Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Comments Re: Galactic Alignment

Hello, I've been following this excellent article with great interest for several months, and have some comments that may be useful.

1. John Major Jenkins has a new book, The 2012 Story, which I reviewed on Amazon, under the name of "pdecordoba", on 2 Feb 2010. I'll paste that review here, at the end of the post. Here's part of it:

• • • • • Citation from Review begins *****

... Jenkins' own writings have ruled out the following alignments as unique to 2012:

Alignment of Winter Solstice Sun with the Milky Way --This alignment lasts from approximately 1550 to 2450 (Maya Cosmogenesis, pp. 113-114)

Alignment of Winter Solstice Sun with the Dark Rift --This alignment occurs in the unspecified "years around 2012" (The 2012 Story, p. 140)

Alignment with the Galactic equator --See the discussion of "The First Photo", above, and Jenkins' footnote #28 on p. 437 of The 2012 Story.

Alignment with Sgr A* (the true center of the Galaxy, and a probable black hole) --The closest alignment with it "occurs some 200 years after 2012" (The 2012 Story, p. 141).

To my knowledge, Jenkins has never identified any candidates for "once-in-26,000-years alignments" other than the ones he has himself ruled out.

• • • • • Citation from Review ends *****

2. In this article (2012 Phenomenon), the Galactic Alignment section contains the following statement:

As Jenkins himself also notes, there is no concrete evidence that the Maya were aware of precession.[42]

I've read the referenced web page, which reproduces the Introduction to Jenkins' Maya Cosmogenesis, and that Introduction itself. I did not see where Jenkins made this concession.

3. The Galactic Alignment section also makes the following statement:

Jenkins claims he drew his conclusions about the location of the galactic equator from observations taken at above 11,000 feet, which is higher than any of the Maya lived.[37]

Unfortunately, this is an inaccurate second-hand quotation. Jenkins drew conclusions about the extent of the Dark Rift from those high-altitude observations, rather than about the location of the galactic equator. (See Maya Cosmogenesis, p. 110). Jschiapas (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the cite; Jenkins used to have a much less ambiguous cite on his webpage that he seems to have taken down. Oh well. As for Jenkins's backpedalling on 2012, I have to wonder why, if he has opened the field so widely, he bothers mentioning 2012 at all. And I don't see the problem of using a credible second hand source vs using primary sources. Wikipedia tends to prefer secondary sources. Serendi^podous 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous, Thanks again for your great work on this article. You took the words right out of my mouth when you said that Jenkins has backpedaled so much on 2012, it's a wonder he mentions it at all. But I'm surprised to hear that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Especially in a case like this one, where the primary source is readily available, and the Wiki article's second-hand citation is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschiapas (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Because relying on primary sources alone unbalances the point of view. See: WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN. Serendi^podous 10:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous, If you read my post carefully, I think you'll agree that I didn't recommend "relying on primary sources alone". No matter how much we disagree with Jenkins, he does deserve to be quoted accurately. The article regarding the purpose of his high-altitude observations of the Milky Way (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-guest.html) misrepresents that purpose (see Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, p. 110)), and cites no reference for the purpose it attributes to Jenkins. Moreover, Wikipedia misconstrues the article it cites. This is carelessness that should be apologized for and corrected, rather than defended, but Wikipedia apparently sees nothing wrong with it. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, or in recommending wikipedia to anyone as a source.Jschiapas (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Woah. OK. Fair enough. I was going to suggest trying to find a way to work around it, but if you want to go off in a huff instead, that's OK with me. Serendi^podous 19:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History channel on "2012" includes discussion of the "Maya" galactic alignment (earth sun with center of Milky Way galaxy and calls this event they claim will occur ron Dec 21 2012 - "Hunacu"

Please note the silliness ? of claiming an alignment of such bodies (earth sun and center of Milkway Galaxy) as they ARE ALWAYS aligned ALL the time !! ??? - Izapa Bolon Hoopte Sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

t218

The t218 (thompson number) "period ending" glyph would be a great illustration for this article, if someone could find or make a free version. Homunq (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What is that, and what does it have to do with 2012? Serendi^podous 17:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A Mayan symbol for the ending of a katun, I think. Shii (tock) 03:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Aveni's book

I received my copy of Aveni's book today and will be adding to the article as I read through it. Aveni is a Mayanist and takes a sympathetic but serious look at both New Age and apocalyptic theories. Let me know if there's stuff that should be cleared up. Shii (tock) 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a good drawing in this book which illustrates the article better than the current one, but it's non-free... Shii (tock) 03:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Date

Hasn't the date been settled? 89.249.0.170 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's never been conclusively settled, and probably never will be. Most historians are happy enough with a 48-hour window. It's only people who think the world is going to end on that day that care about that. Serendi^podous 10:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has been settled to the satisfaction of almost everybody. See Mesoamerican Long Count calendar#Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count. Mentioning the Thompson (Lounsbury) correlation in the article only serves to unnecessarily add confusion to the article and it should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Really? Because that's not what was said a few archives ago. Serendi^podous 17:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Really. Schele and Freidel are not a reliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I see only the date December 21, 2012 mentioned wherever I read about this phenomenon. Having looked at the two references that are openly available on the web used to attest to the mentioning of December 23, I cannot see how these support that date at all (there is some mention of December 22). The third reference is not online. Being myself deeply immersed in the "phenomenon" I don't see any merit for mentioning any other dates around December 21. Should another date be mentioned, and I strongly feel it should, that date would have to be October 28, 2011 which is promoted by Swedish researcher Carl Johan Calleman as the actual end-date of the Long Count calendar. This date is the only contender to 12/21/2012 as far as I can perceive. __meco (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The 21 date seems to have reached wider culture because it is the winter solstice. Since that is a fairly big coincidence, I'd prefer some more sourcing before I go one step towards depicting Baktun 13 as a Wiccan harvest festival. Serendi^podous 13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research for sure. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cutete

Is this a reply to me? I cannot see any connection to what I wrote. In fact, what you write appears completely non-sequiturial to everyting that's been the discussion in this section so far. __meco (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that the huge amount of material citing 21 December appears mainly to have latched onto it because it is the winter solstice. Since I have yet to hear of any academic source that has connected Baktun 13 to the winter solstice, and since to do so would be to tacitly endorse the New Age interpretations of this event, I want to see a large body of academic evidence irrefutably connecting the date to December 21 before I decide it should be done. Serendi^podous 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

By that argument I see you as basically inverting the burden of evidence which we should seek. You do realize that we are writing about a social and spiritual phenomenon first and foremost? I.e., we are not in this article attempting to establish the true end-date of the Mayan Long Count calendar. I was rather suspicious at your first mention of any consensus among historians, but I failed to comment on it above, however, as I just stated, this is primarily a movement of the popular culture (as opposed to academia) and should hence reflect this. __meco (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Serendipodous: No, the reason for the December 21 date is because that IS the date of the completion of the 13th Bak'tun. The debate over what correlation constant to use was long dead and buried before Linda Schele foolishly used the Thompson correlation in A Forest of Kings. She did this in deference to her mentor Floyd Lounsbury even though she was urged not to by people who really did know what they were talking about such as Denis Tedlock. Lounsbury analyzed two of the heliacal risings of Venus in the Dresden Codex and based on the fact that they were a very small fraction of a day closer to the days you get using a modern computer program to generate them, he advocated the Thompson correlation. See: http://www.alignment2012.com/fap3.html. You say "I'd prefer some more sourcing before I go..." The two uses of the word "I" make it sound like you own the article. You don't. You and Meco should read the articles about the Maya calendar and the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Beware of surfing the web for information about the Maya calendar. It is a complete cesspool of disinformation and Callemans is a perfect example of the ignorant fringe "researchers" that promote disinformation on the 'net. On a scale of one to ten, Callemans' credibility is ZERO. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

John Major Jenkins isn't exactly the academic gold standard either. It's precisely because of appearing to advocate his "galactic alignment" that I'm so wary of appearing to come down on one date or the other.Serendi^podous 15:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about Jenkins. The hard thing for academics about Jenkins is that he actually is a leading or maybe the leading authority on the subject but he refuses to draw the line between what is really known and wild speculation. He seems to look down on people who refuse to draw this line and regards them as mentally challenged. Yes, the "Galactic Alignment Theory" is as big of a pile of BS as there is. I added the link because it's a convenient way to find an analysis of Lounsubry and yes, it is the pot calling the kettle black. You say "...I'm so wary of appearing to come down on one date or the other..." Once again you describe the article as "I". Is it all about you, or about writing a factually correct article? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I'm not trying to claim ownership of this article; merely stating my position on this, and my concerns. Serendi^podous 15:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I were to remove all of those spurious references to December 23rd you wouldn't revert my edit it an edit war? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

If a credible source could be provided to justify doing so, then no I wouldn't. Serendi^podous 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:

Mesoamerican Long Count calendar#Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count

It includes extensive references and tables. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Actually, that section is not very well sourced at all. Indeed, it is rather poorly written on the whole and its central claim, that the 11 August correlation is correct, is not sourced. The five sources provided are all either dead links, New Age websites, or by Thompson himself. By the way, is the article saying that Coe thinks the 11 Aug correlation is correct, or simply saying that it is correct, regardless of what Coe thinks? Serendi^podous 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Have we sufficient sources to include the December 23 date in the first place? Unless so, why do we discuss finding sources which contradict it? __meco (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY! There aren't any reliable sources that use the 584,285 correlatioin. Only a vanishingly small handful of scholars used this, namely Lounsbury, Schele and Freidel They did it out of ignorance and now they are dead. This issue was settled in 1950.Senor Cuete (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Right now the article makes no firm claims about which date is "the" date. If we're going to choose a date (either date), sources should back that choice up. Serendi^podous 17:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first clause of the first sentence of the first paragraph in the first section of the article presently reads, "The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on December 21 or December 23, 2012,"" and if that doesn't push these two dates as equally significant on the reader, I don't know what could. And, again, I'm more than a little confounded by seeing you vascillate between the dates of December 21 and 23. Why? Because I must have read the first date some several thousand times duing the past five or so years, whereas the second date I have only seen in this article. __meco (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying I just made it up? It's pretty obvious from the above conversation that there is more than one possible correlation. If it is true that one correlation is favoured over the other then I would just like the article to back that statement up with a source. Serendi^podous 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this article by Vincent H. Malmström, Professor Emeritus of Geography at Dartmouth College, uses August 13 as the start date, which would give December 23 as the end date. So now you've seen the date in 2 places. Serendi^podous 20:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your citing academic papers discussing the technicalities of calculating the end-date misses the scope of this article. It is about the 2012 phenomenon. That means the new age-propelled movement centering on the end of the Mayan calendar or galactic alignment or whatever else the members and leaders of this movement hinge their activism on. This movement does not consider December 23 of interest, at all. If you want to have an article on the would-be controversies over the calculation of the end-date, then this is not that article. __meco (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That article by Malmström is TOTALLY SCREWED UP. First of all the title is 13.0.0.0. That date occurred on 12/11/-2857 (Julian Astronomical). What will occur on 12/21/2012 is 13.0.0.0.0. Then he describes the 260 day Tzolk'in and the 365 day Haab' which together are called the Calendar Round but he calls it the Long Count, which is completely different. Did you actually read that paper? Malmström says in it that in 1935 Thompson revised his calculation to the GMT correlation, contradicting you assertion that he supports the Thompson correlation. In the same sentence, he also gives the date in astronomical years. Sorry Malmström but astronomical dating is used only in the Julian Calendar, astronomers only use the Julian/Gregorian calendar, not the foolish Proleptic Gregorian calendar that is only used by Mayanists. I could go on and on but seriously, that paper is a travesty and proves that without a doubt Malmström is not a reliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You haven't provided any citations of your own to back up your claims. Until you do we're just shouting in the dark. Serendi^podous 09:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this "young earth, creationist" web page: http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/transoceanic-origins-of-mesoamerican-olmecs-shang-chinese-navigators-smithsonian-betty-meggers-dartmouth-geography-vincent-malmstrom-author-david-hatcher-childress-mystery-of-the-olmecs-maritime-star/ "Dartmouth’s Vincent Malmstrom and the Smithsonian’s Betty Meggers have written and lectured extensively about the transoceanic origins of the ancient Olmecs, the first civilization of Mesoamerica, which by the evidence was the western portion of the Atlantean Empire..." plus other complete codswallop.If this is true then Malmström is just another one of the whackos that have created an abysmal cesspool of complete crap that you can find on the internet regarding the Maya calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Since you didn't like the paragraph on Michael Coe in the long Count article, I edited it to say : In Breaking the Maya Code, Michael Coe writes: "In spite of oceans of ink that have been spilled on the subject, there now is not the slightest chance that these three scholars (conflated to GMT when talking about the correlation) were not right...". "We" aren't shouting in the dark. I am shouting at you in the dark because no matter how many references I provide, you won't accept them. I am rubbing your nose in the fact that "your" article is wrong so that when I edit it (and add a large number of references) you won't revert it. I plan also to site Aveni in the Long Count article. He explains why the historical evidence for the GMT is incontrovertible in the Skywatchers. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

In the Long Count article I replaced the sentence that said that the post-conquest Maya books are consistent with the GMT correlation with: Regarding these historical references in The Skywatchers Aveni writes: All the assembled data are consistent with the equation November 3, 1539 = 11.6.0.0.0. Thus for the GMT, or 11.16 correlation we find that A = 584,283...".. Am I still shouting in the dark? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I added this reference to the section on astronomical evidence in the Long Count article: "Modern astronomers refer to the conjunction of the Sun and Moon (the time when the Sun and Moon have the same right ascension) as the new Moon. For the Maya, New Moon was the first evening when one could look to the west after sunset and see the thin crescent Moon. If one assumes that that the New Moon is the first day when the lunar phase day is at least 1.5 at six in the evening in time zone -6 (the time zone of the Maya area) the GMT correlation will match many lunar inscriptions exactly, as in this example." I'm still howling at the Moon. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Thank you for finally quoting a scholarly source. I never said this was "my" article, but regardless, whether it is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant; what matters is what can be backed up by credible sources. I still feel that Coe's claim alone isn't enough to justify removing the alternate date. I would like, if you please, a credible source stating that the majority of Mayanist scholars agree with Coe's assessment. Serendi^podous 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, 2012 sources list the day as 21st, so what's up with this? 89.249.0.170 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've read supports this as well. I don't think this gets very much press in academic papers but the issue does seem resolved. Shii (tock) 18:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Apocalypse 2012 redirect

this probable common search term redirects to the year 2012, rather than here. i want to redo the redirect to point the phrase here, as its more complete in its coverage than the year article, and since there is a book, "apocalypse 2012", which is mentioned in this article but not the year article. 2 birds with one stone. the book may deserve its own article, as its from a major trade publisher, as may the author, who has another related book on GAIA. unless someone objects, ill redirect the redirect.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

done. Serendi^podous 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

thanx.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolon Yookte K'u

See article's paragraph - "Tortaguero" - These next thoughts should be added to clarify what "god" Bolong Yookte' K'uh is and what the "black" mentioned in the translation is ... As this "god" Bolon Yookte' K'uh is simply Orion/Osiris, the same "God" Eyptians placed as the father God and equates to our christian Heavenly Father / or Most High God and the "black" that descends is merely referring to the Second Coming or shekinah of 2nd Coming ? ... ref. also Lord Pacal's tomb lid "book" and its snake devouring head images and bat images... the snake or bat - black connection being again the descent to earth of God in the Second Coming that brings along this phenomena of swallowing the whole of the earth in the coming's entrainment / or "snake" / wormhole / black hole from center of creation ... and esp. noting the prediction THEN, that this Second Coming OCCURS on December 21, 2012 - lil Bolon Yookte' K'u 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Um... I'd cite WP:FRINGE in this case, but that seems somewhat over the fringe, about 40 fathoms below "tin foil hat" and somewhere between "Obama is the Antichrist" and "grey men made me burn my office". Serendi^podous 07:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus & the four year descrepency in Western Calendars

I was wondering if anyone else has thought of the four year discrepency in Western Calendar as a good arguement against 2012? Western Calendars are four years slow, a mistake made when Dionysius Exiguus changed the origin year from the founding of Rome to the birth of Christ. As such, the year 2012 has already occured only we knew it as 2008. It also means that the 2012 that everyone is anticipating is really 2016. I doubt those who translated the Mayan longcount calendar or those came up with these doomsday theories addressed this issue.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.29.137 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2012 date has nothing to do with the Western calendar. It's just the date that equates to the Mayan date 13.0.0.0.0. Serendi^podous 16:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename proposal

Hey, just stumbled across this article and something struck me: it's title. Why is this being referred to as the 2012 phenomenon? Let me explain why I'm confused. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries describe a 'phenomenon' as the following:

Merriam-Webster

1. plural phenomena  : an observable fact or event
2. plural phenomena a : an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition b : a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon c : a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation
3. a : a rare or significant fact or event b plural phenomenons  : an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence.

Oxford

1. A fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause is in question.
2. Philosophy the object of a person’s perception.
3. A remarkable person or thing.

It seems to me that consensus in dictionaries describes a phenomenon as an observable yet unusual event, one that has actually occurred but is abnormal. The 2012 event, should it actually happen, could be described as a phenomenon, but as I'm sure we're all aware, it hasn't occuredyet, and it's not based on anything scientific but instead psuedoscience.

I propose that this article be renamed to something like 2012 Doomsday hypothesis, or 2012 Doomsday theory or anything similar. Basically something that presents this idea as something which could happen, but based on scientific evidence is highly unlikely to occur.

Let me know what you think :) This is a good-faith suggestion, please don't go throwing any ball bearings or used needles. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh believe me, this has been discussed before. :) The problem with "doomsday" is that not every theory concerning 2012 involves the end of the world. Serendi^podous 11:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha I'm sure it has, but I'm not opposed to excluding the word Doomsday. Anything would suffice, as long as it meets the basic premise that the event might not actually occur. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "phenomenon" occurs to the social phenomenon, which ideally this article would focus on. This has been the phrased used by some of the scholars studying the phenomenon. The word "theory" could actually give it more leverage than it currently has. Shii (tock) 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, the problem with "theory" is almost identical to the problem initially given to "phenomenon": I generally think of theories as a posteriori, i.e., observations are made, and then an explanatory or predictive framework is constructed, based upon those observations. For example, Gregor Mendel observes trait patterns in descendant peas, and accordingly he theorizes that Mendelian inheritance can both explain and predict these patterns. The end of the world has not been observed (or has it?), but the long-count calendar has been observed; so have people's interpretations of it, and so have people's reactions to the interpretations. (By the way, I just mentioned three phenomena, so "2012 phenomenon is not entirely correct.) So, I would think we can theorize about the Maya and about ourselves, but we can't theorize about anything that hasn't happened. We can generate hypotheses and predictions, but "hypotheses" or "predictions" isn't quite right for the title either, because ultimately, the "2012 phenomenon" of today does not seem to trace back to any clear prediction by the Maya of catastrophe. "Phenomenon" (or "phenomena") is sort of on-the-mark, but it just sounds so incredibly vague. A little boy picking his nose in January 2012 would be a "2012 phenomenon" as well--even more so, in fact, because the event actually happens in 2012. May I suggest we keep it simple, but to-the point? How about, "2012 Mayanism"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Shii is correct about this article being largely about the CURRENT social phenomenon of the creation of these unproven hypotheses and their effects, we could rename it "2012 social phenomenon", or "2012 in popular culture" (sorry, had to say it). "2012 phenomena" would show the multiplicity of events predicted. just brainstorming deas here. im not convinced that mine or the others above are much better than the name as stands, though obviously a lot of thought has been put into them. oh, and if this event does occur, will we have to rename the article again? or will we be so transformed that WP and written words become passe?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite like the idea of naming it "2012 social phenomenon". Obviously if the event does occur, we won't have any internet to view the page with ;) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be okay with that, except that Sitler and Defesche both use the term "2012 phenomenon" without "social". Shii (tock) 23:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And "social phenomenon" implies a change in social behaviour, like people moving from the country to the city. "Cultural phenomenon" would be better. But still, while I preferred "2012 millenarianism", I have no real issues with the title as it now stands. Serendi^podous 06:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"2012 cultural phenomenon" sounds pretty good. On purely pragmatic grounds, I would also propose something like, "2012 doomsday and transformation forecasts". It's a bit of a mouthful. However, when people think of 2012, they're probably more likely to think next of "doomsday" or "transformation" than they are to think of the word, "phenomenon". So, a title containing these words might show up more quickly on search engines. Also, that sort of title would instantly assure readers that they've found an article on the topic they'd been searching for. The current title isn't too bad, but it's broad enough that it could refer to any phenomenon that occurs in 2012--so, some greater specificity couldn't hurt. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest Hysteria then? --74.232.40.171 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the 2012 Doomsday Hoax? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

UnHeard Of

I have not heard of almost any of the End-of-the-world hypothesis' mentioned here. Are you sure that they are correct?

Smartiegirl2131 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

They're all from various History Channel movies. If you haven't watched TV you haven't seen them. Shii (tock) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of most of these beliefs (and hadn't heard of many other things) until I read about them on Wikipedia. But that's the whole idea; it means that WP is doing its job, because people are actually learning lots of things they never knew before. Well, sometimes I learn a little too much, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Well, I hope it is, anyway. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of contemporary

The use of 'contemporary' in the following sentence is confusing. "...predictions of impending doom are found neither in classic Maya accounts nor in contemporary science."

'Contemporary' can mean 'of the same age as' or 'modern' see Princeton definition.

Is the sentence referring to current day science or Maya science?

Iamtk421 (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Also don't want to give the impression that there is such a thing as "non-contemporary" science. Science hasn't changed much in 400 years. The standards may have improved, but the principles are pretty much the same. Serendi^podous 05:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WEBOT

Please review the current webot writings 4/2010. There is no “end of the world” prediction. In fact here is a portion on the latest news letter: THE ABSOLUTE GOOD NEWS IS THE PLANET IS NOT AT RISK FROM ANY EVENT MANIFESTING IN 2010 OR BEYOND.

Do you have a citation for this? Serendi^podous 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

Someone should add a link to Zecharia Sitchin and his book the 12th planet in the "Planet X/Nibiru" paragraph... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seldonic (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SItchin has nothing to do with this "Nibiru". They just took the name to add some "authority". He is mentioned in the main article on the Nibiru collision, to which this article links already. Serendi^podous 07:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon → 2012 apocalypticism —

This is a formal written proposal to move this article to the more appropriate 2012 apocalypticism. Clearly this is more a specific title without broadening the scope of the article. It is also consistent with the apocalypticism category. "Phenomenon" is far to vague a title, and I notice that it is not even within the category:phenomena. However it is in category:apocalypticism, and articles should always justify the category they are in, and it does. The sources of the term "2012 phenomenon" are all new age writers, who use the term "phenomenon" in the title so as to be understandable to a reader who picks it up. They all refer to it as apocalypticism within the articles themselves. Scholars call it "apocalypticism" because that is what it is. There had recently been confusion over the category for which this is the main article. I would like to bring them both into line with this move. Furthermore, it does appear that I am not the only one who is uncomfortable with "phenomenon" as indicated by the discussion above. I hope we do not get bogged down with status-quo-ism, or fights over each person's favorite counterpproposal. Take a look at the article apocalypticism and the catgeories this thing is in, and it becomes pretty obvious that we are talking about a particular form of apocalypticism. Greg Bard 17:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - Fixed the link with apocalypticism. I agree with this move; phenomenon is an inappropriate term. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone has come in and re-named the article. The last time that this happened there was extensive discussion and the current title won out, mostly because someone that didn't like the term "2012 doomsday" was insistent. Constant re-naming of the article is a real pain in the ***. There seems to be very little agreement on what the proper name should be. This reflects the high BS coefficient of the subject. The word "Apocalypticism" is such a horrible esoteric, pretentious piece of sophistry that it makes my head hurt. In addition, not all of the prophecies are apocalyptic so this title mis-represents the phenomenon. How many readers looking for information on this subject will type this horrible piece of vocabulary into the search box to find this article? I guess zero. My dictionary has no definition of "apocalypticism" so why use a word for the title that doesn't even exist? Leave it alone. AGAINST Senor Cuete (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think that objection relies heavily on subjective, and emotional impressions, rather than dispassionate scholarly analysis. I am sorry you feel that way, it was certainly not my intention to be "pretentious." However, I feel that I must point out that the perception of "pretentiousness" is an interpretation of the facts, rather than a fact itself. I would suggest to you that the constant moving reflects a deficiency in the title which I believe we can fix with this proposal once and for all. In the mean time I would suggest that you read the article apocalypticism, and familiarize yourself sufficiently that you feel comfortable using the term, and not being pretensious. Be well,Greg Bard 00:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "we"? Did you contribute to the article? I must have missed something. "We" already had a big war over this and "we" decided to use this title. "We" can't fix it because it's not broken. I didn't say it is "pretensious", I said it is "pretentious" that's how my dictionary spells it anyway. I guess that "we" can solve this non-existent problem by doing what "you" want. Also please refrain from editing my posts. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Okay so that's just uncivil. Please do look at WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, and your own words "The word "Apocalypticism" is such a horrible esoteric, pretentious piece of sophistry that it makes my head hurt." I hope WE can be constructive there Senor, that is if it's okay for other people to edit YOUR article.Greg Bard 02:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• rename to 2012 millenarianism, since this event is an end of calendrical cycle doomsday. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please log in if you are going to vote? The proposal is to move to "2012 apocalypticism." In my opinion, "millenarianism" is completely inaccurate. As it stands it is not in the category Category:Millenarianism, because it does not belong there. Greg Bard 03:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion and not a real vote, ie 5 for and 4 against would not mean we would do the move. And the IP does not have to log in.

• Keep. Although I applaud Greg's attempt to handle this through the proper process this time, the term is not used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we be using the most accurate term, not the most popular one? By this logic we'd rename influenza to flu, but instead it's more important to have the accurate definition. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• The correct term would be "eschatologicism", rather than "apocalypticism". Not all the predictions qualify as "apocalyptic". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

1) "eschatologicism" is not a word 2) Yes all of the predictions do qualify, if you keep in mind that apocalypticism does not necessarily include an "end of the world" but rather an end of some era and the beginning of some new era as consistent with the "Doctrine of two eras". Just what those two eras are is a matter of interpretation. That means that "apocalypticism" is precisely correct, wheras "millenarianism" involves the idea that the god of the Bible will reign for a period of 1000 years. It seems pretty clear cut to be, and I have studied this subject. Like I said, the "2012 phenomenon" is one of these not one of these as supported by the article and category. Greg Bard 16:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that "millenarianism" is correct, just that "apocalypticism" is wrong. Please seek support for your edits before reinstating them, per WP:BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay Arthur. For the record, your belief that the more general term "eschatology" is more correct rather than the actually precise term "apocalypticism" is consistent with not really knowing the full meaning and use of the term "apocalypticism."-GB

Greg: How do you know that Arthur doesn't know the full meaning and use of the term "apocalypticism"? Are you telepathic? Is this a personal attack? Please sign your posts by typing four tildes and your user name. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I don't know, and I didn't say I did. All I said was that his behavior is consistent with someone who doesn't know the full meaning of the word. No, I am not telepathic. All I have to go on is the text posted to WP. No it is not a personal attack. If Arthur does know, then I am doing him a wonderful service as a civil collaborator pointing out an impression he is leaving, perhaps without knowing. Why don't you proudly display your oppose vote as I had inserted into your comment like everyone else around here? Be well Senor. Greg Bard 22:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unless multiple sources can be cited supporting any new title. Otherwise, it'd be a title based on opinion or original research. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it). Yworo (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose although most of the notable discussions on 2012 amount to some form of apocalypse, millenarianism, eschatology, some do not quite qualify, and each word covers a different set of, but not all, the ideas. Terence Mckenna was not quite in any of these categories, as far as i can determine. I prefer the more generic name we have given it here, so it covers all discussion and speculation, esp the effects this idea has on people not directly involved in the creation of the ideas (ie the culture at large). Specifically, apocalypticism, as defined here, is a religious idea. that would exclude metaphysical speculation that is not focused on religion per se. Basically, Yworo says it most succinctly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• 'Oppose Yworo has it in a nutshell, Mercurywoodrose has done a good job of expanding on the reasons to oppose. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose An encyclopaedia needs to speak to the general reader, not an academic sub group. The range of beliefs around 2012 make phenomenon the only commonly used word that seems to fit all usages. Lumos3 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If it ant broke, don't fix it.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.