Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Essay

I've just found a fascinating essay on 2012 by a Mayanist, claiming to represent the community, at [1]. If you want to help get this article to FA quality you can read along with me and add references as you do. Anyhow, he explains that different cities would use either 13 or 20 in order to make dates in the future add up properly for numerological purposes. You're right about the dozen 13s thing-- it's just one of the many issues under discussion here. Let's make this article really informative by discussing all the issues often brushed over in the speculation. Shii (tock) 19:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Title of article -- the (single transferable) vote!

OK folks, please add your sig under your choice of title (or add another), then transfer it to a different one if and when yours looks like losing. One vote each only. Max 3 days?

2012 millenarianism

2012 doomsday prediction

--PL (talk)

--Senor Cuete (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

-- Per WP:UCN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

--Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC) But I still like eschatology better.

-- Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (or simply 1012 Preditions)

-- Lumos3 (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Probably best fits Wikipedia's naming guidelines. But I like 2012 millenarianism best.

2012 eschatology

2012 phenomenon

--Serendi^podous

Shii (tock) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Maunus ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

--mikeu ^talk 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC) used by RS's, & the word cannot be said to be obscure or unfamiliar

œ^™ 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Apocalypse 2012

2012 apocalypse

Thirteen baktun

Stop move-warring

• For pities sake. Return it to the original title and start a proper RfC. My suggestion: 2012 fiction. Verbal chat 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Find some objective references for "2012 fiction" and I'll accept it. Shii (tock) 18:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And good luck to you! --PL (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with "eschatology", "phenomenon" or "millenarianism". We should use IRV :) Shii (tock) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More complicated, though. Let's see what this gives. At least it allows feedback. Intriguing possibilities! Even Stevens so far. I've added a further title. --PL (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be unhappy with "eschatology" or "millenarianism" - pretentious, incomprehensible, inaccurate. 2012 Doomsday Prediction described it well. It is supposed to happen in 2012 so it's a prediction and it's based on the belief that the completion of the 13th Bak'tun is the end of this world so it IS a doomsday prediction. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

One day down: two to go! --PL (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted some alerts abt this naming discussion at WP:FTN, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views and WP:SKEPTIC as they seems the most likely boards where folks may have some interest in the matter. If anyone knows of other suitable boards or WPs, perhaps notices cld be placed there too.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Two days down, one to go! Interesting process, eh? --PL (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NAME... we should use the most common name for the topic, not the one we happen to personally like most. I seriously doubt that terms such as "eschatology" or "millenarianism" are the most common names for this topic. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review the article content. The majority of authors and sources producing 2012 speculations, and majority of those covered here, are not promoting doomsday scenarios. It'll be a little disconcerting reading a doomsday prediction article with not much doomsday in it ;-) This article is not about some discrete thing with an actual name (common or otherwise), but instead covers a collection of concepts & proposals that have in common (1)the year 2012 and (2)a millenarian outlook/outcome. --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reliable source using the wording "2012 doomsday predictions" - however sources do use 2012 phenomenon - it is not only the most common, but the only common name.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're undoubtedly right -- but, people being people, they'll still probably just choose the one they like most. However, with a bit of luck, that might well be the most common one, too, however strictly inaccurate or inappropriate! --PL (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Let's compromise and do it my way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee! Er, no -- let's compromise and do it the majority's way! Interesting to see the choices change, though, isn't it? Only a few hours left. Should the choice turn out to be '2012 doomsday prediction' (which, I agree, is not necessarily factually watertight, any more than most of the other options are), I wouldn't think it's entirely inadmissible, given that the article would in that case merely be mentioning a few contrary theories as well, as any balanced presentation of a general theory presumably should. Appropriate caveats could even be included in the text, such as 'In opposition to the prevailing 'doomsday' scenario, the New Age...' --PL (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, folks, the three days were up a couple of minutes ago -- and it's 6-4 in favour of '2012 doomsday prediction' over 'Doomsday phenomenon'. Thanks to all for voting, and thanks in advance to the supporters of the latter, too, for accepting the majority verdict. I found the process absolutely fascinating. Over to you, now, Shii. Would you please be kind enough to do the honours? I have already adjusted the text of the article to co-ordinate and correlate the contrasting approaches. --PL (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with the majority rule, but I couldn't find where exactly the term "doomsday prediction" came from... I think I was probably just didn't pay enough attention to the discussion above. Shii (tock) 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I looked through that discussion a lot more closely and I couldn't find the outside sources, only original research. Knowing that, it's difficult for me to stick with the outcome of a vote. I hope no one minds that I'm going to move this to the second most popular title until someone finds sources for the first most popular. This isn't a final decision by any means (it's definitely not an admin action), and you should cast some suspicion on me for moving to the title I supported, but I think the lack of cited sources is a major issue here. Shii (tock) 03:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Precisely what type of "cited sources" would be acceptable to you? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The same kind that would be acceptable to anyone: sources in fact-checked publications (peer-reviewed academic sources being more reliable than newspaper sources), and discussing the topic objectively rather than taking sides (otherwise we could argue to title this article "2012 hoax" or "2012 renewal"). Shii (tock) 04:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye democracy! As Shii (who originally changed the title from '2012 doomsday prediction' to '2012 millenarianism', no doubt on the basis of 'outside sources'!!) is now apparently going to find every excuse he can to avoid its outcome and substitute the title we voted not to have, would someone else here please care to do the necessary? I can understand that he's a bit loth to do it himself, but there's plenty of precedent in the article itself, to say nothing of the History Channel's output, for the word 'doomsday' (I can currently see no less than seven references to the term). However, I'm afraid that, at 72, the technicalities are a bit beyond me... --PL (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, I'm afraid. Even if it were, the poll now has an equal number of votes on both sides (all from established editors) so moving the page would not be in good faith. Shii (tock) 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So it's good faith when you move the page against consensus, but it's not good faith when someone else moves the page against an even split. Gotcha. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The poll proposed a time limit of 3 days, to which nobody objected. Votes cast since 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC) are therefore invalid (for what it's worth, Serendipodous's transfer of his undated vote was carried out at 1443 on 6 September 2009 (UTC)). If you want to hold another poll, go ahead, but it would be a bit silly if the heading had to be changed every time there was a slight fluctuation in numbers. The title decided on as of now is '2012 doomsday prediction'. (And there was I thinking that vote-rigging was currently limited to Iran and Afghanistan!) --PL (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Rather than responding to my comments with an objective search for references you simply moved the page back. This is a discussion we need to have on the talk page, not in the move history. Let's calmly look for reliable sources here rather than accusing me of voter fraud. Shii (tock) 18:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my support for the "2012 phenomenon" title above was based on: The 2012 Phenomenon - New Age Appropriation of an Ancient Mayan Calendar, Robert K. Sitler, Nova Religio, February 2006. --mikeu ^talk 02:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. My concern is that people might misinterpret what was meant by phenomenon. I don't think it is entirely clear. Still carrying a torch for eschatology as both the doom and non-doom versions tend to involve the end of an epoch, if not of the world.Simonm223 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to face the possibility that there is currently no widely accepted term for the subject of this article. None of the choices above are that great in my opinion, so I just tried to support the one that I felt seemed less inappropriate than the others. We may just have to wait until someone coins a name that is adopted by multiple reliable sources and rename the page when we can cite those. That is likely to happen soon as we approach the date of the movie release and the hype publicity that I suspect will accompany it. --mikeu ^talk 04:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my point above, that this article should actually be two or more articles.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

By all means let's look for a better, more all-inclusive title I (personally I think I would favour '2012 apocalypse', given that the word simply means 'revelation'), or split the article into two -- a 'doomsday' version and a 'New Age' version. But the fact remains that a democratic vote was taken and a result obtained. This was duly announced, after two prior warnings, at 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC). Subsequent attempts to worm in further votes simply amounted to ballot-box stuffing after the event. As a reflection of the views of people here, the decision should therefore be implemented in the interim. However, I see that Shii (if he it is) -- who, I should point out, duly took part in the poll -- has now effectively blocked the possibility, almost as if the final word on everything had to be his. Any further discussion here is therefore useless. So I'm outta here. There really is no point. :( --PL (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since 99% of traffic is probably going to come from either Google or 2012, and all three titles are redirects anyway, it is really not a big deal what the title of the article is. But as for the "vote" being held and passed, I'm with Shii: it's somewhat besides the point. Wikipedia decision-making is based on consensus, not majority vote—indeed, one could argue that a simple vote is the worst way to decide matters, since the vote doesn't include any reasoning or discussion. Ideally we should be comparing the arguments in favor of each title, not the people in favor of each. skeptical scientist (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I reverted the removal of material made in this edit. The removing editor claims that "no doomsday is predicted here", but it is very clear from the current lead and the "end of the world" section that some authors are promoting the idea of a "doomsday", and this is a significant part of the popular discourse. I would welcome further clarification on this matter and I would suggest keeping the current statement in the lead but modifying to be more inclusive. For example, instead of just focusing on "doomsday", the statement should also state that scientists do not support the idea of cataclysimic or transformative events occurring in 2012, nor do they support the interpretations of such events from the calendar, or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if it now does. Seems OK to me, given that it reflects what the later details say. --PL (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I support having that sentence in some form but I think it's a little hyperbolic in its current state. I believe that "doomsday" is kind of a stretch based on what's written in the Theories section, but more importantly it's amusing to think that anything in that section could be construed as an attempt at convincing the "scientific community". Let's go through this step by step:

1. The New Age books believe that there will be a "sixth age of consciousness" which will lead to the end of "materialist attitudes", i.e., iPhone sales will grind to a halt. I don't know what to call that but it's not doomsday.
2. John Major Jenkins, who deserves an independent category because unlike the New Agers he does argue with the Mayanist community, believes that "we might expect, for purely sociological reasons, that 2012 will be a rally cry for repressed indigenous people throughout the Americas to revolt. That's about as close to December 21, 2012 being a 'collective transformative moment' that I can accept." [2]
3. Terence McKenna believed that 2012 would bring about a "novel" event: his examples include extraterrestrial contact or the invention of hyperspace, neither of which seem like harbingers of doom. [3]
4. Finally, we come to the "end of the world" section, which is surprisingly sourced entirely to critical science blogs who don't discuss any specific individuals making these claims. The Space.com blog and abcarticledirectory.com (really?) article don't even mention 2012, and NASA is cited as the source of speculation although they are clearly not 2012 theorists. That makes us the theorists--WP:OR. I have a feeling this all comes out of the History Channel fearmongering series capitalizing on the New Agers, so the section should start with "The History Channel has put out a series of films..." In any case, this section would need to be rewritten to support anything like the introductory sentence you have there.

Shii (tock) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation is always a problem when you're dealing with things that aren't real. But the fact is, people, a lot of people, genuinely believe that for whatever reason the world is going to end in 2012. Just because "reliable sources" don't cover it doesn't mean the paranoia and madness isn't plain as the nose on your face. All you have to do is google it. We need to refute these claims, if only to prevent mass panic. Enough people believe in the Nibiru collision for that article to get 3000 hits a day. People are scared. To deny that isn't just glib, it's dangerous. Serendi^podous 21:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? We have to write this article based on reliable sources, not on our unique perceptions of the zeitgeist. edit: I rewrote the section to reflect this. Shii (tock) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, it's disingenuous to claim that just because there aren't any decent sources for something, that means it isn't happening, of if it is, isn't worth noting. Serendi^podous 06:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought the article needs urgently to address the fact that millions(?) of worried people who haven't read the books and are never likely to will turn to Wikipedia to answer the question 'Is the world really going to end in 2012?' as the deliberately paranoia-inducing TV and film publicity increases and the date draws near. Most of them won't be asking 'Is my consciousness going to be transformed?' or even 'Will hyperspace be invented (sic)?' It would be a pity if it failed to measure up to the task because of sheer wikipedantry here. --PL (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's really not hard to Google people making apocalypse predictions in printed media. There are the books by Patrick Geryl for a start - here are a couple of news stories covering him: ABC news and New York Post (a tabloid). The USA Today article already in the references points to several other books. So there are definitely decent sources for the claims of a 2012 apocalypse. (The books themselves are not reliable sources that the world will end, but they are certainly reliable for the claims of the books' authors, as are the newspaper articles.) --skeptical scientist (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But how many ordinary people read books, as opposed to watching TV? --PL (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are also documentaries supporting the "revival"/"transformation" side of the predictions, such as http://www.2012theodyssey.com/ Shii (tock) 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm making a list of books specifically promoting doomsday:

• Patrick Geryl
  • How to Survive 2012
  • The World Cataclysm in 2012
• Lawrence Joseph
  • Apocalypse 2012: A Scientific Investigation Into Civilization's End

This is all I could find. Even the books cited in USA today don't support this theory, e.g. [4] Shii (tock) 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add "The Return of Planet X" by Jaysen Rand and "2012: Appointment with Marduk" by Burak Eldem. Serendi^podous 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But ask any hundred people in the street what's supposed to happen in 2012, and the vast majority who think they know will almost certainly mention the End of the World (I wonder why...)! --PL (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably because of the History Channel Shii (tock) 22:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide by Jacco van der Worp (Author), Marshall Masters (Author), and Janice Manning (Editor). --skeptical scientist (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to the repeated watering down of the lead section and do not understand why it continues to occur. To date, there is no accepted theory or evidence recognized by the scientific community that supports or lends credence to the idea of a doomsday or a spiritual transformation occurring in 2012 based on any interpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. What is wrong with this statement? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a factually true statement but it's answering a claims not presented in the lede-- that doomsday ideas are something seriously presented to science, rather than entertainment. Actually the current lede has a stronger sentence than this because of the word "pseudoscience". Shii (tock) 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree. The statement directly responds to the claims made in the lead and the article, and the new version changes a direct and clear statement of fact from "there is no accepted theory or evidence recognized by the scientific community that supports or lends credence to the idea" to it "has not been proposed by any group in the scientific community", which doesn't make sense. The issue is not its proposal, so I don't understand the rationale behind this change. The issue is the veracity of the claims themselves. And I do have further sources to support this statement. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, so go ahead and revert my wording. Shii (tock) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental issue here, which really posits the question as to what Wikipedia is actually for. Does Wikipedia exist in a vacuum, independent of its environment, or does it recognise that, for better or for worse, it has become the web's premier source of information on virtually every topic and thus, its actions have consequences? The problem with documenting the 2012 doomsday craze is that so little of it is documented in reliable sources. But it's obvious that many people are reading and viewing these unreliable sources, and that these unreliable sources are having an impact. So how does Wikipedia address it? Does it ignore the issue because it can't verify the information properly, or does it make an effort to challenge and to balance the insanity? Serendi^podous 09:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia exists to inform its readers, not to refute theories. If we demean really complicated theories like Timewave Zero with the label "pseudoscience", people will not come off any better informed. However, if we can manage to explain in really simple and effective terms that it's an equation that plugs some values into the I Ching to measure the "novelty" of human history, people will understand very well how it links into the religious attitudes of the New Age movement. That, in my idea, is what this entire page should look like when it's finished. Shii (tock) 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not demeaning to describe Timewave as pseudoscience. Timewave is the very definition of pseudoscience. Zen mysticism is very complicated, but it is not science, nor does it make any pretences towards being science. Timewave is an intuitive reading of the I Ching given "scientific" gloss by being run through a computer program. It is something that is not science pretending to be science. Ergo it is pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" is not an insult. It is a description of a particular form of methodology. Serendi^podous 12:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I think you see what I mean-- WP:PSCI does not preclude describing how these theories developed per WP:RNPOV. As for finding reliable sources to refute doomsday theories, I don't think it can be very hard, especially considering as the History Channel theories are perennial pseudoastronomy that has dogged scientists for 50 years. We don't need to reference astronomy blogs; I think Carl Sagan might have refuted some of the theories himself. Shii (tock) 12:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

History Channel and Nostradamus 2012

One of the History Channels programmes is called 'Nostradamus 2012,' however, Nostradamus never mentions 2012 once in any of his predictions! This seriously compromises the History Channel's reputation, and makes them look more like a sci-fi channel than one which is objectively reporting actual history! Also, haven't we been here before with Y2K? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydebater (talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is Sacha Defesche

This article repeatedly uses the phrase "according to Sacha Defesche" without explaining who Sacha Defesche is or linking to a wikipedia entry. As far as I can tell, Sacha Defesche wrote a Master's Thesis on 2012 and that's it. If he or she has more credentials than that, let's see them. Otherwise let's source this material elsewhere. Wikipedia rules are very clear that entries should NOT contain original research. Find a source and quote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.147.214 (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Master's theses are often cited in academic literature, and this one has the distinction of being written by a student of one of the foremost professors of this subject. Shii (tock) 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can cite it alright, its not OR and the thesis is an RL, but I don't see a need to use her name twice in the text. Using a name like that seems to evoke authority - she doesn't have that authority yet, whoever her professor might be.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mardyks

This article has this, "There is also little evidence, archaeological or historical, that the Maya placed any importance on solstices or equinoxes.[15]" What about the shadow and light effect on the Temple of Kukulcan at Chichen Itza every EQUINOX??? The knowledge needed to construct this is phenomenal and what could be more OBVIOUS PROOF that the &*#@ing EQUINOX is IMPORTANT to the Maya? Wake up Wiki ... wake the %#@* up. MARDYKS 97.123.59.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Do you think that ranting without citation and telling us to "wake the **** up" is going to aide you in your somewhat ideosyncratic cause, Mardyks? If you couldn't get Jenkins to back down, why do you expect any of us to? Serendi^podous 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

POD ... be welcoming. MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Yes, MARDYKS, please keep the conversation civil. There is more to the supposed alignments than you might assume. Below is the abstract (in full) and a couple of lines from the text of the cited reference. --mikeu ^talk 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"E-group architectural assemblages, constructed and used for more than a millennium in the Maya Lowlands, are among the most distinctive and enduring forms in Mesoamerican monumental architecture. Since the 1920s, E-groups have been thought to mark the solstices and equinoxes, but more recent investigations have shown that these alignments were rarely accurate. We argue that accurate solar alignment was probably only a minor element, and primarily an early one, of a larger set of metaphorically linked design considerations that included concepts of sacred geography, ritual performance in reference to yearly solar and agricultural cycles, and longer cycles of time, especially katuns, that played a role in Lowland Maya geopolitical structuring."

"In sum, only two of the six E-group assemblages accurately marked the position of the sun at sunrise on the summer solstice: Baking Pot and Blackman Eddy. Further, Cahal Pech should probably be eliminated, as it does not have a western structure. These observations do not support the persistent belief that E-groups were astronomically accurate markers of the solstices and equinoxes."

Aimers, J. J., and Rice, P. M. (2006). Astronomy, ritual and the interpretation of Maya ‘‘E-Group’’ architectural assemblages. Ancient Mesoamerica 17: 79–96. DOI: 10.1017/S0956536106060056

Allow me to clarify. You, Jenkins and others can believe whatever you choose regarding 2012; no matter how stupid or ignorant. Wikipedia has a responsibility to provide information to the public and I'm contributing to help "it" do a better job. If you need "citations" then by all means go find them. That's not my job here. I am offering the insights of an expert astrologer, who knows that 2012 is an astrological prophecy and that none of you have the astrological background (including Jenkins) to fully appreciate the "phenomena". I'm doing my job, you do yours. I can read the Dresden codex. I'd offer citations, but have the feeling they'd be editing away, as they have been in the past. It's a "War on 2012 Stupidity" and most of you are on the same team as Jenkins. MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

So we're supposed to go chasing after sources because... why? On Wikipedia, a statement without a source is essentially bathroom graffiti. If we don't know where to look, we can't fix the glaring holes you seem to believe exist in this article. Serendi^podous 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

POD ... consider this (magazine and book reference): Galactic Alignment

This term was "coined" by galactic astrologer Raymond Mardyks. He was the first to identify and write about the relationship of this 1998-2001 "galactic alignment" with the Harmonic Convergence in 1987 and the Maya calendar end date in 2012. According to him, the galactic alignment was with the galactic equator and not the center of the galaxy. It was composed of the thirteen equinoxes and solstices between Septembers 1998 and 2001.

In the August 1991, edition of Mountain Astrologer Magazine, there appeared an article by Raymond Mardyks titled, When Stars Touch the Earth - An Astrologer Looks At The New Age Through Year 2012. The few quotes below make it clear that Mardyks’ writings were the “inspiration” for John Major Jenkin’s later 2012/galactic alignment theory, which was first published in the December 1994 issue of the same publication.

Mardyks stated, "It has also been calculated that the solstices align with the galactic plane in 1998-99. 1999 is halfway between the Harmonic Convergence in 1987 and the 2012 end date of the Mayan calendar."

"This all may very well signal a "return or Re-Turn" and a cosmic descent! What is of utmost importance in terms of timing is that the winter solstice aligns with the galactic plane in 1998/99. This only occurs once each 26,000 year cycle and would be most definitely of utmost significance to the top flight ancient astrologers. This time period and cycle is most probably encoded in megalithic structures, the Great Pyramid, and Mayan temples, etc." End of quote.

Galactic astrologer Raymond Mardyks, in 1987, 1991, and later in his Maya Calendar Voice of the Galaxy book (1999) was the first to discuss the solstice/galactic alignment as one of several factors contributing to the astrology of 2012. Other factors include the May solar eclipse near the Pleiades, the June Transit of Venus and the November solar eclipse with the Serpent constellation. He is recognized as having coined this phrase in relationship to Maya calendar dates, including the Harmonic Convergence and the end date in 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.20.2 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

These aren't reliable sources unfortunately Shii (tock) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And neither is Wikipedia, especially regarding 2012, UNFORTUNATELY! Stale mate, lad. MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop referring to yourself in the third person, Mardyks. It's really annoying. Serendi^podous 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maya References

How about the Dresden Codex? Maybe a better source than a paper by a college student: Defesche, Sacha (2007). It is the oldest known book written in the Americas. It is an authentic Maya document. It is the modern source of the Maya calendar and the so-called Long-Count. It does contain cycles that culminate in 2012. It doesn't get much better than that! MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk) earthlove2013@gmail.com, if you need more help with this. —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Please go ahead and find some Dresden Codex citations for us. It's a rather large book to just point us to arbitrarily. Shii (tock) 20:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You invalidate my contribution and then ask for more. If I wasn't being civil, I'd say "go #@%& yourself, Shii." This is for you; [Let's Get Stupid About 2012 http://www.geocities.com/heartystar/2012] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.20.2 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What end are you trying to achieve here? I didn't invalidate anything. You have no contribution as of yet. You just linked me to some random New Age books listed in a wall of text on Geocities. If you can prove the Maya believed such and such, or that an event is scientifically determined to occur in 2012, that's great, but New Age citations don't work. You need reliable sources to continue. Shii (tock) 02:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you see the paragraph that starts with How about the Dresden Codex? Can you understand that part? Read it a few times over. By the way, the codex is a whopping 74 pages long. Rather large book you say? And this is classic, "I didn't invalidate anything. You have no contribution as of yet." Please hassle someone else from now on. Thanks for being a funny idiot. Hahahahahahahaha. MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk)

And one more thing. The next section answers your question, even before you asked it.

Okay, I read the Dresden Codex and I don't see 2012. Point it out to me. Shii (tock) 03:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

2012 Facts

Maybe, just maybe I can make this clear enough for you all. 12.21.2012 is a date derived from a calendar system, that is based on astronomy. Granted, almost no one understands the astronomy involved, but that does not deny the fact. There are ASTRONOMICAL events that are FACTS, that WILL occur in 2012. What these mean, is the realm of astrology and that is what we are dealing with; an astrological phenomena. Rather than focusing on all that humanity doesn't understand, and so contributing to the fear, maybe Wiki can refocus on what WILL happen in 2012, factually, and let people give meaning to it themselves. As of now, Wiki is helping create the 2012 doomsday phenomena and is misleading and scaring lots and lots and lots of people. Competing with Sony Pictures? MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Wiki is scaring lots and lots of people? Did you even read the article? And your response is what, to replace what's there with what "will happen" based on "galactic astrology"? Please. Don't get in arguments on talk pages about how Wikipedia isn't reporting unspecified "facts" that you claim exist if you can't even say what these facts are, let alone back them up with citations to reliable sources. skeptical scientist (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked Mardyks for personal attacks. I think the conversation above speaks against to that being a conflict of interest, but if you think otherwise let me know Shii (tock) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work there Shii. We can't have his kind getting us to think about what the Maya actually say about their own prophecies. We insulted him, offended him and abused him and he just had to be ethical and persistant. BLOCK those Mother Fukkers!!! Taking out the entire Santa Fe Public Library system is a great preemptive strike also. There may be others of his kind, that sympathize with those "Indians". These people actually LOVE the Earth and that is without reliable sources! We kicked their asses and have the right to write THEIR history and interpret THEIR sacred teachings however we please. We need more from college students who have been indoctrinated in the Church of Academia. That piece by Stitler is one of the most exaggerated and opinionated and so yeah, use that as the title of the page! And by all means give John MAJOR Jenkins his own section. Not a single scholar or Mayanists agrees with his appropriated theory and this kind of hypocrisy and arrogance is what Wiki is all about. We can get away with it, by continuing to use our power to censor free thinkers like Mardyks and his kind. Sony Pictures is paying us all off with tickets, so let us know how many you want. FREE popcorn, too! Whoopee! Best wishes from Jimini Cricket 97.123.26.228 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinarily poor block, possibly justification for a de-sysop. Arbcom has made it clear that admins should never, for any reason, act on articles that they ever have edited, no matter how obvious the offense. I suggest that you undo the block and ask an uninvolved admin (whatever that means this week) to take over. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I wasn't familiar with that... it's been a while since I got seriously involved with admin stuff, I was just dipping my toes back in the pool this past month. Just looked through WP:BLOCK and it looks like I made a mistake here. IMHO this guy is nuts, which I think overrides content disputes, but if an admin is reading this and thinks Mardyks has something useful to contribute, feel free to unblock him as well as his sockpuppet that just posted here. SBHB, feel free to call in an admin to look at this as well. Shii (tock) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While it's always good to be circumspect, possible grounds for desysop seems a little unlikely and OTT. This is hardly in the WMC-Abd league. If Arbcom really is taking such a literal approach then there'd be any number of prolific admins having trouble finding articles they can take some action on. This is not so much a case of tools being exercised to unduly influence a content dispute, but CIV and DISRUPT policy maintenance where the editor persists with behaviour that they'd received blocks for in the past. Still, I suppose generally adopting a more cautious and by-the-book approach is good advice. There are no signs there'll be any let-up in future & some sort of DR path looks unavoidable.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did come on a bit too strong there -- see here for followup. I just don't want Shii to accidentally step into a minefield. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

CERN

anyone up for another 2012 conspiracy theory? There's a growing non-scientific suspicion that CERN is actually ready to run the events that have now been delayed, due to fear that they might actually cause a black hole. Another 2012 fear is that CERN will actually resume thier scdule in December 2012. As CERN dates are pushed out, and as we approach 2012, this conspiracy theory is likely to grow in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.77 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Evil galactic alignment

There are three main doomsday scenarios that are circulating about 2012: Nibiru, the solar cycle, and the galactic alignment. This page does go into the galactic alignment, but only the neutral, relatively scholarly Jenkins version. There are plenty of examples on the web, probably based on misreadings of Jenkins' work, that posit that this galactic alignment will cause the end of the world. See this video, for example, and this one. The 2012 movie site also mentions the Evil alignment. Serendi^podous 08:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason we talk about Jenkins is because news media quote him (although that's not clear from the text). The YouTube videos need notability proven in a similar way. If we recorded everything people have said it would be quite an article! Shii (tock) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mayan references

I have been outlining Popol Vuh, Dresden Codex, Mayan glyphs on my website. I noticed that other Mayan websites are sometimes listed as "related links" (such as on 2012 Conference). Part of your discussion here is about adding Dresden Codex references. Is mine notable enough to warrant listing? www.my2k.com SSup (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)SSup 9/24/09

Unfortunately, no. Actually I don't see any necessary external links there. Shii (tock) 23:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the external links. I don't really see how any could be "authoritative", so there's not much call for them in this case. Serendi^podous 11:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced them-throwing the baby out with the bath is not a valid solution. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you tell me which are baby and which are bath? And what criteria we would use to determine such? Serendi^podous 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My idea of authoritative external links would include this and maybe JMJ's site (although he filled it with SEO), but definitely not extraneous material on timewave zero or random blog posts. Shii (tock) 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking down the barrel

I was hoping to find information on a black hole 200 MLyrs away, but I can't seem to find any references to it, yt it seemed to be a major report in either The Discovery or History Channels. While I'm not a big believer in the theory, I thought it was rather interesting. --Hourick (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the "evil galactic alignment", a misreading of John Major Jenkins's work, and I agree, it should be in here. Problem is finding the right sources for it. But no, in case you were wondering, it's complete bollocks. The black hole in question is called Sgr A*, and it's 30,000 light years away, not 200 million. 200 million ly would place you in a far distant galaxy on the other side of the universe. It makes no difference anyway, because to expect us to be affected by the gravity of a black hole 30,000 light years away is like someone in California expecting to be knocked off his feet by a leaf falling in Japan.Serendi^podous 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul A. LaViolette and Alfred Webre would also be names to look up if you intend to investigate this beyond what we can currently deliver. __meco (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With the vast distances being thrown around involved, it's fairly easy for a layman, namely me, can be thrown off. The citing of it is going to be a bit of a challenge. I'm not ashamed to say this is way over my head, but fascinating nonetheless.--Hourick (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added an explanation. Let me know if you understand it. Serendi^podous 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sry Serendipodous, you asked me for help on this, but I'm a religious scholar, not a physicist. Shii (tock) 17:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Another pseudoscientific theory

The Web Bot claims the world will end in 2012. It has been discussed on the History channel several times. Kylelovesyou (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There don't seem to be that many reliable sources on it, and it doesn't seem to be running anymore. Still, if good sources could be located, I'm all for including it. Serendi^podous 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Web Bot? I suppose if I write a program that says the world will end next Tuesday we can write an article about it. --TS 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the Web Bot page be merged with this one? Serendi^podous 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

article about it from The Daily Telegraph which is a reliable source. Not sure if it is still running or not. I disagree with merging them and maybe it shouldn't be mentioned on this page but maybe it should. I'm not sure. Kylelovesyou (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just watched a video where Web Bot is used to predict doomsday next week (the video producer was quite serious). It should probably stay in its own article, whatever it is. Shii (tock) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange raw code in "Further reading"

I can't get in to make any fixes, but there appears be some raw script code at the "2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl (2006) by Daniel Pinchbeck" line in the section "Further reading". From a glance at it overall, I'm not sure that commentary is needed: The "book is credited with starting the public infatuation" line uses a deliberately vague construction (who credits the book?) and seems to be using Wikipedia itself as footnote citations, which isn't allowed.-- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rm the raw code, but the line about the book starting the intrest in 2012 is cited. Not sure I believe it though, as this whole thing has been going since 1987 Serendi^podous 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

why this isn't true

I saw a video that showed why this so called end of the world thing is nothing more then a hoax I think the video should be referenced somewhere it's from the website dailycommonsense and btw mankind have always predicted the end of the world and they've always been wrong examples the 2000 one the one back in the 19th century that was referenced in the simpsons episode thank god it's doomsday and also from what I've heard they're also predicting it end end many years in the future in 2036 also I personally don't believe this I mean for one god promised he would never flood the world again and also jesus is expected to make his return someday but what would be the point if the universe is annilhated there'd be no one left to save and also the reason everyone is probably scared about this is because of that movie being produced this year the movie'll do nothing more then frighten the millions of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicfanofalltime (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Videos don't usually make very good sources. But yes, everything you say is correct. Well, about people always predicting the end of the world anyway. I leave the Genesis/Revelation speculation to the proclivities of the individual believer.Serendi^podous 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

well yeah I know that but don't we need to at least add a little section that would shed some light on it what if a little child were to see this also if I may ask doesn't the bible clearly state that NONE WILL KNOW WHEN THE WORLD WILL END and I seriously doubt he'd change his mind and tell the mayans about it but I must say however that I did come across a website that stated that the mayans did predict something huge the return of their god but I'm not sure if that would end the world or not but if they could predict the world ending why couldn't they predict their own demise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicfanofalltime (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good news article - as EL or source

See [5] Dougweller (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Some excellent stuff in there, particularly on Mayan reactions to 2012, which this article doesn't have a lot of. We need more of that, actually. Serendi^podous 08:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is important also, and although it is a blog, it is David Stuart's blog and as a rewowned authority on the subject he is a reliable source so it can be used as a source - if anyone disagrees they can take it to the RS noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with it qualifying as an RS. In particular I think it's about the only place around[6] where he and Stephen Houston discuss their latest interpretations of Tortuguero Monument 6's inscription, ie developments that are not yet published elsewhere.--cjllw ʘ TALK 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can reliably state what that source is saying. Do you think you could add it to the article? Serendi^podous 07:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased

Don't you think that this article is a little biased? Let's assume that the world will not end in 2012. However, the sheer scale of this subject and the mass amount of movies and blogs about the subject has led many people to believe it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be a non-biased source, stating both sides of an argument and (usually) never coming to a conclusion.

I know that there has been "tremendous reliable scientific, astronomical, and mathematical proof" that this whole thing is a hoax. Yet this page states the argument and then destroys it with a solid fact or other. Couldn't anybody change it so that it reflects two points of view?

And I'm writing this objectively, I honestly don't care if the world ends or doesn't. Me, GKT5 05:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldkingtut5 (talk • contribs)

How can you destroy an argument with solid facts? I don't get what you mean. This article actually gives far less space to the refutations of these arguments then it does to those who support them. Take the "galactic alignment" section. That section is several paragraphs long, but only one short paragraph is devoted to arguing against it. Same with Timewave zero. It's only the truly bonkers theories, the ones that argue against simple, plain as day facts, like the Nibiru collision and the black hole alignment, that get seriously mauled, and that's because they're crazy. Wikipedia may attempt to be unbiased, but it's not (at least I'm not) prepared to give equal time to crazy people. Serendi^podous 09:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This section here:

Other doomsday theories circulated about 2012 (particularly on the History Channel) include:

• The Bible's Book of Revelation. This text, composed some 1900 years ago, did indeed offer a dramatic picture of the end of the world—but it also promised that it would happen "very soon". The Bible says nothing about 2012 or any similar date.
• The Tiburtine Sibyl. As reproduced in the 16th century, this book did indeed likewise present a dramatic picture of the apocalypse, but did not date it, least of all to 2012.
• The quatrains of Nostradamus. While these are clearly intended to be read in a pre-apocalyptic context, they do not specifically mention (or, consequently, date) the end of the world: their Preface states that they are valid until the year 3797.
• The so-called Lost Book of Nostradamus. This is in fact merely a retitling of the anonymous Vaticinia de Summis Pontificibus — a book of prophetic papal emblems dating from centuries before his time – and does not mention the year 2012.
• The Prophecies of Merlin. This was a fictional composition by the medieval Geoffrey of Monmouth, amplified in 13th-century Venice, and did not mention the year 2012.
• The Prophecies of Mother Shipton. The original 1641 edition of these says nothing at all about doomsday or the end of the world or, consequently, any proposed date for either.

I've been having problems with this section, because it only offers refutations; it doesn't actually say why the believers tie these prophecies to 2012. I took it down, but then decided that if the black hole alignment could have its own section, then so could these. But if people are complaining of bias, then perhaps these shouldn't be here. Serendi^podous 09:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

2012 in Sky and Telescope magazine

Sky & Telescope magazine has a cover story about 2012 in the November issue. The author is Griffith Observatory Director E.C. Krupp, a noted contributor in the field of archaeoastronomy. --mikeu ^talk 13:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read through the article and unfortunately it doesn't talk a lot about Mayan archaeoastronomy. It just says there's no evidence and doesn't deal with either JMJ or establishment claims of the astronomical use of buildings. Too bad, because I would like to understand exactly how little we know. Shii (tock) 17:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)