Talk:2012/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about 2012. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2012 cleanup task III

Hello again, everyone! As usual, I'm here to take care of the craziness that often ensues around this particular year. Yes, I know you are all very concerned about what could or could not happen in this year. But even if you're just regular people looking forward to marvels in the future, or more 'peculiar' chaps with 'peculiar' predictions regarding this year, we can all agree this year will probably pop out more often than not the closer we get to it, due to its 'inflating coolness'. I sincerely hope this 'coolness' doesn't get out of hand. But if it does, that's what I'm here for!

My proposed conditions were already stated before, so if you disagree with anything I say and do here, please read them before you come at me.

So it continues!

1. I don't know who is the 'hilarious' guy or gal who decided to waste otherwise precious free time in numbering every single year with unimportant anniversaries and other things that happen every single year. Yes, anniversaries happen every year including 2012, and sports events like the Super Bowl happen every year too, but unless it's a really significant milestone (like, say, a hundred-year anniversary, or 75, or 50, but not "The 54th running of the Daytona 500!! Geez!), then take my word when I say nobody will care this year is the XLVI Super Bowl until it actually happens. Congratulations whomever you are, you wasted many hours of your life doing something both stupid and which nobody will ever care about. I do envy all that free time to tinker with every single year of this century, though.
2. D'oh!
  *The long count will end in the Aztec calendar.
  While the Aztec and MAYAN calendars are similar in its influences and cultural connotations, the Long Count will end this year in the MAYAN CALENDAR, and (as far as I could find out) the Aztec calendar doesn't even have a Long Count, or anything similar that would indicate the end of a cycle in any year! If I'm wrong about this in any way (and I was wrong when I let this slip at the last cleanup, so sorry 'bout that!), then please, o experts of all things Aztec, correct and enlighten us with the exact mechanics of the Aztec calendar!
3. Politics is sooooooo much fun...:
  By 2012, the USA government should guarantee full Health Insurance for all Americans, as urged by a non-partisan advisory panel created by Congress. [1]
  This actually talks about a recommendation to the US Congress about what that group claims should be done by 2012. Listen, I'm sure this proposal has its grounds and is probably important for those who would get covered by this and whatnot, but, come on, is it really so important to know the year this 'would' be happening? It's a recommendation, not something that has already passed and will surely be done! My point is that it's too early to know if this proposal will even pass to the US congress, and even earlier to know it will actually happen! I think I've said enough to make clear that, at least for now, this is not really worth mentioning here.
4. The following is a sort of bodily function for modern alarmists: they have an uncontrollable urge to say "ancients TOTALLY KNEW the world would END!":
  The calendars of ancient Mesoamerica (Maya and Aztec) come to an end in 2012, at the time of the Winter Solstice (December 21). This can be interpreted as either the absolute end of the world, the beginning of a new and better age, or the shift of human consciousness to a higher level or existence.
  I can't stress this enough, and I hope I have to say it just once:
  THE MAYAN CALENDAR DOESN'T "END" ON DECEMBER 21, 2012. On that date a Long Count finishes, and that is pretty significant, but it doesn't just "stop" then, after that a new Long Count begins!!
  The nature of the Mayan calendar is better explained here. The mayans believed in life as a cycle, renewing every now and then for benefit of all. So saying their calendar ENDS anywhere is ignorance. I don't know how to put it more clearly without seriously questioning anyone's intelligence. Again, if you disagree with this, then you're probably an expert of some sort with reasons to believe otherwise, so feel free to rebuke.
5. Sigh...
  2012 is the target date for everyone in India to have access to a toilet, putting an end to defecation in public.
  OMG. This would be a very, very crude joke, if it weren't that it's actually true [2] [3]. But... I don't really know what to say here. For me, as cruel as it might sound, this classifies as "Too much information" or "something I REALLY didn't need to know", but I still feel remorse of putting this out. I'm... sorry? Anyway, if ANYONE thinks this should stay here, I would understand, but I would also not comment anymore on this subject. Ever.
6. More politics... yay.
  It is projected that by 2012 the state of Iowa could have as many as 200,000 more jobs than workers to fill them, which could lead to better wages and benefits. See USA Today, 03/20/2006.
  Again, I'm sure this is important for present and future workers in the state of Iowa, United States, but... seriously. It's just a projection. For ONE of the FIFTY+ states of ONE of the 190+ countries in the world. Do you think it's probable that someone coming here, even just one, will actually care about this? Because I don't think so. Sorry all you Iowans... Iowanites...Iowies... oh whatever, who cares!!!!
7. Alright, alright. I'll take this off...:
  It is claimed that unnamed Tibetan monks specializing in remote viewing predict that divine extra-terrestrials will intervene at a point where the world's governments are about to deploy weapons of mass destruction. Adding to this, the Tibetan Monks say that the world is not ready to be destroyed and that our Earth is blessed and being saved continuously from all kinds of hazards of which mankind is not even aware.[4]
  I really thought this had some serious journalism behind it, but the "Tibetan Monks" comment above does make a strong point. Crazy India people and their wacky news.
8. I had already taken this out!!!:
  The Reverend Dr. Sun Myung Moon from Korea, has proclaimed 2012 as the ending and final fulfilling stage of mankind's long seeking quest for an absolute Sinless World.[external link to one of the thousand pages with esoteric references to 2012].
  Yes, this is one of the thousand claims of something transcendental happening in 2012, but that's exactly the point of what I'm doing here! There's way too many of this in the Internet and elsewhere, and Wikipedia is definitely not the place to put it as well! PLEASE stop putting claims and links like this one, and you'll be making mine and all other contributors' jobs a lot easier! Thanks!
9. Bible code jargon follows:
  A hidden code found within the Torah through the computation of equidistant letters sequences shows signs of a comet within this year producing one of two outcomes: Either hitting and destroying the Earth, or crumbling into pieces. The two codes are found very close to each other within the Torah, and through the use of mathematical shortcut matrices, can be pieced together accordingly. These two statements are, "Comet...5772 [2012 according to the Gregorian calendar]...Earth Annihilated" and "Comet...It Will Be Crumbled, I Will Tear It To Pieces...5772 [2012 according to the Gregorian calendar]."
  This was already adressed with more clarity and support before in a Bible code comment, but this person decided to rant on about the subject, which resulted in this poorly constructed comment. You didn't even worry about putting a supporting link, or anything! Until someone decides to link properly to an explanatory page where this exact premise of the Bible code is explained, I will revert this to a comment with a link to the Bible code page, which has plenty of external links to find this out.
10. I have to give it to ya, I'd never heard of this one before:
  The supposed time traveller John Titor predicts some unusual events in 2012, but nothing like the end of the world : his comments are more about something like the Red Sea passage.
  I have no idea how this John Titor guy and his crazy forum posts got a pretty long article on Wikipedia. But as I said before, this isn't the place to argue about the credibility of theories like this. The fact remains that it's just a very brief mention of the year 2012 he makes, and it's not even about the apocalypse or anything similar, so it's not worth mentioning here, in my opinion. Anyone disagree?
11. I won't complain about there being just one external link, to a strictly-2012-related site for that matter, because I'm sure it will fill up again with many others in time. And of course I'll be there when that happens to make sure they're actually helpful.

Whew! Now I'll get to the actual changes, and as always, any comment or suggestion is welcome. Keep working on Wikipedia, everyone! Thank you! Kreachure 21:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of Maya Long Count info

I've rewritten the Dec 21 entry (period-ending in Maya Long Count calendar), removing the more egrarious New Age/Arguelles-inspired misconceptions and attempted to separate out and make clear the differences between scholarly and speculative (re-)interpretations. The John Major Jenkins theories (concerning solstices and equinoctal processions) I've omitted as non-standard / minority interpretation. If specific references are required would be happy to supply them, but they are also reflected/mentioned in the Maya calendar article itself.

I also took out the reference to the Aztec calendar, as there are in fact no observances of mesoamerican long count-style calendrics in the documentation of this postclassic culture. Also added in Dec 23 as the other correlated date for this event, still supported by some in the field.--cjllw | TALK 02:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup task 3.01

Hi, again. In a few words, I'm speechless. As of today, the page is in excellent conditions, better than I last left it. I only had to take out a few things that aren't even worth mentioning. I wish the article remained this healthy! Kreachure 15:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

this is sopposed to be the end or the begining of a new era according to the mayan calendar. Its Dec 21 2012 and from another source and Group its april-22-2012

Copyright Issue

I just found the following paragraph on the Armageddon Online site:

"December 21 - The Long Count calendar used by the Maya civilization of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica completes its thirteenth b'ak'tunb'ak'tun date of this starting point (13.0.0.0.0.0) is repeated, for the first time in a span of approximately 5,125 solar years. The significance of this period-ending to the pre-Columbian Maya themselves is unclear, and there is an incomplete inscription (Tortuguero Stela 6) which records this date. It is also to be found carved on the walls of the Temple of Inscriptions in Palenque, where it functions as a base date from which other dates are computed. However, it is conjectured that this may represent in the Maya belief system a transition from the current Creation world into the next. The December solstice for 2012 also occurs on this day."

It appears to be a word-for-word duplicate of the language used in the December 21 reference in this Wikipedia article. The Armageddon Online site has a copyright citation at the bottom of their page. However, I have no way of determining if the text originated on that site or on Wikipedia but, either way, there appears to be a copyright issue here. Joekoz451 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the passage quoted above, which I added to wikipedia in this edit. It was not taken from anywhere else. The Armegeddon site merely mirrors wikipedia content of articles it finds 'relevant', and indeed the entire content of that page reproduces the wikipedia original at some earlier point in time. So if there's any concern over copyvio, it would rather be the other way around- although they do provide text links to this 2012 article and wikipedia copyrights policy.--cjllw | TALK 12:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Canes Venatici "discovery"?

This article includes the reference: "On December 23, 1986, Dr. Jason Malcolm discovered Canes Venatici at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to say, but as it's written, it makes no sense - Canes Venatici is a constellation in the northern hemisphere, so designated in the 17th century by Hevelius. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsibley (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

"Canes Venatici"? surely we're doomed!

AFI?

I think this little section is a victim of hype. Alot of different sources have presented a plethora (sp?) of different theories about the event of this year. However, as an AFI fan, i believe it is more likely that the reference to December 21st in the song title Prelude 12/21 is in reference to the winter solstice, in correlation to the whole "wintery" theme of the Decemberunderground album. Also, whoever wrote the article actually misspelled "referring". I changed it.

20:49, 20 May 2007 (EST) ---Geo (i dont remember my login, so i corrected as a guest)

Heroes "Five Years Gone" episode

Should there be a mention of the alternate furute episode of Heroes on this page? Or on the 2011 page? 68.237.192.47 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be a lot more fucking noteworthy than the asston of text on the end of the world, or whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.70.119 (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

2012 cleanup task IV

Hello again, all! I'd said about 6 months ago that I hoped this page would remain as healthy as it was half a year ago... while it has improved in certain aspects, some others have forced me to do this cleanup once more.

Again: I've already stated the conditions I use to keep this particular article healthy and kook-free. If you want to argue my contributions, then please read my previous cleanup posts here and then we'll talk.

Since I'm certainly not the only one who has noticed the metaphysical fascination of this year, I believe this article needs a little extra effort to keep it within encyclopedic standards, and not chock-full of eccentric and outrageous claims about the future instead. If this year is indeed important in the future, then it's important as well to keep our heads grounded and try our best to separate the wheat from the chaff in order to understand better what's truly in store for us 5 years from now.

So it continues.Kreachure 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrence McKenna's Timewave Theory

Terrence McKenna's entry was butchered by some dude who wanted to draw attention to his page:
Terence McKenna's mathematical novelty theory suggests a point of singularity in which a great number of things could happen, including "hyperspatial breakthrough", planetesimal impact, alien contact, historical metamorphosis, metamorphosis of natural law, solar explosion, quasar ignition at the galactic core, or nothing. [5]
All of this nonsense, of course, has nothing to do with McKenna's theory, and neither does the webpage which elaborates on the aformentioned nonsense.
This new age mention needs sources.
Many new age spiritualists and philosophers ("new-agers") believe humankind will enter an age of enlightenment in 2012. There are a range of varying, generally positive, beliefs shared by a subset of spiritualists from the mundane to exceptional — including a positive social shift and age of peace, mankind becoming psychic and connected by a collective, and/or an evolution of the human race into non-corporeal beings made of "spiritual" energy, or light energy, i.e. 'ascension'.
While the new age movement does indeed speak of spiritual transformations 'when the time comes' (hence the name), if there are no sources indicating who exactly are those "many" or on what exactly are these "many" basing their beliefs, then I must dismiss this as yet another wishful attachment to the increasing coolness of 2012.
And if I intend to dismiss the last one, I sure won't hold back on this next one!:
Some alien-enthusiasts (e.g. Riley Martin), along with some new-agers, believe 2012 to correspond approximately with the return of alien "watchers" or "caretakers" who might have helped the first human civilizations with developing their technology and may have been waiting for us to reach a higher level of technological and/or social advancement. Beliefs range from the extra-terrestrials having benevolent purposes — such as to help human society evolve — to malevolent purposes — such as enslavement of mankind and/or manipulation.^{[citation needed]}
Listen, I'm sure there are many "alien enthusiasts" who think things like these, but that doesn't mean that we're gonna start putting generalized beliefs about aliens just because everyone thinks similarly about this subject without any factual justification about these beliefs. If there are no tangible sources about "extraterrestrial activity converging in the year 2012" stated (and trust me, there are thousands of pages relating to this subject in many books in your local new age store), then this simply cannot be accepted as encyclopedic!
According to Ram Bahadur Bomjon's page, he didn't return on 2012 as he prophecized, but instead, um... 9 months later. Then he left again three months later. Then they found him again 20 days later. Hmm. Anyways, since he voided his own prophecy and has made intermittent appearances since then, it's now pretty worthless to mention him here.
And this next one doesn't even try:
There is a Hindu following indicating the appearance of an Avatar (God in human form) with God-like powers who will herald a new age. An interesting website to this effect appears at End of the World 2012.
Oh, an interesting website, you say! How convenient! Specially since all this gibberish originates from this page exclusively! Also, I didn't know the term "Hindu following" is now used to refer to a single person with a lonely webpage! Shameless plug: instantly deleted.
And now, for something (apparently) more serious. The extensive (at least for this article) entry called "astrological predictions" (although there's only this one) talks about an astronomical alignment of the Galactic center with the "open cluster of the Pleiades". Well, sounds intriguing so far. But then, it states that this alignment won't happen, because it's impossible. (...) So why the hells do you put it if you already know that it's wrong?? Seriously, there's even the unverified sources template on top of it, meaning that even this "invalidation of a non-prediction" is unsourced! SO WHY BOTHER AT ALL!!! Geez, sometimes I think you're just trying to be mean to this poor article...
Finally a comment: I'm intrigued by the amount of mentions in the music subsection. I can't say the songs mentioned talk about 2012 or not, but it appears from here that they do, so I don't dare to touch these just yet. I'm sure some others may check out the bands and the lyrics to the songs to prove this, but I'm certainly pleased that there are people singing songs about 2012 (if indeed they are, even if they're bands that still don't have more than two fans coming over to their concerts at their parents' garage). Thus I say: Rock on! Spread the 2012 coolness around, why wontcha!

As always, opinions and help are appreciated. Let's all keep working hard on Wikipedia! Kreachure 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re #6 above, I think that the 'galactic centre alignment' part is a somewhat mangled portrayal of a theory put forward by John Major Jenkins, who contends that the Maya purposefully designed the Long Count calendar so that its 'end-date' would coincide with the alignment of the sun's path at the Dec. solstice with the galactic equator/centre; see his site summarising his claims. There's a bit more involved to it than that, and the part denying the alignment can happen is the relic of an editor's attempt to counter the theory. Although JMJ's ideas have generally little support or consideration in Mayanist scholarship, it would not be accurate to describe them as 'astrology' per se, and he's probably regarded as the most rigorous and least cranky of the alternative theorists. Maybe his ideas could be redocumented here as a notable alternative explanation for the significance of 2012 to the Long Count calendar, but then again his alignment really occurs in a 'window' stretching from 1980 - 2016....--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re #1, that was in fact McKenna's personal site (and is now de facto his legacy site), and he did actually compile that rather arbitrary list of possibilities. Mporter 06:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I Believe the date may be in error

I heard about the 2012 date, did some research and though I am far from being an expert in anything much less this I think I found something that invalidates the 12/21/2012 date.

The calculation that lead to the end date were based on the Mayan month calendar with 18 months of 20 days each for a total of 360 days. The end of the current age is supposed to happen 5,200 years after August 11, 3114 B.C. They multiplied 5,200 by 360 to arrive at a total number of days for the age, then using that number calculated the end date to be December 21, 2012.

However the Mayans also had a solar calendar that has the same month structure as the month calendar but includes an additional 5 days to correct the solar year error. This gives a total of 365 days in the year and not just 360. That discrepancy alone makes the original calculation in error by over 25,000 days.

We calculate the year at 365.25 days and I don't believe the Mayans would have known about the necessity of the quarter day per year to keep the calendars accurate. If we make the calculations using the 365.25 day year versus the 360 day year, the end date for the current age becomes September 19, 2087. To further bolster my position on this, the Mayans talked about the number of years from start to finish of the current age not the number of days. If we apply just that then 5,200 years from the start year of 3114 B.C. gives us an end year of 2086.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msackett (talk • contribs) 15 August 2007.

Hi Msackett. The Maya had a number of different calendar systems, pls review Maya calendar article. You seem to be confusing several of these. The (approximation of a) "solar year calendar", the haab' of 365 days, is actually the one made of 18 'months' of 20 days each, plus an additional 5 days ([18 x 20] + 5 = 365). While the Maya did fully appreciate that this only approximated the solar year, they never saw fit to amend this calendar, but instead used other methods to more accurately track the seasonal cycles, for crop planting etc.

However, the haab' cycle has nothing to do with the 2012 date. This date comes from the Long Count calendar, which essentially expresses a linear number of days elapsed since a starting point (equiv to Aug 11, 3114BCE (gregorian) by the GMT-correlation). The so-called 'end date' is reached after 13 b'ak'tun cycles of 144,000 days each, ie 13 x 144000 = 1,872,000 days, or a little over 5125 solar years. When you add that to the starting point, that's how you end up at Dec 21, 2012.

I'm not sure from the above what you consider the "Maya year" to be, but for Long Count purposes the Maya did not work in 'years', but rather various combination cycles of days, when you get down to it. It's invalid to multiply "our" years by their cycles to arrive at an answer, as your calcs seem to do. Also don't see where you get 5200 years from. In any case, it would be original research to include your own analysis of it.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Added text

I've added a textual note and link to an interview I did which debunk the New Age claim that the Mayans have a special prophecy about 2012 (and I count myself as a New Ager). The Mayan priests in Guatemala whom I've asked about this are aware that there is a so-called Mayan prophecy for 2012 because they read the papers and watch TV, but they've asked ME what I know about the thing, since they have no knowledge of it themselves (it's not part of their culture). The Chol Qij (260 day almanac) and Haab (365 day count - or at least the last 5 days of same) do indeed have mantic significance; but the long count in which the December 21, 2012 change occurs does not. En passant, the so-called Propheteers such as Arguelles aren't even doing the calculations correctly; as far as I know none of them have even set foot in Guatemala, know the language, the culture, or anything else about the Mayans. The Mayans themselves tend to resent this sort of usurpation of their cultural traditions (though I've tried to tell them they should be flattered by it). BobMak 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC) BobMak

Metaphysical Predictions

I am removing the following: "* The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy, speculated that Pope Benedict XVI would reign during the beginning of the tribulation of which Jesus spoke, and sometime later a future pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", the last in this prophetic list, would appear, bringing as a result the destruction of the city of Rome and the Last Judgment," because there is NO indication in said Prophecy of the Popes that gives any indication of dates, as far as I can see, not to mention the spurious nature of the "Peter the Roman" reference. Zerobot 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Metaphysical is inappropriate here. The predictions were created using empirical methods, such as astrology, and they are about a very physical occurrence, the end of the world. So no definition of metaphysical fits these predictions. I would recommend the title be changed to "Superstitious Predictions" or "Escatological Predictions". -J 20:54, 20 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.118.126 (talk)

Eros Orbital Calculation

Has anyone done or heard of calculations done on the Eros orbit around the sun and where it will cross Earth's orbit on the way back? What if our encounter with Eros slows or alters its path around the sun? Could this be the cause of the proposed impact on the 21st of December? Any articles related to this? (Never74 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)never74)

If you mean the asteroid 433 Eros, no-one (credible) is calculating an 'impact', either on 21 Dec 2012 or any other date. If you've seen something along those lines, I think that its coinciding with the Long Count calendar "end date" is a glaring red flag that there's pure hokum behind the claim. In fact, its closest Earth approach is worked out to be on Jan 31 2012, see this listing of near-Earth objects provided by NASA. The asteroid's article here spells it out.

If the source is claiming "but what if something changes its orbit", that would be no more than idle speculation; 'what ifs' can lead to any outcome you want them to.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, if you rotate around the 3-D image from NASA, you can make almost any object's orbit seem to cross Earth's. Also, if I remember correctly, Eros is not expected to collide with Earth any time soon. We also don't need what-ifs, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not need speculation. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The wind of charged particles from the galactic core

You know about how the solar wind generates aurora borealis and aurora australis.

The wind of charged particles from the galactic core converging with this solar system in 2012 is similar to the solar wind, it just originates from the galactic core, not from the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.238.94 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a quick google suggests that the "galactic wind" mostly comes from the hot stars throughout the galaxy. The core emits a lot for its size but it does not in any way dominate the interstellar flux. If a star actually falls into the central black hole, or if you get a wave of novas among the stars crowding around it - then you'll get a significant burst from the core. Mporter 11:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The galactic wind of charged particles is an electrodynamic hurricane revolving around the galactic core. The sun is always absorbing energy from this galactic wind, but in 2012 the wind is going to reach a peak of intensity.--83.108.99.161 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. But do you have any evidence or even any argument for this? There will be a solar maximum around 2012. That ought to strengthen the wind from our own sun and thus keep the interstellar wind further away.

You may be better off taking your theories to this list[6].Mporter 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that the sun gets all its energy from thermonuclear fusion? Maybe some of the sun's energy is obtained from a galactic birkeland current? If so, then perhaps the long count of the Maya calendar records cyclical changes in the sun's energy output.--Zanthius (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The galactic magnetic field is extremely weak.[7] Also, the field lines follow the spiral arms[8], whereas the sun's orbit cuts across the arms. Mporter (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read about the electric sun hypothesis? http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm If the sun indeed is increasing its energy output, then perhaps global warming is not just happening because of the greenhouse effect.--Zanthius (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Titanic Anniversory not notable?

I noticed that the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking is not included in the events for 2012 list. I went to add it, only to discover a comment saying not to add it as it was not a notable anniversary. This makes no sense to me. How can the 100th anniversary of the most widely known maritime disaster not qualify as notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.30.114 (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about my comment regarding anniversaries (which as far as I can see is the only comment here about anniversaries), read it again. I specifically said 100-year (as well as 75, 50, etc.) anniversaries are indeed notable, and should be put in a year article. But that's just my opinion, Be Bold! Kreachure (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline seems to be that future anniversaries should only be listed if there are present plans for observance. I can't find the appropriate Wikiproject, but that seems to be consensus. Perhaps Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Years would be an appropriate discussion area. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming in this a good bit after the original discussion, but I find it hard to believe that the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking wouldn't be something to include on a page like this. In fact, if you read the RMS Titanic article, under memorials, there is mention (granted, slightly vague) of planned commemorations. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else comments, and if not, I'll go ahead and add it again. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit vague. Still, if you point to the source of that information, it probably won't be deleted. Otherwise, per the present style guide, it probably will be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

March is missing

Why isn't there a "March" in the month list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.54.228 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there are no scheduled events in March. If you can find a notable scheduled event, go ahead and add the month. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

January 1st

End of incandescent bulbs in the USA < seems worthy of noting that incandescent bulb will be effectively illegal for sale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.119.52 (talk)

It would be notable, if it were accurate. It seems not to be, as CA's law doesn't take effect until later. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

By effectively it is meant that they will not longer meet the efficiency standards for legal sale: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22light.html?_r=4&ex=1356152400&en=a3bd3c90eb102844&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.41.233 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry here is a better link: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-16-light-bulbs_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.41.233 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup task 4.3

Hello again, peoples! I'm glad to see the article in good shape again. I just had to remove a few annoyances I had already removed before, is all. Is it that the Wikipedia community is getting smarter by the day, now taking proper care of this article? Or is there just the semi-protection to blame? (Could be both, right?) I just hope no more serious protection is needed to keep the article humbug-free and clean like a breeze!

The time for truth draws near! Isn't that fun?

See you beyond!

Kreachure (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fenway Park Anniversary

Hopefully it won't be deleted, (it probably will be edited, and if so, fine by me) but it is an important milestone for American sporting venues. --Qazox (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not notable, IMHO. As has been said many times in, the convention is that anniversaries should only be listed if there are present plans for celebration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Understand completely. If and when there are confirmed plans for a celebration, I'll repost it here. (Thanks for not completely making me look foolish ;) --Qazox (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, added my comment to the Titanic anniversary a few paragraphs above. I think it is clear that the owners of the Red Sox have already started laying the groundwork for a grand celebration on April 22, 2012. To quote them:

"We fully expect as a result of this formal commitment, this public declaration, that we will, in the year 2012, celebrate in a grand fashion the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park, the centennial of Fenway Park, the first time ever a baseball park will have celebrated a 100th anniversary insofar as we know," said Lucchino. (Luchino is not overstating with the demise of Detroit Stadium Fenway Park is the oldest and will be the only Park celebrating a centennial for many many years to come.)MBCF (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fenway Anniversary has to get its due too.

I added the 100th anniversary of the opening of Fenway Park. On the 100th anniversary of the Titanic I am sure there will be some notable memorials. a dropping of a wreath into the water sort of thing. The Fenway Park 100th will blow the the doors off that for notability. The owners have already said they are making major renovations to the park culminating in the 100th anniversary celebration.MBCF (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I think the intro section warrants a mention of all of the end-time/metaphysical phrophecies associated with 2012. Any thoughts? Sethie (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the intro does not need something of that sort. A brief summary farther down in the article should be okay, but we don't want any Undue weight nor fringe theories in the article, especially in the intro for a year article. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Update on when Australia will cease Analogue TV

It is now scheduled for 2013 see http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/television/digital_switchover_information_for_consumers 58.175.36.8 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Andy58.175.36.8 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to Tolkien Wiki page

I just joined so I don't want to do any actual editing myself, but I followed Tolkien Notion Club link and that page says that the papers were discovered in 2002. I've never read that story so I have no idea which Wiki page is correct. Dgpg (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)dgpg

2012 in other calendars

2012 in the "Arvisura" (legend collection of the sumeer-scytha-hungarian ancient chronicles, "Arvisura" is cca "Truthful Speech") is 6053. "medvetoros év" ("year of bear's thorax"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.20.30 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a good information site on this and other 2012 stuff at http://2012theendoftheworld.org Mikeleigh27 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight on the UK

Many of the 'Year Pages' on Wikipedia have an introduction, describing the main events, and also stating whether it is a common year and the day of the week the year begins. Therefore, please do NOT delete the factual information regarding the United Kingdom. Also, terms such as HRH and Her Majesty have been used in accordance with British Tradition with refering to the Monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvyvrmnt6789 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Easter Date

I can't seem to figure out how to edit the page. Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar to calculate the date of Easter (Pascha) and it differs in 2012, being on April 15 rather than April 12. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second largest of all Christian churches and so this date should be added if we are also to include the date of the Western Easter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilion301 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

7 reasons the world will end in 2012

7 reasons the world will end in 2012, basically what they have is seven proven facts that the world might end in 2012, should these facts be noted in the article? Androo123 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell in this medium whether you're being serious, or sarcastic. Either way, the answer would be no. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Net neutrality (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would say no, the website is a forum/blog, and does not cite sources and is not reliable. Besides, be might already have some of the information here and in seperate articles (eg. metaphysical predictions), but other than that it does not deserve any more than a brief mention. This is a significant claim, which means we will need a significant and reliable source other than this one for something like this. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you search at amazon.com for books about 2012, you will find A LOT of books predicting an apocalypse in 2012, and VERY FEW of them are mentioned in the "metaphysical predictions" section. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=2012 --Zanthius (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. This page about "7 reasons the world will end" is awesome... but not encyclopedic at all, with no reference and making obviously unrelated claims (the world will end in a human-created black hole or because of a super-volcano?) By the way, the LHC won't create a black hole : it is weaker than the cosmic radiations hitting our planet every single day. Thanks anyway for the good laught.Kromsson (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I don't believe you, but it says that it might be a possibility in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Micro_black_holes --Zanthius (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, intersting discussion... But still, the first experiments will begin sooner than 2012, so there is no link to the other doomsday prediction. (and I let you know about this, my country will be at the frontline in case of human-created black hole.) Kromsson (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Large Hadron Collider isn't what is going to cause the apocalypse. Computers connected on the Internet like neurons in a brain. The awakening of the global brain, that is what the new world of the Maya calendar is all about. --Zanthius (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, not all scientists are so sure that are black holes from LHC so harmless: http://www.scientificblogging.com/big_science_gambles/interview_professor_otto_rossler_takes_on_the_lhc --Popski (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

bewerken

Why do all the section edit links say "bewerken" instead of "edit"? — DeFender1031 08:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check your language preferences.... Could be a subtle vandal at the system level, but I don't think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The end of the internet

www.infowarscom/?p=2640 ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.132.199 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable? I think not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1 2 prisonplanetcom/articles/june2008/061108_kill_internet.htm ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} 3], maybe? The first states confirmation. 69.182.132.199 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones? Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. We don't want one of these on the article. Isn't there anything slightly more reliable? Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/No-The-Internet-Doesnt-End-In-2012-95227 69.182.132.199 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be a super genius in order to understand that huge companies wants to make more money, and that they can gain more money in a controlled internet where their websites are cooperating to get all the visitors while shutting out the rest.

Not that I believe that stupidity and egoism will be victorious in 2012. I think there are stronger forces generating enlightenment.--Zanthius (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a website you might want to take a look at on this subject. http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.87.230 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

End of Internet in 2012? That...is...absolutely...NONSENSE! So are those darn sayings about the end of Earth! Neither Internet's end nor Earth's end will happen!Don-Don (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who can't see that our global society is within a macroshift now, is a complete idiot. Take a look at the emerging technologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emerging_technologies , or this page about accelerating change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change --62.63.34.231 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored Mesoamerican LC calendar text

I restored the original text at the December 21 entry here (description of correlation of this date to the Mesoam/Maya Long Count calendar), which had recently been much abbreviated. Given the ever-increasing tide of apocalyptic, New Age and pop-culture mythology and flim-flammery building up around this correlation, I think it's relevant and useful to describe as precisely as possible the actual—as opposed to the invented—significance of the date in the Long Count calendar system. The LC is after all the ultimate inspiration for all of this breathless, popular yet misguided speculation. Also, since it relies upon a particular correlation (out of many that have been proffered in the past), we need to specify what that correlation is. Likewise, the particular Western calendar system being used needs to be noted, since you get quite a different outcome if the correlation is based on, say, the Julian calendar. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Patrik Geryl Suggestion

I suggest adding a note to this text:

# Patrik Geryl predicts a pole reversal. This has happened many times in the past. Geryl is predicting that the North Pole and South Pole will reverse and cause the Earth to start rotating in the opposite direction. He does not explain from where the required energy will come. The Earth functions as a gigantic gyroscope. The energy required to rotate the poles would be immense.[14]

There is no scientific indication that physical rotation of Earth would be affected by a pole reversal. The earth would continue to rotate in the same direction, and would only "appear" to rotate in the opposite direction relative to the compass. The sun would still rise in the direction you are accustomed to, but we might start calling that direction "West" instead of "East". (or more likely just adjust our compasses) Gwiffon (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Poles do not allways reverse most of the time they just correct to north and south creating cycler ice age of every 26000 years. Planetary flip depends on polarity of black mass at center of galaxy if it matchs the planets does not flip it just gets cold unit the moon creates a wobble in the axis which give us warming and or four seasons. The mysterious energy your looking for is magnetics, caused by large masses of hot spiining iron at the cores.

Misspellings

Under Metaphysical predictions, "Several author have published" --Bhaelochon (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed, thanks.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The World Won't End in 2012

I found a great source of claims that deny the end of the world, transformation in 2012: Explained - Why It Shouldn't Be Feared, but since this is a blog, it isn't a great encyclopedic source. Similar to the page "7 reasons why the world will have to end in 2012" or whatever it was called. The only thing we would have to worry about in this blog's and my opinion would be a possible pole reversal. CMac11814 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Somehow it says "NOT FOUND" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMac11814 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles Manson Scheduled for Parole hearing in 2012

Charles Manson Denied Parole 11 Times

Tuesday May 29, 2007

For the 11th time since 1978 when he first became eligible, cult leader Charles Manson was denied parole by the California Board of Paroles. The board voted to deny Manson parole for five more years, making the convicted killer next eligible for release in 2012. Manson, now 72 years old, did not bother to attend the parole hearing. He has said in the past that he considers himself a "prisoner of the political system" who will never be released.

"He refused to cooperate, so the conclusion they drew from the reports is he still remains a danger to the public," said Patrick Sequeira, Los Angeles County deputy district attorney. "He was convicted of nine horrible murders. He has expressed no remorse or empathy for any of the victims."

Manson was originally given the death sentence, which was changed in 1977 to life in prison with the possibility of parole, after a 1972 ruling by the California Supreme Court that found the state's death penalty unconstitutional.

Manson was convicted for the August 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders in the Los Angeles area. Although Manson himself did not take part in the murders, he ordered his followers to carry them out to incite a race war that he believed was prophesied in the Beatles song "Helter Skelter."

Manson was also convicted of the murder of musician Gary Hinman and former stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea at the Spahn movie ranch in Chatsworth, where the Manson Family lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohare4271 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error

2012 is claimed by some with New age beliefs to be a great year of spiritual transformation (or alternatively an apocalypse). There is disagreement among believers as to whether 2012 will see an end of civilization, or humanity will be elevated to a higher level.^[1]

[changed 'diagreement' to 'disagreement'] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredgman (talk • contribs) 15:14, September 17, 2008

Done. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Track 9 "2012" at the Enigma Album from Ill Nino

shouldn't this be added ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.4.217.14 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

April 1st 2012

The page list that on "April 1 - The United States Census of 1940 data is released to the public." Am I incorrect in thinking we already have this information? It seems to be listed Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_1940

Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycospyder (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's notable enough for this article is another question (my feeling is "yes", but others seem to differ), but everything in this article should be listed in another article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with it being listed here, but what exactly is being released that day? The link I posted above seems to be the information to be released. Hasn't this already happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycospyder (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that problem. The raw data from the census is released at that time. I have no idea if it's machine-readable, but the data from later censuses probably would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New 2012 Movie

{{editsemiprotected}} New Film Seeking Closure is about 2012 and can be found on Imdb

movies website

(Beerguts (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Once it's notable enough to have an article, feel free to re-submit. Skier Dude (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious Holidays - Hindu dates

30th Feb 2012 - Maha Shivaratri 15th March 2012 - Holi 6th May 2012 - Buddha Jayanti 9th Aug 2012 - Krishna Janmashtami 19th Sept 2012 - Ganesh Chathuri 5th Oct 2012 - Navratri (starts) 16th Oct 2012 - Navaratri (ends) 28th Oct - Diwali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-singularity (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that dates for Winter and Summer solstice are not the same in the Southern Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

London Olympics

isn't the 2012 olympics in london on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcradick0 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2008

Indeed, and you will find it noted under "July" when it is scheduled to commence. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

come on people!

Why dont they just say every posible,horible,unimaginable,hideous thing that could ever happen happens in 2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.124.3 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The metaphysical speculations section is actually fairly low on actual content. Given that 12/21/12 is the end of a baktun, let's then add some explanation about why this has become a significant reference in our culture. Who is making predictions? Who are the players? Let's add encyclopedic information to it. Can we find an expert or someone willing to research the topic? Antireconciler (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place for this however. IF there isn't a suitable article, it may be possible to create one. dougweller (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Doug, a detailed examination of 2012 millenarianism would be off-topic for this article on the year itself. Same goes for articles like Maya calendar. However, having a separate article on it may not be a bad idea, if only to have somewhere to funnel the speculative edits and discussions that will surely increase as we draw closer to the date. To the best of my knowledge we have no dedicated article ATM.

Perhaps someone like Hoopes (talk · contribs) could be prevailed upon to set the ball rolling; he's a KU anthropologist/archaeologist prof who's one of the few academics to have written on the phenomenon, and as a sometime contributor here he may be able to help out. Quite likely he's busy on other projects, tho. Might drop him a line and see if he's interested. As it happens, have just been listening to an interview with him at gnosticmedia podcast, recorded last month on the very topic of 2012 speculations. From that I gather he traces a lot of the popular interest in the 2012 end date back to Michael Coe's 1966 edition of The Maya, which seems to have been the source used by the first speculative writers for an apocalyptic or millenarian association with the Maya calendar.

Problem is, while there are any number of trade paperbacks written on various speculations, few published materials or criticisms come from established academic sources, ie publs. that we might consider as WP:RS. But there might be enough now out there that could be used to base an article on. I understand Anthony Aveni has a book coming out on 2012 soon, for eg. Otherwise, we'd have to track down papers that go into some of the background to the development of the 2012 movement, by folks who are not themselves part-n-parcel of the popular writing movement. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: there is also Galactic Alignment, which should probably be merged into any new page that is created on the topic. --mikeu ^talk 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Problem with merging a new "12/21/2012 mythology" article with Galactic Alignment is that the G-A is (or at least is supposed to be) an inevitable actual galactic astronomical and astrophysical phenomenon, and that its article (at least as of this writing) is devoid of any absurd pseudo-scientific speculation about the solar system or earth-moon system pulling itself apart or whatever as a result of interference with hypothetical intergalactic tidal forces or something. I also have serious doubts about a galactic event which takes tens of thousands of years to cycle through can be measured and defined as to where the "bulls eye" is, so precisely as to be defined as falling on a specific date and time, especially considering that today is tomorrow (or perhaps yesterday) on the other side of the date line - similar to the idea of when exactly did Y2k arrive. Now - I could see a decent independent article arising concerning the whole mythology of 12/21/2012, with good sourcing. The G-A article could perhaps safely mention or refer to that general date mythology, but it should not become permanently attached and contaminated with it. There should be no significant editing required, once "the date" comes and goes, with no measurable effects beyond perhaps a few news reports of crowds of folks on mountain tops being not rescued by UFOs or Jesus. Of course, if the galaxy does implode, or Jesus comes back, then it is probably all moot, more or less. Anyway a short "Speculation About..." section within the G-A article might make sense, again with suitable reliable sourcing (eg: perhaps History Channel summaries, mostly to assert that the speculation exists, notwithstanding the controversial and mythological status), but such speculation should not become the overriding tone, either at G-A or here. The reader could always click over to the hypothetical main article for 12/21 mythology if desired. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's think this idiot who predicted it was a totally desperate. The Mayans didn't die out they left. Mayans left because they built their homes near the ocean and a drought hit. They had no fresh water source. Some priests even told people the religion was bogus. So hearing this people began to leave so they could get water and also avoid that stupid religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.4.103 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

music

metal band jakota rose have a song called twenty12

with lyrics "ill see you all in 2012, come one come all this world will fall" and "so grab your mates and hold them tight there will be fire in the sky tonight" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gapwing (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WEB

{{editsemiprotected}} A WEB section under FICTION would be instructive:

There is a new crop of humorous sites that are using parody as a way to discuss the event. Worth noting : http://www.geddongear.com Tweak2020 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done: I would think that this statement would not be helpful in an excyclopedia. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2012 Doomsday prediction

Just letting people know that this new article exists. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious holidays

Can we come up with a more neutral term than "Christianity" for holidays such as Christmas and Easter... as the list correctly notes, the Orthodox Churchs celebrate these holidays on other days of the year... and Orthodox Christians are no less a part of Christianity than the Roman Catholic or various Protestant denominations. Perhaps "Majority of Christian denominations"? Blueboar (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2012 Movie Based Era

The movie "The Postman" with Kevin Costner is based in 2012. The world is unorganized and there has been plague in certain places. Morale is low, so is life in general. Everything seems to have gone the opposite direction in advancements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokmongo (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Try 2013. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ROC 100th anniversary

Arthur Rubin, why did you revert my edit? ROC was established on 1-1-1912 RayYung (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. Anniversaries are not included in (future) year articles unless there are present, notable, sourced, plans for commemmoration, and maybe not even then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not referring the commemoration but the mere fact that the country is 100 years old. Should it be notable enough in a year article? --RayYung (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4

Should it be noted in gaming that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare took place in the year 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.154.144 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If accurate, and if the game has an article which confirms that, it's appropriate for the "in fiction" or "in video games" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, 2011 :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.154.144 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WTF (or: Doomsday-related material)

Can anyone reduce the drivel in "Geophysical and cosmological" to a paragraph? Jim62sch^dissera! 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. AT the moment it basically says this, "Random crank with no evidence predicts cosmological event which will have implications to Earth (i.e. it ties in with the whole Mayan Calendar 2012 thing), but people who know what they are talking about (e.g. Nature) disagree." Why are we giving so much space to all this pseudoscience? This article is supposed to be what is expected to happen by reasonable people in 2012, not what crazy New Age people predict will happen. Did we accept the idea of some in the media that the LHC was going to destroy us all by creating a giant black hole? No. So why should we accept this crap as if its the equal to the work done by real astronomers? 86.155.7.136 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got... roasted, probably! :( Do join in! --PL (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, the tripe met its own doomsday. Now, 2012 Doomsday prediction needs a lot of help. Go get 'em. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I dunno. Doesn't the title say it all, without any help from me? OK, I've been through it with a fine-tooth comb (and not a fine tooth-comb!), but I'm not sure how much good it'll do. Ditto the article on the History Channel. Meanwhile, hardly a squeak from anybody here! The calm before the storm? --PL (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Quarantining all of the 2012 guff off into its own article is probably for the best. Easier to deal with spot fires when they are corralled in a central place, instead of smouldering across mutliple articles. This 2012 article will no doubt still require constant monitoring, tho... --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You bet! --PL (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving fiction to the subarticle was a mistake. Even if most of the fiction relates to doomsday scenarios, I can point to a few which don't. I think I've reversed that properly, although it's difficult to determine. (Also, one of the subarticle edits added 2012 (film) a second time.) It would be tempting to add some of the doomsday stuff presented as fact to the fiction (literature) section, but that might be considered WP:BIASed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any fiction that doesn't relate in some way to the doomsday scenario, which has no business here. Discuss which? In case of doubt, I suggest assuming the worst. --PL (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about the references section? As they no longer reference anything, they have no purpose, and basically violate MoS by being there. In other words, they need to go. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur here, and have restored the fiction section to this article. For one thing, fiction sections are standard parts of Wikipedia year articles, whereas these sort of lists would be chaotic and non-WP:SS in a piece of regular prose such as 2012 Doomsday prediction. Additionally, the Doomsday article is not separated from this one due to any POV distinction between "fact" and "fiction"--the predictions about 2012 do not come from novels or anything else containing the plot and character required for fictional narrative; the only element of narrative that they consistently possess is setting--but rather because there is so much to say about the predictions that it cannot be fit neatly into the 2012 timeline. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only fiction that legitimately belongs in this article is fiction that (a) is about ordinary calendar events in the sense of the article and (b) definitely has nothing whatever to do with the 2012 Doomsday prediction myth, which has its own article. Having been carefully through the proposed fiction list, and found only half-a-dozen or so references that fulfil these two criteria, I have therefore let them stand (even though I'm not sure even about one or two of those), and quite properly deleted all the rest.--PL (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please get consensus before blanking the article again. And stop duplicating 2012 (film). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the reference section; that should be moved to the subarticle. Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's blanking any articles -- merely arranging their content more logically. People looking for fiction based on the facts of 2012 don't want to have to wade through endless irrelevant titles devoted to the fantasies of 2012 Doomsday prediction -- especially as their inclusion gives the impression that these are relevant to the facts, which they're not. People, on the other hand, who are interested in the fantasies might well want to read fiction based on them. Far be it for me to stand in their way. Ergo, place the fact-based titles with the factual article, and the fantasy-based ones with the fantasy-based one, and provide an obvious link to both. That is what I did. As for repeating the duplicated film reference, apologies -- please correct as necessary if I inadvertently do it again (being basically filmspam, it should't really be there anyway).

The factual reference list (or rather the source-list), meanwhile, needs to go with the factual article, not the fantasy one. Anything else would be ludicrous. So please, as you yourself insist, stop shifting unsuitable material to the subarticle.

As for 'consensus', it looks as if the odds here are currently against you 3-2 on the proposal to keep the fact-based stuff and the fantasy-based stuff separate -- so please (since you once again insist) obtain consensus before you revert again. --PL (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I realise that most year articles, at least those related to the past century, have fiction sections, but that doesn't necessarily make the inclusion of such sections encyclopaedic. If the sections must exist, they should be as short as possible and not serve as adverts for the books or films. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. It's WP:BRD. You (PL)were bold in moving the fiction, and were reverted. Please don't do it again until you get consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Fiction is still there. --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And you (PL) are the only one who has moved the fiction; I'd say it's 4 to 2 in favor of keeping it, but that's not a clear consensus, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's still there! What on earth are you on about? --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no object to a separate article 2012 in fiction, but I do object to the fiction being embedded in the doomsday prediction article at this time. As for the references, almost all of them are about the truth of the Mayan calendar, which makes it relevant to the "Doomsday" article as refutation, not relevant to this article. If any of the references are not about the Mayan calendar, go ahead and restore them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, in future, all references should be anti-references? I don't get it -- and neither, I suspect, do most others here. Meanwhile the doomsday article is precisely where doomsday article Fiction belongs. Where else should it be? So please stop blanking it! --PL (talk)

I've restored the references section. The entries in this biblio listing were directly paired with inline cites/notes that exist in this article. Without the references containing the works these inline cites refer to, the inline cites are not much use. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You're right, of course. Please check that it's still OK following the latest edit. --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please try to explain to Arthur that the Fiction section is still there, and that nobody is moving it anywhere? He seems to be living on another planet. Either that, or he is simply not reading the article and reverting blindly, which is not advised. See WP:BRD. --PL (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see it. Really -- it's still there. Jim62sch^dissera! 14:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And now it is out of control and overly large. 2012 Hoodoo already exists as an article and that's where the crap related specifically to said hoodoo should go. Arthur has mangled so much of the article that it isn't even funny. Jim62sch^dissera! 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiction should be in 2012#2012 in fiction or 2012 in fiction, not in 2012 doomsday prediction. So far, in these atricles, there's 3 to 2 in favor of keeping it here. ~~Y2K fiction isn't split off into the Y2K article, why should 2012 doomsday fiction.~~ Apparently I was wrong, but there is no 2000#2000 in fiction, or 2001#2001 in fiction, although there is a 1999#Fictional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the fiction is related to the doomsday bullshit it belongs in that article. It's that simple. Jim62sch^dissera! 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if we don't decide to put the pseudo-factual literature in that section (as tempting as it might be), there's dispute as to what belongs there. Do you want to include any disaster set in 2012? The Doctor Who and Futurama episodes there are not "Doomsday" scenarios (well, maybe Doctor Who, but almost all Doctor Who episodes involve a disaster), and Death Race seems inadequate, even if it were sourced. There's little dispute as to what year a film is set it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are unrelated to the doomsday nonsense, they can stay -- exactly as PL had done! If one has never seen the film, I only have your word that it took place in 2012. Get it? Jim62sch^dissera! 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you discussing the question rationally, Arthur, but there's no reason to insist that it has to be either/or when it can be both/and. As you may have noticed (if you bothered to look), the fiction list that I am appending to the 2012 Doomsday prediction article is fiction that is specifically devoted to that idea, whereas the fiction list that I am attaching to the 2012 article is not, but simply relates to the year 2012, however tangentially and inconsequentially in your view or mine. Consequently the two lists are quite different -- as they clearly should be. I welcome the fact that you seem to have noticed (at last!).

As for the references/sources section, everywhere else in Wikipedia (as in academic works generally), the references are there to support the text, not to refute it -- just as, if you were going for a job, you wouldn't expect the referee to say how useless you were. Unless there has been a change of Wikipolicy, that is therefore how they should be used -- unless you want to create a new section entitled 'Anti-references', that is.

We have the makings of two quite decent articles here, and it would be a pity to let personal bees in bonnets and unheard-of academic policies cloud the issues and make the 2012 article less reputable by fictional or referential association. --PL (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See the split section below as to the problems I see with spliting the fiction sections. Or do you want to try for 3 lists; clearly not related to a Doomsday scenario; clearly related to a Doomsday scenario, and unclear? I would say only about 50% of the ones PL has moved to the subarticle are clear from information available on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, just a single separate article '2012 in fiction', since fiction is just that -- fiction! Put whatever you like into it. Or else junk the lot. It's so interesting and relevant that I probably shan't even bother to look at it! ;) --PL (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiction split

The split of the fiction section between 2012 and 2012 Doomsday prediction is a matter of significant dispute. Even if we were not to include pseudo-factual material, there may be dispute as to whether a specific item of literature, even if it reflects a disaster, is really an example of the 2012 Doomsday prediction genre. I think they should be merged, possibly into a new article, but the split will reflect WP:OR in some instances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it would be OR, I'm just not sure. It could, I suppose -- unless we can verify that the item deals in some way with the Mayan calendar -- and most of them seem to. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of hiving off ALL fiction relating to 2012 into a separate section is just fine. Then we can finally leave 2012 Doomsday prediction and 2012 to do their separate jobs -- the one to tackle the fantasies surrounding the date, the other to display the facts in the light of the Mayan calendar. --PL (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2012 in fiction created from pre-split information. I don't think anything correct was added after that point, but I suggest that others check and complete copying new or modified information, and then merge properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag

Who in the world put that tag on? Anyway, the answer is no. Final answer.the world isnt going to end in 2012 all scientists have said no so please dont worry this tag is off megan henderson . Jim62sch^dissera! 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The section merge tag is based on (1) the status quo ante, and (2) the agreement of CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs) and myself. You are in no position to say "no", but ththe linked discussion section above suggests restoring the merged fiction section into a separate article, to which I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means do it! --PL (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my good man, I can say no whenever I wish. No, really, I can. I didn't read the tag that way -- I must look again. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how "It has been suggested that 2012 Doomsday prediction#2012 doomsday in fiction be merged into this article or section." matches what you are saying. Try again, please. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree this page is receiving 286K hits per month. Compare this with 2011, 13.6k and 2013 15.4K. The reason for this interest is the amount of chatter going on about the so called changes / doomsday rightly or wrongly predicted for the year. The article needs to reflect this in some way rather than divert it all to other pages. Lumos3 (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's only the fiction that (despite the unhelpful language above) it is proposed to divert -- and that isn't going to tell them anything, is it? --PL (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A link to the "fiction" article should be sufficient. None of this hype is based on reality, just fiction. btw, it's really 2029 we need to worry about -- *wink* Jim62sch^dissera! 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags corrected, per my newly created 2012 in fiction from pre-fiction-section-split copy. If others care to verify that I haven't missed any correct updates, and complete the merge, it would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for protection

Is this page protected because of the end of the world rumors? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected as a continual target of anon vandalism & random commentary, of "the world will end/will not end" variety. So yeah, more so because of its notoriety than any other reason. When left unprotected, the edit history of this page rapidly fills up with disruptive edits and their reversions. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Back to Original Page

Someone messed up the entire 2012 page, by deleting all the content and replacing it with the same message about the world ending. It needs to be reverted back to the original. I don't know how to do that, can anyone else do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Coolmanwc4 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee of QEII

Following comment is posted on my talk page:

2012

Why'd you delete the entry for 6th Feb? If that can be removed, so can others, theres nothing to say that other events in that year can be called off or postponed, etc. It is there because it's likely to happen and is a very very notable event. --Knowzilla 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted "Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II" on 2012 several times because of the following reasons.

She is 83 years old now, then almost reaching 86 as of February 2012. Life expectancy for British women is 81 years as of 2004.^[2]
In British monarchs, only Queen Victoria reigned over 60 years. George III, the second longest-reigning King reigned 59 years and 3 months.
I assumed that it is too EARLY to mention it at the present time because of the reasons I mentioned above.

I do agree to make it posted after she become the second longest-reigning Queen, surpassing the reigning period of King George III. --Belle Equipe (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, but I don't think theres much doubt Her Majesty will reach that age (and probably even beyond). Don't forget to re-add it when the Jubilee is close enough. --Know zilla 15:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Belle Equip - she is not one of the "British women" she is The Queen, I highly doubt life expectancy for said monarch and that of "British women" to be the same - what age was her mother on her death - she was 101!--Alf ^melmac 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, especially since this is only a three years away, I really don't think The Queen is going to pass away any time soon at all, I can even look forward with some hope to the Queen's Platinum Jubilee (70 years on the thrones of UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and so on - and about 106 years of age!). I'm fine whether it stays or not, I guess, but when the Jubilee gets close enough, just remember to place it back! --Know zilla 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

December 20th vs. 21st

Is the 21st the date A) on which the current baktun actually ends, B) on which the next baktun (the current one having ended on, say, 11:59:59 pm of the 20th) begins, or C) on which a non-midnight transition occurs between the two baktuns? The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article seems to indicate that it is the Long Count date immediately prior to Creation that technically repeats, although nobody really talks about the 20th. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I reckon to answer that properly would require degrees of precision, scholarly consensus, and confidence in some abstruse points that alas, aren't really there.

As I understand it and by way of example, it's not clearly established what the ancient Maya conceived as being the starting or ending points of a calendar's "day". Depending on which colonial or ethnographic source is given more credence, a new calendar day may have begun after sunset; alternatively, from midday with the sun at the zenith; or (apparently considered less likely) at sunrise. I think epigraphers like David Stuart and Peter Mathews have suggested that days in the 260- and 365-day calendars began at different times. It's also quite likely the conceptualisation of when day starts/day ends varied between different precolumbian Maya communities and periods, as is reported for Maya communities in both colonial and contemporary times. There is therefore some slight allowance or margin of error to be accommodated, and for the LC, no single correlation day fits perfectly to all the records and background circumstances.

Also open to some discussion is whether the intended focus of an anciently-recorded commemorative date/ceremony was on the ending/completion of a period, or the commencement of a new one.

In any case, I don't think the article's present change of focus to the 12.19.19.17.19 LC date (LC base-date minus one) makes much sense. The base date or creation date in 3114 BC is explicitly written in inscriptions as 13.0.0.0.0. It is a false to assume however that the upcoming 2012 AD date would have been written by the Maya as 0.0.0.0.0. There are no inscriptions that write it this way or imply that it would be written with zeroes in the baktuns or higher-order places. The sole extant inscription that is actually about the 21 Dec 2012 date, Tortugero Monument 6, does not actually write out a full Long Count date for it, but says that it would be the completion of the 13th baktun, and commentaries on it and dates of this epoch all generally agree that 21 Dec 2012 is best represented as another 13.0.0.0.0. The original statement in the article was more correct, I believe -- on Dec 21 the LC date of 13.0.0.0.0 is repeated. Since, as you say, nobody in scholarship really talks about the 20th, I don't think this article should either. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A STRONGER ANTI-HYSTERIA STATEMENT

I believe it would be wise to adjust the opening paragraph to add the line, "There is currently no scientific evidence that any apocalyptic events will occur in 2012". The current statement leaves it open to doubt, and being as this page is one of the top results in a Google search for 2012 I think it would be irresponsible to allow the opportunity to educate some of our less-knowledgeable and less-patient readers to go unutilized. -74.76.55.235 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

"March 22 – Unless the European Council votes to extend current copyright law, The Beatles' debut album, Please Please Me, will fall out of copyright." Are we sure of this? My understanding is that at present copyright is good for the life of the composer or, in the case of a group, the last surviving composer plus 75 years. How could Please Please Me fall into Public Domain? Was the copyright sold to someone and thus we have a different time limit? Gingermint (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See Uk copyright law#Sound recordings. However, the portion you have cited is still false as a) it only applies to the UK and b) the Beatles' album Please Please Me was not released until March 1963. We have an off-by-one error here. The BBC article used as reference refers to the Beatles' first single, Love me do which was released in late 1962. --Kulmala (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC) silly is what it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.198.82 (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

2012 predictions

The most advanced models presented at the 2007 meeting of the American Geophysical Union anticipated an ice-free Arctic in the summer as early as 2013 or even 2012 ??? = where will all of the melted ice go to ? = flooding ?? = new seaways open allowing access to North pole for countries to explore and to rape for minerals could cause a war ? Two large dams to be removed in 2012 in Upper USA = ? severe flooding ??

Unusual prediction from ytmnd user GaryGnu in site titled ripfidelcastro that Fidel Castro will die in 2012. (can't put the link in due to ytmnd's blacklist status.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroderzone (talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

View Source

LOL pseudoscience. I see all this troofing has led to enough vandalism to cause the 2012 article to be semi-protected. First of all: there is no Planet X. Second of all, Earth Changes relies in part on obsolete geology, which has been surpassed by the more accurate plate tectonics theory. How would Atlantis or Mu rise "again" if they were never there to begin with, and is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge really eruptive enough to create an "Atlantis"? (Well, it built Iceland, but that was hot spot volcanism, and I don't know of any other hot spots under the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.) As for Mu, there is an oceanic ridge at the boundaries of the Nazca Plate and Pacific Plate, but it's not likely to produce land. No land means no real displacement of water; no real displacement of water means no sea level rises swamping existing land. Finally, the idea of a rapid pole shift is also bunk. The Earth has a lot of inertia; how is it supposed to tilt without something big hitting it or affecting it somehow? Since there's apparently no planet X or anything similar in size, we might as well conclude the Earth will stay on roughly the same axis it has in the past. Now that this troofy stuff has been disproven, let's get on with the events that may realistically happen in 2012, and not worry about the troofy stuff. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people who refer to "pole shift" may actually mean to be referring to "geomagnetic reversal". But no matter ... there is, obviously, no reason for anything to happen on the winter solstice of 2012. Of course, the sunrise will be sort of (roughly) close to the intersection of the galactic and the ecliptic planes (wherever that is), but, like, so what? I think the interesting question is whether or not the ancient Mayans even knew about the precession of the equinoxes. The answer to that question has not been determined (yet), but I believe it is highly unlikely that they did not know about the precession. It's hard to believe that they did not know. That is the interesting question. But trust me, my scared children ... the world's not gonna end until the sun puffs up into a red giant, and that's gonna be a long while. Worldrimroamer (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people just think it's fun to scare the uneducated first world (and some of the educated) population by saying the world will end somehow from time to time. It never actually happens, since our ability to predict the end of the world is essentially nonexistent (and will never been proven with complete accuracy at any time in the future, since quantum mechanics has destroyed scientific determinism). Though I admit, the way people fall for this stuff is really quite fun to watch.Lunamia (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

[Religioustolerance-1] Predictions that the world's end or a major transition will come on or about 2012-DEC-21, Religioustolerance.org

[2] National Statistics

[1]

[2]