clear, and more relevant. I don't think that removing the Baha'i reference was for purely academic pursuits. Cuñado - Talk 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read the new version and I am still (and even more) convinced that this is not the place to give the Bahai perspective on this question. The Bahai are not a group that resulted from the Millerite movement. Adding Bahai references in Articles that do not deal with Bahai whereever Bahai think likewise or different is not helpful and most certainly out of place here. Please put the content under Bahaii or under 1844, but not here. Kind regards, Heiko Evermann 15:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Cuñado - Talk 21:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The revision that Cunado made makes clear the importance of the relationship between Miller's predictions and the Baha'i Faith with the statement "Several Bahá'í books and pamphlets make mention of the Millerites and the Great Disappointment, most notably William Sears' Thief in the Night." The reference to Theif in the Night is particularly apt because it was written by a very prominant Baha'i who is of significant historical importance in the Faith who became a Baha'i after studying Miller's claims, and this book is an exposition of the process he went through with regards to researching the subject. The numbers who have converted to the Baha'i Faith as a direct result of Miller's work, as well as indirectly as a result of the influence of direct convertees is incalculable and not insignificant. -LambaJan 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone who supports having the Baha'i paragraph there please give some references as to the reason why it belongs. Otherwise it should go. See what wikipedia is not for more details. MyNameIsNotBob 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why it must not be there? I think the rationale is obvious. Cuñado - Talk 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there because you can't prove that it should! You have no referenced claims, and as such are adding non-encyclopedic material. Please prove yourself before reverting. MyNameIsNotBob 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by no referenced claims. The article is self explanatory as to why it's important. I could repeat the paragraph here... Miller had an emormous following who believed that Jesus would return in 1844 based on Biblical prophecies. Baha'is believe that it was fulfilled. Cuñado - Talk 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and then get back to us. MyNameIsNotBob 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with it, thanks. This has never been a referencing issue, it's a relevancy issue. Click on a few of the links in the paragraph and you'll find more than enough references to whatever you want. The paragraph notes William Sears' book, which is widely published and read by Baha'is. He focuses over half the book on the Millerites and other Messianic movement in the 1840's. Cuñado - Talk 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference has been added. -- Jeff3000 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reference does not clarify the issue at all. Could you please find me some statement attaining to Baha'i faith believers being affected by the disappointment as they waited all night for Christ's return on October 22, 1844. MyNameIsNotBob 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Miller prophesized a span of time between March 21, 1843 to March 21, 1844, then revised it to October 22, 1844. The Baha'i Faith began within that time period, on May 23, 1844, and claims to be the fulfillment of Christ's prophesized return. Baha'is believe the end times have come and gone already. Read about the Báb for more details. Baha'is regard Miller's predictions and interpretations to be correct, and as far as I know they are the only ones who believe thus, even among Miller's followers. I think the relevancy is obvious here. Please put aside your personal desire to suppress any links to Baha'i articles and look at the issues. Cuñado - Talk 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I could expand the Baha'i section with quotes from William Sear's book, but if I did that section would become overly long. I include them here for your sake:

"It was the period 1843-5. Wolff in Asia, Edward Irving in England, Mason in Scotland, Davis in South Carolina, William Miller in Pennsylvania, Leonard H. Kelber in Germany, and many others in various parts of the world believed that this was indeed the 'time of the end' ...

"In one book, William Miller writes: 'In the year 677 before Christ; this being the first captivity of Judah in Babylon. Then take 677 years which were before Christ, from 2520 years, which include the whole 'seven times' or 'seven years' prophecy, and the remainder will be 1843 years after Christ ...' Other scholars maintained that it was 676 years from the first captivity to the birth of Christ, and that consequently the year of fulfillment should be 1844 and not 1843. ...

"The prophecies did indeed converge with an astonishing focus on the year 1844. There seemed no room for doubt that the hour had at last come upon the earth. It is therefore also possible to share their feelings f profound disappointment and disillusionment when Christ did not appear in the clouds of heaven with all His angels as they expected. The trumpet did not sound. The dead did not arise from the graves. The stars did not fall from heaven. The sun did not suddenly go dark. The moon did not turn to blood. As a result, the Adventists who had been so outspoken in their belief that Christ's return was at hand, were now held up to ridicule. Hastily they tried to change their calculations. They revised their mathematical formulas, searching for a possible error in what had been an unquestioned truth. ...

"As a detective trying to solve this puzzling century-old mystery, it occurred to me that one of the basic techniques of criminology might well be applied here. If an overwhelming abundance of evidence points to only one possible conclusion, and that conclusion proves to be false, it is never wise to cast aside all the evidence as being wrong. It is always wiser to assume that perhaps the evidence is correct, and that another and entirely different interpretation of the facts, or a completely different conclusion might be drawn from this same evidence. This was the course I decided to pursue. I have placed a complete list of references at the back of the book so you can, if you wish, read about these days in more detail. My purpose is not to justify any one of the schools of thought, or to exhaust the search. It is merely to follow the main stream of the story concerning just what happened in 1844. There could be little doubt as to the authenticity of the prophecies, or of their remarkable fulfilment. Then what had happened?"

The rest of the book goes on to show proofs that the central figures of the Baha'i Faith filled the prophecies and statements that William Miller, among others, had used to determine the 1843/1844 year. At the end he writes: "I had solved the case to my complete satisfaction" -- Jeff3000 01:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll also add, that William Sears was not a Baha'i, but a Christian, when he started going about his accounts which are described in length in his book. The book was his accounts of trying to see if there wasn't a Great Disappointment at all. He goes through many studies and accounts, and through one of his many studies, he found the Baha'i Faith, examined it, decided that it met the criteria for the Second Coming of Christ (which he documents in the book), and only then became a Baha'i. I encourage you to read the book, and only then call it propoganda if you so wish. -- Jeff3000 17:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My initial post here was whether the Baha'i perspective should be considered one of cognitive dissonance, which it isn't. (I would like to see a real-life source for that statement by the way.)

With due respect to the Adventists here, the Great Disappointment is indeed of interest to Baha'is. Sears isn't the only one to address it. Marzieh Gail wrote an essay that discussed the general feeling of anticipation in various parts of the world at that time, including Miller's. (Gail, World Order, vol. 6, no. 7 (Oct. 1940), pp. 229-39.) It was included in a 1976 anthology:

• Gail, Marzieh (1976). Dawn over Mount Hira and Other Essays. London: George Ronald. ISBN 0853980632.

As this subject is of interest to more than just Adventists and Witnesses, and those interested are not a small minority compared to these two groups, those perspectives do pass muster for inclusion in the article. That the perspective differs from a Christian one is non sequitur and by no means grounds for exclusion.

The Baha'i editors have done their best to put that perspective as succintly as possible short of some flippant "There's a group, known as Bahais, that may have an opinion on this." Apparently that would be too much? MARussellPESE 17:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in great length, and given the size of the different groups, the Baha'i persecpective deserves as just as much weight as the other perspectives. -- Jeff3000 02:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bahai's did not experience any such Great Disappointment, they only reason they have any relevance to this page is because they have quoted it in certain books, that people can look at if they feel the need to explore this non-Great Disappointment related topic. Ansell 02:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No they didn't but they have a definite POV of in, please read the above, which goes through it in great detail. Furthermore, the Seventh Day Adventists (25 million), Jehoveh Witnesses (6 million) and the Baha'is (7 million) all are in the same ball-park in size, and thus the Baha'i POV deserves the weight it has in the article. We have tried to be succint, by removing extra content (as was done by Cunado19 today), and by trying to limit our POV on other pages such as William Miller, but it deserves the current weight it has in this article. -- Jeff3000 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If it were about a group based in the Second Great Awakening, which occured just prior to the great disappointment, then I may be sympathetic to having a discussion of bahai history, but it is a group that pretty much just seems to have the date in common, maybe it would be more relevant on a page entitled Relgious importance of October 22, 1844. Ansell 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Miller predicted the date for the return of Christ. Baha'is believe the Bab is the return of Christ, and thus his predictions were correct. There is a very strong connection, and does not just relate to the date of October 22, 1844, but how the statements in the Bible as figured out by Miller were correct. All this information has been posted above, and the connection is very clear. The information here is very limited, just to explain what the Baha'is are and how they view the Great Disappointment. We could add quite a bit, but we have limited ourselves to the current paragraph, which based on Wikipedia policy it deserves. -- Jeff3000 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff3000, I assume you are aware that this is about the Great Disappointment not William Miller or October 22, 1844? MyNameIsNotBob 10:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the prediction of the Second Coming in 1944, which is generally referred to as the "Great Disappointment" because, well, most Christians would agree that there was no Second Coming in 1944. We could have an article Prediction of the Second Coming of the Christ for 1944 by Miller, and on that page talk about the Baha'i, and on Great Disappointment only say "The Great Disappointment is how many Christians refer to the Prediction of the Second Coming of the Christ for 1944 by Miller when, according to them, it failed to happen".

Somehow, I still prefer the way it is now; it's convenient to refer to the chain of events as a whole as the Great Disappointment, and also include a bit on how the Baha'i saw it, even if they weren't really disappointed. It's not just two events who happen to have the same date; it's the same event.

(Plus, talking about the Baha'i just makes the article more interesting. Wikipedia thrives on these kinds of cross-topic links) Flammifer 12:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MyNameIsNotBob, precisely, and that is why I believe the Baha'i perspective on the Great Disappointment event deserves a place on this page, and not on William Miller. You will notice that I removed a Baha'i perspective on the William Miller page. -- Jeff3000 13:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that they are not two separate events. "Great Disappointment" is the term used to describe the reaction in the New England region of the United States to the absence of Christ's return on October 22, 1844 as predicted by William Miller. That is the broadest scope you can give the term and the Bahai perspective does not fit in that space. MyNameIsNotBob 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is verifiable and reliable Baha'i sources about the Great Disappointment, and the Baha'i population is within the same ballpark as the other two groups, and thus doesn't fall under undue weight the Baha'i POV deserves stating. From the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." -- Jeff3000 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MyNameIsNotBob; but until we have a page on The Absence of Christ's Return on October 22, 1844 as Predicted by William Miller, don't you think here is the best place to talk about it all?

By analogy, if a group claims the July 16, 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was faked, don't you think their objection (provided it's notable enough, etc.) should be on the Apollo 11 page, not on July 16, 1969? Even if they claim the whole Apollo 11 mission didn't exist, they're still related to the Apollo 11 mission.

Hmph. I feel like I'm not very clear. I originally started making an analogy with The Holocaust, but thought it tasteless. Anyway, I think that for now (and pro'lly indefinitely) this page seems to be the best place to talk about the Baha'i view of the grea disapointment. Flammifer 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Adventists here seem to be making the argument that the Baha'is have a negligible interest in the subject, or that it is irrelevant. This is not the case. The sociological and spiritual background of the Second Great Awakening is pointed to in several Baha'i books as direct evidence of the anticipation that precedes the coming of every Manifestation of God. Sears' Thief in the Night is devoted entirely to the prophecies Miller used. His Release the Sun also discusses this. George Townshend's body of work are Baha'i apologia for the Christian perspective, especially the "return". Chapter 10 of Christ and Baha'u'llah is devoted entirely to the time-period of the "Second Great Awakening". `Abdu'l-Baha discusses in various places the Baha'i perspective on Christians' literal expectations of the "return".

This subject is not minor to Baha'is of Christian background. I know several Baha'is who started investigating precisely along these line. The fact that Baha'i re-interpret Christian prophecies should not come as a shock to Christians as they've, correctly in many cases, re-cast Jewish prophecies. To deny that Baha'is even have a place to say that they have a contrary opinion on the subject violates the basic premeses of WP. As near as I can tell two SDA editors apparently think that this article, and any opinions expressed on the subject, have to be relevant to them. Not The Baha'is have tried to be succinct and take a minor place. I don't know what else to do that's respectful but asserts the right to express the fact that we have an opinion. MARussellPESE 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, this article is not about the prophecies in Daniel 7 or the predictions by William Miller. It is about an event in the Second Advent Awakening of a number of Christian denominations in the United States between 1839-1844. There were no Baha'i' in the US in the 1840s nor the 1850s. The reference is to the same prophecies but not the same event. It is kind of like saying that something on the terrorists at the Munich Olympics belongs on the 2000 Sydney Olympics article. MyNameIsNotBob 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We understand that that is your opinion, but others have a different opinion, and based on Wikipedia policy, deserve a say. -- Jeff3000 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally still dont see how you think we are trying to "keep an opinion" out of wikipedia. We are merely trying to make the page reflect its purpose. I did not mind the version by Jeff3000 after my last edit [3], which clearly stated this divergence from the main article text, and then linked it in via another route. The "Great Disappointment" still is strictly a North American christian, sociological phenomena. I am not saying this because I dont see how it relates to me. I am saying it because objectively the topic is not directly related to the name. As i said before. It is only indirectly related to any millerism/great disappointment/william miller page through the date. Even saying that it is relevant through the same way that Miller came to his date would mean that suddenly Bahai would have to accept the bible, No?? Wikipedia pages have specific purposes, they do not say that anything and everything which you can give a reference for belongs on a page. They say that things that belong on a page due to a referential right based on the purpose of the page must then have references. As far as I can see the Bahai in this discussion are trying to manipulate that to make it sound as if we are ruling out something that is actually directly relevant to the page. Leave the statement in the Other resources section until enough interest in a page like Religious significance of October 22, 1844 is able to be started, then the whole text should be transferred there. Ansell 00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Baha'i view on the event is definitely a view on the event, and that is how it is placed in the article; there is nothing wrong with that. On some other points you brought up, Baha'is do believe that the Bible is divine scripture (and thus accept it) and that Jesus is the Son of God, but we also believe that Jesus has already returned, and the social laws of the Bible have been abrogated by Baha'u'llah's teachings (just as the laws of Judaism were abrogated by Jesus). -- Jeff3000 00:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already said this, but I'll say it again. Miller and others predicted a time period in which Jesus Christ would return. Baha'is believe he was correct!! How is that not relevant and interesting? Baha'is reference the Great Disappointment as one of several dozen movements around the world which were all expecting the imminent end of the world based on scripture. Baha'is believe they were all correct, except for the end of the world part, but that's a really long story. Cuñado - Talk 08:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Great Disappointment is not a movement. It is a phenomenon, there is a difference, the Millerite movement were the ones expecting christs return, which was follwed by a unique phenomenon, their personal disappointment. Ansell 09:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is the criteria, how is it that the Jehova's Witnesses meet it and the Baha'is don't. The Jehova's witnesses didn't even start until 1870, so they hardly could've been disappointed in 1844. I'm not bringing this up for any sort of trite tit-for-tat interaction, from my perspective it really seems like the Baha'is in this case are on the recieving end of a double standard.

Frankly, I don't think that this is an appropriate criteria because Miller wasn't shy about his predictions, they were heard and reacted to by many both in and outside of his fold. The repercussions caused some of his followers to be greatly disappointed, the Jehova's Witnesses to be influenced, and more than a few people to research this interesting bit of history and become Baha'is.

These are all real and observable things who's happening is inextricably related to the happening of this event. If you don't think that the name reflects this then change it to something that does, but don't try to disconnect things that have a cause and effect relationship. -LambaJan 13:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that this was a sociological phenomenon isolated to the 1840s & '50s is inaccurate. The effects of this event reverberated for years, and still do in some quarters, including the SDA, JW and among some American Baha'is. Lambajan's point is well-taken here. Exlculding everything after some arbitrarily convenient date does the subject ill-service.

As an aside, the Bab didn't declare himself "the Christ" directly, so the current edition is not exactly accurate. MARussellPESE 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically it doesn't work to have a statement that the Bab began "declaring himself", there is no property that he declared on himself. If he was declaring himself to be the fulfillment of prophecy then he was portraying himself to be the Christ.

The Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists are legitimate groups which have been directly affected by the event because in each case main founders of the church were "disappointed" by the event. The phenomenon of the Great Disappointment may have carried on for years, but it wasn't in any way a stimulus for the Bab, on the other side of the world, without modern communication that we know of today, to hear of and be affected in the same way. He would have been happy to proclaim himself as the fulfillment of prophecy, something which people who are "disappointed" would not be doing.

In all this I am not saying that the subject of the Bab and its relationship to the date and to biblical prophecy should not be in wikipedia. I am simply saying that it does not need to be here just because there is no more appropriate place. Ansell 23:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that seems like a pretty good reason to me - this is the best place to put it.

When readers read the article, will they see the bit on the Baha'i faith and say, "Hey, this doesn't belong here!"? I know I didn't. It's a nice piece of historical context. It also keeps the article from being too western-centric. I think it would be a shame if this article didn't mention the Baha'i link, though oif you think it gives it too much importance, you could add more information on the other parts ... or rewqork the bit on the Baha'i; while I think it's important to show the link, maybe it could be presented differently. Maybe under a header "other interpretations of the prophecy", "Other reactions to Miller's prophecy"? - I don't know. Flammifer 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, no one can find any non-Baha'i statement associating the Baha'i with the Great Disappointment. Isn't that end of argument? MyNameIsNotBob 03:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One source is already in the article (and I have quoted some of it above), and MARusselPESE has noted on other sources above, and I could add them. Do you want most of the references in this page to be Baha'i references, it's not something I want, but if you want to force the issue, I will add them. -- Jeff3000 03:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no non-Baha'i references to the Baha'i section on the article. I don't know what your are reading. MyNameIsNotBob 04:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned earlier that William Sears was a Christian when he started doing the research that constituted the majority of what is in the cited book. To add to that, it was this very research that made him aware of the Baha'i Faith.

Can you argue that the connection doesn't exist simply because many of those who see it are or have become Baha'is? This is a bit like saying we can't trust Galileo's assertion because his research informed him. -LambaJan 04:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the baha'i say it's important to them, it should be enough, no? We don't need an exterior, non-Baha'i source to say that the Baha'i consider it important, do we?

However, I do agree that'd it'd be nice to also have an extrior source comment on the Baha'i's (ugh) take on the great disappointment. Not to make the connection valid, but maybe to give a more balanced view. Flammifer 06:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The date October 22, was not a "Great Disappointment" for the Bahai faith--which it seems to me that by that date only existed in a very early form (with 18 disciples?). Hence their inclusion is irrelevant. This is underscored by the fact that neither the main Bahá'í Faith page, nor the Bahá'í history page make any mention of the Great Disappointment, William Miller, nor the date October 22. You might want to sort that out first. JCrocombe (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point, Baha'is as verifiable, reliable sources refer to the Great Disappointment, and it has a place here. Your feeling of relevance is irrelevant, because it's inclusion is totally reverent in regards to Wikipedia policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Those sources are not contemporary sources--in other words no Bahai in 1844 referred to the Great Disappointment as such (or made mention of William Miller or October 22). The Sears quotation mentioned above makes no mention of either "The Great Disappointment" nor the date "October 22, 1844" and as such is not evidence to support your case. I repeat, it was not a Great Disappointment for the Bahais as they barely existed--and there seems little evidence that they even knew about Miller before October 22, 1844. Again I reiterate, why does the page on Bahai history (nor the page on the Bab himself) make no mention of this event? If it is so important & relevant, put it on those pages first. JCrocombe (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, have you even read any of the sources that I have included. Motlagh, Hushidar Hugh (1992). "The Great Disappointment". I Shall Come Again. Mt. Pleasant, MI: Global Perspective. pp. 205–213. ISBN 0-937661-01-5. has 8 pages in a sections titled "The Great Disappointment" and "Explanation for the Great Disappointment" and why the Millerites thought it was a disappointment, and why specifically it wasn't. It has a further 14 pages on the Advent and Millerite movements. The book Bowers, Kenneth E. (2004). God Speaks Again: An Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith. Baha'i Publishing Trust. pp. p. 12. ISBN 1931847126. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) states "A well-known example is that of Reverend William Miller. Careful study of Biblical prophecy led him to the conclusion that the long-awaited day would come in 1843 or 1844. Tens of thousands in America believed this interpretation. Of course, Christ did not appear in the heavens, and so future generations would remmeber the episode as 'the Great Disappointment.'" and then goes on to explain that the Bab was the Promised One. Secondly, Baha'is don't need to have existed at that point. It is a view held by published Baha'i sources, which meets verifiability, and neutral point of view which states that "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." and "it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints". The Baha'is have a view regarding this event, and your deletion of the material is violating Wikipedia policies, and if you continue to delete the material I will ask the administrators to get involved. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With that quotation you prove your own point. So what if a recent Bahai source refers to the event as "The Great Disappointment"?--so does every historian whether Bahai, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon or Atheist. You have failed to show that the event had particular significance for the Bahais--any what that significance is. What "view" of the event do the Bahai's have that is different, unique or worthy of inclusion--none that you have shown. How can the event refer to the Bab when the Bab had already revealed himself prior to October 22, 1844? You once again fail to answer my questions as to why you are so insistent as to the inclusion of this so-called Bahai perspective on this page but why this so-called "significant" Bahai event is not found on any Bahai page on Wikipedia? Your addition of irrelevant material is itself a violation of Wikipedia policies (see I can make threats too!). JCrocombe (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of articles in Wikipedia with different views about events, and they get space on the page, as per WP:NPOV. The Baha'is have a significant and different viewpoint on the specific event of the Great Disappointment than the ones currently in the article, and therefore it requires it be stated as per Wikipedia policy. Significance is defined per the article; what may be significant in one article does not define significance on other articles. I would recommend that you read the NPOV policy. I've asked the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator and he noted "The section looks good and seems relevant in my opinion." [4]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

JCrocombe, there are several points you should consider. First: You've missed the point of the Baha'i perspective here. The Bab's appearance right smack in the middle of this time-frame is considered a fulfilled prophecy by Baha'is — one of many. However, Baha'is don't rely heavily on prophecy in their theology so, from a Baha'i perspective, of course it would not get play in its main articles.

Second: The Baha'i editors have tried desperately to keep their contribution here as low-key as possible. It's at the very end of the article and all of one paragraph long, but it's more copiously sourced that much of the rest of the article.

Third: Consider the impact your vehemence reflects here. You're trying to excise one paragraph on an alternate perspective of an historical event out of an article on that historical event which includes other perspectives on that historical event — because it conflicts with your religious perspectve? Your arguments that the paragraph is not germane ring hollow. It's not like the Baha'is have pasted this in the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. That would indeed be out of place. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Vehemence? What vehemence? I prefer to see it as a passion for good history as opposed to bad.

"However, Baha'is don't rely heavily on prophecy in their theology so, from a Baha'i perspective, of course it would not get play in its main articles." Oh come on! This is your evidence? That such a perspective should be given in an article where it is tangential at best, if not completely irrelevant and not given any mention in ANY Bahai article whatsoever?

How can the Bab's appearance have anything to do with October 22, 1844 when he "declared himself" in May? To quote you again: " The Bab's appearance right smack in the middle of this time-frame is considered a fulfilled prophecy by Baha'is." In this article we are not talking about a time frame--we are talking about a very specific date--October 22, 1844. Again, your own "evidence" actually supports my case.

"A significant and different" point of view of the Bahais--this point of view has still not been articulated. And if it is such a "significant point of view", I repeat, why isn't it found on ANY--that's right, not a single one--Bahai related page in Wikipedia. You can't have your cake & eat it too. It either is or is not significant. If it is, why isn't it on any Bahai page? If it is not (as the lack of presence on any Bahai page would indicate)then it should not be on this page either.

Let's look at the paragraph inserted on this page anyway--which is poorly written and actually incorrect. So Miller's calculations were "for the most part, correct." Well, what calculations were correct and what were incorrect? Firstly, if you re-read the article again you will note that it was Samual S. Snow who calculated the date--that's right Miller had nothing to do with the adoption of this particular date--though he did somewhat belatedly agree that Snow's calculations were correct. Therefore any Bahai (or other source) that points to Miller's calculations of October 22, 1844 are actually wrong. You are historically confused and it is not because of "bias" (what would you know of my bias anyway--and Bahai's are now miraculously unbiased!) that I remove your additions, it is because they are bad history! Again let me repeat that: Miller did not calculate the October 22, 1844 date, so any source that refers to Miller's calculations has no relevance to this page. It doesn't matter if your sources refer to the Bahai's refering to Miller's calculations--again I repeat, Miller did not calculate this date and therefore these references are irrelevant.

I am not saying that Bahais don't have a perspective on William Miller's calculations--specifically his calculation of the Jewish year of 1844--but that refers to a period--and this article is not about a period it is about a single date--October 22, 1844. No-one has given any evidence of this date having any significance (not the year, the date) in Bahai history.

Administrators? Oh come on, lets be honest--this administrator shows no evidence of actually understanding any of the issues--nor of even reading this discussion. And that is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses. JCrocombe (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And where in the established process for dispute resolution does it mention running crying to an administrator anyway? JCrocombe (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The numbers: 10 people have commented giving an opinion either for or against the inclusion of the "Bahai perspective" in the above Talk Page:

For: Cunado, Lamba Jan, Jeff3000, MARussellPESE, Flammifer

Against: Paul Hammond, Heiko Evermann, MyNameIsNotBob, Ansell, JCrocombe

Thus it should be clear that I am not the only one with this opinion--and based on these numbers it should not be thought that it has been agreed that this article is the correct place for discussions of Bahai belief. As the debate is not over I have an equal right to delete this persepective and it cannot be regarded as vandalism. JCrocombe (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to have a rational conversation here with you. You'd need to keep up your end of it. You go on at some length about how the 22-Oct-44 date is the only one of significance and Baha'i discussion about Miller's "calculations" when nobody here or in the article are making these assertions. This looks like a straw man argument. If you read the article these points are plain:

1. Miller: “My principles in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the same, with all the saints, sometime between 21 March 1843 and 21 March 1844.” — Clearly he was making some kind calculations to come to that conclusion.
2. The date was revised twice as a response to the apparent failure of the previous ones. — Clearly 22-Oct-44 was not the only disappointment to the expectant. One could easily assume that the entire 21-Mar-44 to 22-Oct-44 time frame was a period of increasing disappointment. (The fact that 23-May-44 falls inside the 21-Mar-43 and 22-Oct-44 time frame is therefore quite relevant historically as that religion is effectively making the very same claim half a world away and neither aware of the other.)
3. The Baha'i paragraph makes no mention of Miller's "calculations" — but instead refer to his "interpretations".

Actually, this article is probably the best place for the Baha'i perspective. Splitting it out would be a WP:Fork and verboten. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rational? I have made by far the most rational comments on this issue and neither you nor Jeff3000 have bothered to address any of them, instead, persist in misinterpreting the evidence & misreading the arguments presented in the article. Once again, your own argument above again provides support for my POV.

Let us start with some facts:

1. This article is not about William Miller's predictions, nor is it about any predicted date by anyone other than Samuel S. Snow's predicted date of October 22, 1844 which Snow did not publicly announce until August 1844. Please read the article because you both seem to miss this point. You state that nobody in the article makes this point when in fact that is the entire article's subject. It does not deal extensively with Miller's calculations-except briefly as background. Thus, the subject of the article is October 22, 1844 alone. Again, please read the article.

1. This article is not about any other disappointment due to the non-appearance of Jesus Christ on any date before or after October 22, 1844. This date and this date alone is known as "the Great Disappointment" and as such no other date has relevance. The "entire 21-Mar-44 to 22-Oct-44 time frame" was NOT "a period of increasing disappointment". Millerite sources do not support this statement and neither do those of scholars writing on the subject. Your assumptions are again incorrect & Wikipedia is not the place for assumptions anyway.

What either you or Jeff3000 have failed to do is quote any source--Bahai or otherwise that shows that the Bahais regarded or regard October 22, 1844 as a date of special significance. Surely that's not too much to ask--a simple paragraph quotation of the evidence? JCrocombe (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a verifiability policy, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". As much as you think that the Baha'i perspective is wrong, the point is that the Baha'is do have a perspective on the Great Disappointment and mention it by name in reliable sources. The verifiability policy states "'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Another core policy of Wikipedia is neutral point of view which states that all Wikipedia articles must include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Removing the Baha'i view is thus against the that policy. Furthermore, part of the NPOV policy includes the undue weight provision which states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" In this context, the Baha'i view held by around 6 million is in the ballpark of others who have a view on this event, namely the Seventh-day Aventists, and the Jehovah Witnesses, and thus a paragraph which composes around 6% of the article clearly meets any undue weight concerns. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC

Again I repeat my above request to show the evidence that you say exists. Simply quote a paragraph from a published recognised source that shows that Bahais regard or have regarded October 22, 1844 as a date of special significance or have a unique and particular perspective concerning the date. None of the paragraphs or statements you have posted thus far do in fact show that. Please note that I'm not saying the Bahai perspective is wrong--what I am saying is that neither you nor anyone have shown that there is in fact a Bahai perspective regarding October 22, 1844. This is not an issue of POV but an issue of you backing up your statements with evidence--an issue of verifiability. The sources that you have quoted and referred to so far have NOT shown this perspective regarding October 22, 1844--only regarding Miller's calculations of the year 1844--which is NOT the topic of this article. (I repeat, Miller did not calculate that October 22, 1844 date--please read the article again to make sure that you understand this point.)

I again draw your attention to the Bahai paragraph you have added where you refer to Miller's "interpretation of signs and dates". Miller did not interpret any "signs"--you are reading later SDA theology back into Miller's writings--he relied solely on mathematical calculations based on his reading of certain biblical texts. Secondly, the article, as I have repeatedly stated--and which is evident to anyone reading the article closely--is not about Miller's calculations, but about those of Samuel S. Snow.

Another correction--the Jehovah's Witnesses have no perspective on this particular date, were formed well after this date & Charles Russell Taze has only a very tangential connection to the Millerites. JCrocombe (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is titled "Great Disappointment". Baha'is sources refer to it. That's WP:V, regardless of if you think they are wrong. It meets Wikipedia policies. Your removal of them would be against WP:NPOV, another Wikipedia policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Include me as another person FOR inclusion. Jeff3000 summed it up best, I believe. This article is not called "October 22, 1844," nor is that what it is entirely about. And as the Bahá'í sources refer to the Great Disappointment (the title and subject of the article), then inclusion of the Bahá'í viewpoint should not be questioned. And incidentally, the opening paragraph says that Miller predicted that date, so if that's not true, perhaps you should consider taking that out, especially if you're going to tell people repeatedly to "read the article." :-) --Managerpants (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow - what a read. Yes it belongs. In fact I wonder if the "Part of a series onSeventh-day Adventism" box is overstating things.--Smkolins (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what happened to the content on Jehovah Witnesses? Several people in the talk section talk about amending it one way or another but I don't see any now or any justification on deleting it!--Smkolins (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I see our friend removed it here [5] - and the rational? "Major Rewrite, references to be completed". I think it belongs.--Smkolins (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... you ain't helpin' things, my friend ;-)

This might just pass GA, if not for the stability issues... :-)

It's a very impressive rewrite! But does it pass broadness? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - if broadness includes the missing Jehovahs, and the almost total focus on Millerites to the point of joining the page to the Seventh Day Advent pages. I also don't see any reference to concerns raised in the time period beyond a specific date but of the general character of the day of the "Return". Things like the 1833 Leonid meteor storm that had slave owners turning out slaves for fear of the Return when they held slaves. Or other millennial warnings - I think there was a comet in 1830's that split in two? I think alittle of such references could add an air that would support the idea this situation affected people beyond the Millerites. And the scattered references to Jewish calendars seems confusing and out of the blue.--Smkolins (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno myself . . . I'm just thinking it'd be cool if this could move to GA status some time in the future, that's all Xavexgoem (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an auspicious goal to me.--Smkolins (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A common thread?

There seems to be an underlying thread we may want to make more explicit:

• Someone calculates the date of the second coming.
• The given date passes. Nothing really obvious happens.
• Some say the original predition was wrong
• Some say the original prediction was right, it's just that the Second Coming wasn't as obvious as first thought.

There's this pattern for the Millerites in 1844, Charles Taze Russell's Bible Students in 1874, the jehovah's Witnesses in 1914, etc.

That's what I had in mind when rewriting the bit on the Witnesses, because honestly otherwise the link is pretty tenuous (The JW adopted their current name in 1933, after Pastor Russell's death; Pastor Russell was influenced by adventist and millerite ideas, but he was still born after the great disappointment ...) Flammifer 06:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary. Obviously the Baha'i Faith did not begin as a result of the Great Disappointment, according to Baha'is, the cause and effect was the other way around. Baha'is believe that the great disappointment was the result of the coming of the Baha'i Faith, and not that the Baha'i Faith was a result of the disappointment. Anyone who does not see the relevancy here is showing an obvious POV. Cuñado - Talk 07:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The obvious problem with Flammifer's summary is that it applies to any prediction of Christ's coming, not the Great Disappointment specifically. For all that summary suggest we could be talking about the predictions by Victor Houteff. MyNameIsNotBob 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

True, this could apply to all such predictions, and it would be interesting to compare them. The subset we have here (not including the Baha'i, who are a different kettle of fish) is that these groups all work from the same theology and ideas (the Millerite tradition), and end up with variations on the theme of "Christ is come but his presence is not obvious to all". I'm not aware of any groups from an unrelated tradition that have the same position.

So the common thread would be something on the lines of "Clashes between the predictions of the Millerite tradition and there being no earth-shaking Second Coming." (Which is basically what the Great Disappointment is about)

I'm not saying this should be the main thread of this article, but it seems like a good way to present the stuff on the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Bible Students, etc. Flammifer 09:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gift of Photograph

Nearly 15 years ago, during extensive research on early American religious movements that sprang from the ministry of William Miller, I discovered what has since been confirmed as the ONLY known photograph of William Miller. I added it to this, and other related Miller articles as a GIFT to encourage and bless others. Someone accused this action to be vandalism. It is nothing of the sort, and a very hurtful and unkind accusation. Pastorrussell 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed by whom? This is a encyclopedia and needs reputable sources. I appreciate others move in circles where blind faith is accepted as the norm, but thankfully here a more rational approach is taken. 90.220.134.141 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How does one "declare oneself"

What is the meaning of the statement about The Bab "declaring himself". In my opinion it is an unfinished statement, one has to declare oneself as something. And then later openly teaching. How is that wording, which is very verbose, more correct than the condensed version. IMO everything is said in both, the starting public teaching date does not contribute to the relevance of the section to the Great Disappointment if he had already professed himself to be the fulfillment. Ansell 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The history of the Bab is as so. On May 23 1844, one person, Mulla Husyan, found him, and the Bab declared to him that he was the Promised One. Mulla Husyan was not allowed to tell other people, until 17 others independently found the Bab. Only then, in October did the Bab start to proclaim pubicly that he was the Promised One. -- Jeff3000 15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hence it is grammatically correct to put give the declaration a subject. The independently statemnt also needs a reference as it does not have one currently on the Bab's own page. Although verifying a claim of independence when commentators are likely to be intimately involved in the story seems to be past wikipedia's verifiability policy. Ansell 15:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of references that show that the Letters of the Living found the Bab independently, and I have used one on the Bab page. -- Jeff3000 15:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Adventists/Advent Christians/Mormon Christians

The article mentions the Seventh Day Adventists and the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses as heirs of Miller and the Great Disappointment but leaves out the Evangelical Adventists and the Advent Christians. I think this should be mentioned as well. I know some of the history of these groups but am unsure of how to start it. Anyone care to try? Dtbrown 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their offshoots claim that about 25 year before the “Great Disappointment” Jesus DID return and spoke to Joseph Smith Jr. Then in 1830 form a Church they claim is directly lead by Jesus Christ for the purpose of cleaning or restoring the old church. The original Church still sends missionaries into the world to reap the harvest, looking for souls willing to join what they claim to be the restored and living church. This seems to fit the timing and prophecy of Daniel just as well. They also claim many other manifestations of Jesus and angels leading up to and surpassing the date of the “Great Disappointment”. This may be coincidence, but it is still interesting to note.

Seventh-day Adventists & 23 October

Under Seventh-day Adventists, it mentions the date, 23 October. It doesn't mention a year... Brian Pearson 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

"And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Daniel 8:14)" How does this add up to 1844? Wouldn't 2,300 years after Jesus died be after, oh, I don't know, 2300 CE? :) I just don't understand the math here. Or was this guy referring to some other event that took place in 456 BCE? RobertM525 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Got to find that starting point, eh? Consider 1844 Made Simple and Baha'i, is it the bridge... at point 13.--Smkolins 14:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So it was calculated from the supposed time of the author of Daniel? RobertM525 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Falwell

Is there a reason why Jerry Falwell is in the see also section? I've browsed his article and can't see any reason why it should. Is someone making a joke? Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 07:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's because they both preached the same thing. The future return, maifested as a Diety, of a mostly ficionalised, yet historical human that died.Cillmore (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-writing the introductory paragraph

I would like to re-write the intro paragraph of this article so that it is a little easier to understand for non-Christians. Are there any older compromises or controversies that I would be running into if I did that? A Train^talk 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've finally gotten around to doing this; see the diff here. The intro is more succinct now and (in my opinion) more easily understood by non-Christians. A Train^talk 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else who's interested, please have a look at User_talk:Cunado19#Great_Disappointment, where a discussion of the introduction's wording is going on. If the discussion continues, we should migrate over to here for maximum visbility. A Train^talk 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

I have rewritten the article completely. Your comments are invited. I have removed the Bahai link as while that information may be relevant to the Millerites & William Miller articles; it is of marginal/no importance to this topic. I have also removed the Jehovah's Witness section as again Charles Taze Russel has only a very tangential connection to the Great Disappointment itself. I have kept, though slightly reworded the Psychological section as the Great Disappointment is a commonly used example of cognitive dissonance. I still need to finish off the referencing. Give me a couple of days to do so. JCrocombe (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Goals for good article status

I believe this article can be brought up to good article quality with a little effort. I'm very familiar with religious studies (in general) and religion articles on Wikipedia. I also work with dispute resolution and good article reviews a fair bit. The following is just my opinion based on that experience, so you're welcome to a few grains of salt with it. :)

1. The Baha'i sections seems appropriate for the article, as it specifically discusses another view of the Great Disappointment. It is well-referenced and well-written. It occupies a minor portion of the article, so there is no concern over it being given undue weight.
2. The article seems to have a lot of quotes. Unless the quotation is essential for a reader's understanding, or clearly helps illuminate a particular issue, we should be more succinctly summarizing sources. Excessive quotation is undesirable.
3. More complete referencing is needed for the article. There are still chunks of it that make unsourced claims that are likely to be challenged.
4. More diverse and better sources are needed, for completeness and balanced reporting. This period of American religious history is very well-studied and well-documented. I would expect more sourcing to some of the more respected university presses and experts of the period. A greater diversity of sources will also ensure that all prominent points of view are represented. Better, or more highly respected sources, will ensure that the prestigious and prominent academic points of view are represented.
5. Before submitting the article for GA, be sure to give the article a good copyedit and ensure the material is organized (and presented) in a solid fashion.

Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

citation, please

We have “spread with a rapidity unparalleled in the Millerites experience” in quotation marks, so presumeably it's being quoted from some source. Can anyone give a citation, or do we remove the quotation marks? -- Timberframe (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)