Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

2012 movie marketing

If that doesn't belong alonside a loony fundamentalist and the Discovery Channel, I'm not really sure what does. What exactly is that paragraph's narrative anyway? To me, it seems to be the means by which the apocalyptic meme has spread. Surely the marketing of the 2012 film qualifies in that regard? Serendi^podous 17:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Merge section Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar#2012 and the Long Count

This section contains a huge amount of information this article currently lacks, and since this is supposed to be that section's main article, it really needs to have it. Unfortunately, the sourcing system is a bit difficult to shift, and some of the section's information isn't sourced. Serendi^podous 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did it myself. Serendi^podous 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Fifth World (Native American mythology)

Fifth World (Native American mythology) is a stub of an article dealing with a specific portion of the 2012 hypothesis. While this topic might be worthy of a separate article at some point, I think the data here could easily be grafted onto the larger 2012 article and then perhaps split back off when and if there is more information. -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, because the 2012 phenomenon only applies to the fifth world as envisioned by the Maya; the fifth world is common to many Native American mythologies, not just the Maya.Serendi^podous 01:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NO. The article contains factual errors. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Move to "2012 theory"

Phenomenon is such a leading word, like its a type of unserious stuff. Why not change it onto something like 2012 theory or something. Oh, and i'm 13 years old, and english is my 3rd language, so don't be hatin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.126.66 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not a theory. This article describes several theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the term "2012 phenomenon" is one that was introduced in academic literature on the subject in the article by Robert Sitler (2006). Hoopes (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the word "phenomenon" a lot in academic literature--probably because "thingamabob" or "stuff" doesn't sound very scholarly, and "phenomenon" sounds like enough of a sophisticated catch-all term to fill in for "whatchamacallit" and its colloquial cousins. The problem with that term here is that it's just about the opposite of what the article actually discusses. A phenomenon isn't just any ol' whozamawhatzit; it's any observable whozamawhatzit. And spiritual/eschatological beliefs (especially pertaining to a year that has yet to arrive) do not strike one as particularly observable. If there were empirical evidence that the world were going to end in 2012, the evidence and data would be phenomena. But such phenomena are not, as the article notes, exactly forthcoming. Behaviours that reflect beliefs are phenomena, but the focus of the article is on what people are thinking, not on how they're acting. We'll really see how people act in two years, which might be the time to focus on "phenomena". So, as far as I (and the dictionary) can tell, "phenomenon" is not the right word for the article. I haven't the slightest idea what the optimal term might actually be, but I do know that even "stuff" avoids the technical mistake of attributing observability to beliefs and thoughts. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

n., pl., -na (-nə). An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. pl., -nons. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See synonyms at wonder. Philosophy. In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. Physics. An observable event.

This, is not a phenomenon -93.97.255.48 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In case you aren't aware, the dictionary isn't a reliable source; peer reviewed academic articles are. Shii (tock) 06:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What is a theory is what this article refers to as the Long Count calendar. According to mathematician Michael Closs and others, what Mayanists theorize as the "long count" is actually chronological, not calendric. The idea that baktuns, another Mayanist word, is cyclical is also based on theory. It should be made clearer that the first association of 2012 with doomsday was made by an anthropologist who also was a CIA operative, Michael D. Coe. There are also no reliable, unique astronomical events so far associated with 2012. It should also be made clearer that 99% of what is in this article comes from non-Maya sources. I could go on and on, but this is a start. Jack Straw 02:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Shii: If reliable sources are, in reality, the criteria for this article, then the entire thing should come down. Jack Straw 02:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Theory" is problematic for the same reason that "phenomenon" is problematic, because (at least in scientific literature) a "theory" is an explanation for phenomena. And 2012ism (for continued lack of a better term) is more about prediction than about explanation. Come to think of it, maybe "2012 predictions" is a better name for the article. Of course there have been refutations of various predictions, and there appears to be little if any evidence that even the ancient Maya predicted anything dramatic in 2012, but at the heart of the 2012 social...thingy is contemporary anticipation. And anticipation, in and of itself, is not observable and is therefore not phenomenal. Yes, reliable sources may refer to a "2012 phenomenon", but an even better source distinguished phenomena as objects of observation, creating a definition that endures even within the highly subjective interests of phenomenology. So I'd probably opt for "2012 predictions", or something similar which is meant to indicate the core of the current psychosocial realities ("realities" being among the plain-sounding words for which "phenomenon" provides a colourful--but colloquial--substitute) pertaining to 2012. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was happy with 2012 millenarianism, not sure why it was changed to 2012 phenomenon. Serendi^podous 20:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, "theory" is bad because it implies the article discusses only one theory. Shii (tock) 03:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How about "2012 (metaphysical prediction)" 88.88.126.11 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

invisible landscape

I can only imagine what wikipedia deals with around this subject.

Having actually read 'invisible landscape', I can ascertain that it is not about inspiring millenial fevers. For some reason, the book and its central concept, the old 'Chinese' Kan idea, is completely not represented with wikipedia. Has this always been the case, or did these ideas get caught up in the reactionary dynamics as well?

I suggest the book, its idea, and its extension to this mess is presented in a context of relationship, between the A.D. form and the I-Ching resonance idea of that book. I will do it if I get a positive response here.

From this can stem some common understanding I think, with the crazies at the end of time, who took too many drugs, or believe in Nibiru and whatnot, and can't come back. Perhaps I should just take this straight to schizophrenia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapler42 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. But all the facts in that section are cited, so you'll need better citations. Shii (tock) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Last Theory: "The Theory of People Never Knowing The Future" Everybody is going to believe a calendar with a man sticking his tongue out at you from and extinct race and society of ancient people. Good joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.169.94 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Serendipodous, I am disappoint

now you removed this for the second time, [1] it serves two useful purposes:

1. Daniel Pinchbeck deserves a mention because he wrote a bestselling book that made the New Age story so popular it inspired the doomsday movies. I don't know why he was the guy who did that, I think he's a celebrity for some reason.
2. India deserves a mention simply to balance out the article's geographic bias and demonstrate the global nature of the phenomenon.

OK? Shii (tock) 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it; I moved it into the opening paragraphs of the New Age section. On its own, it was essentially an "In popular culture" section that was just begging for anyone to come along and add his or her own random 2012 mentions. Serendi^podous 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that at all because I stopped at the diff when it disappeared. Sorry for my laziness, and thanks for that skillful reorganization Shii (tock) 09:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Futility

The 2012 movie was partially based on Graham Hancock's book "Fingerprints of the Gods". It was in the credits. You have resorted to even removing suggestions from the discussion page from Jack Straw. You two are so pathetic. This page still sucks. ~M~ 02:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How accurate is the information on this page?

How accurate is the information on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladoodle (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for the article, so the answer is - don't expect it necessarily to be accurate, sometimes we get utter nonsense posted here. Perhaps you need to clarify your question.

Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant how accurate is the information on the article called "2012 Phenomenon"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.28.136 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As accurate as we can make it, until a genuinely qualified scholar of the Maya decides to help us. Serendi^podous 11:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Or you could read the wikipedia article about the Maya Long Count Calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Of course, if there are any genuinely qualified scholars of the Maya on this page, then I apoogise for implying they were not...Serendi^podous 23:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this

I'm not expecting to add this to the page... yet. But it does seem to be the very beginnings of another internet craze. It's already been referenced in Pravda and on main news channels. Serendi^podous 11:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

BEGINNING? Have you been living in a cave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.210 (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh yeah, beginning. The 2012 phenomenon dates from 1975. This dates from a month ago. EDIT: OK, MSNBC says that it began over a year ago, but since I don't follow every conspiracy nut forum or watch badly faked videos on Youtube, I wouldn't know that. I'm only interested in an internet meme if it has potential to break out of the standard loony circles. This one certainly does. Serendi^podous 09:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is an internet craze. All you have to do is look at the view count history of the article. There are some very sudden spasms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.52.67 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe new to your findings on the Internet, but it is well known in certain circles that 12.21.2012 is the expiration date of a "quarantine" agreement protecting Earth humans from direct extraterrestrial contact and intervention, since the end days of Atlantis. Similar to Star Trek's "Prime Directive". The so-called Maya calendar was a clue given to humans about what has been "scheduled" from an extraterrestrial source. Living Maya shamans acknowledge that their "sacred wisdom" came from the Pleiades. This article seems to miss the essential point of 12.21.2012. Star Heart 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.155.133 (talk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_B2O6gpChA&feature=channel is a link for the 12.21.2012 end of quarantine information. Star Heart 22:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.112.178 (talk)

Seriously, this story just keeps getting better. Serendi^podous 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SETI have weighed in. I think it's time we added this. Serendi^podous 00:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@ POD: Using the "A" word to describe extraterrestrials is as ignorant, disrespectful and pejorative as using the "N" word or any other slang to describe a group of sentient beings. Maybe you should start praying that they don't hold it against you when they arrive and assume control. Your other option, of course, is to raise the "consciousness" level of your editing. Star Heart 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.59.2 (talk)

If you wish to accuse me of astroxenophobia, then I would suggest you contact your local branch of the Extraterrestrial Anti-Defamation League and formally charge me with libel. Serendi^podous 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

importance of solstice and equinox

The article states the following: There is also little evidence, archaeological or historical, that the Maya placed any importance on solstices or equinoxes.

Yet in the Chichen Itza article, the following is written: In the 1980s, Chichen Itza began to receive an influx of visitors on the day of the spring equinox. Today several thousand show up to see the light-and-shadow effect on the Temple of Kukulcan in which the feathered serpent god supposedly can be seen to crawl down the side of the pyramid.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichen_Itza

The fact that one of the most significant mayan constructions is built in a way which takes advantage of the light patern on the spring equinox to create a serpent effect which culminates with a stone serpent head would seem to reflect otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.143.190 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss, because our information is sourced, and that article's information isn't. Serendi^podous 16:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wired article about "NASA assembled researchers"

Has this article in Wired been considered as a source for the Geomagnetic reversal section? - an excerpt:

"For scary speculation about the end of civilization in 2012, people usually turn to followers of cryptic Mayan prophecy, not scientists. But that’s exactly what a group of NASA-assembled researchers described in a chilling report issued earlier this year on the destructive potential of solar storms. Entitled "Severe Space Weather Events — Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts," it describes the consequences of solar flares unleashing waves of energy that could disrupt Earth’s magnetic field, overwhelming high-voltage transformers with vast electrical currents and short-circuiting energy grids. Such a catastrophe would cost the United States "$1 trillion to $2 trillion in the first year," concluded the panel, and "full recovery could take 4 to 10 years."

I'm curious since NASA's website says the next solar maximum won't be particularly strong - so who are these "NASA assembled researchers" who issued this report?! - Mblaxill (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (the linked page is restricted) the report only mentions the potential effects of severe solar storms, not the likelihood of one occurring in 2012. Serendi^podous 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Schinatiger, 20 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

This entry states towards the end under the heading 'Alien invasion' that "Craig Kasnoff, a computer programmer contracted to help design the seti@home project, stated that he had never made the reported claims".

Well...this statement is close, but not accurate.

I (Craig Kasnoff) was not 'contracted' to help design seti@home, I 'co-concieved' the idea with David Gedye (this fact can be easliy verified by SETI (or by seaching the web a bit). And it is an error I would appreciate your correcting.

I am already seeing it far too often on the web.

The correct text should read "Craig Kasnoff, who co-concieved the idea of Seti@Home with David Gedye" etc.

And yes, I did state I never made the claims attributed to the 'fictitious' Craig Kasnov. My words on this can easily be found on the web.

I appreciate your consideration in this matter.

Please contact me if you need any more information on this matter, or further verification.

Sincerely,

Craig Kasnoff

Schinatiger (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Done. Serendi^podous 09:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"New Age beliefs" section

I really want to get this article featured by 2012, so that it can appear on the main page on its predicted date. The biggest obstacle I can see is the section between "New Age beliefs" and "galactic alignment", because it relies heavily on primary sources, which are fine for illustrating the points they make but not so fine in establishing their notability. We need some 3rd party sources in that section. Serendi^podous 10:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is problematic. The main sources we might use for that section are Aveni and the skeptics cited by Jenkins in his latest book. I no longer have Aveni's book on hand. Shii (tock) 07:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You will not find any good third party sources for the galactic alignment because when I first wrote about it in 1987, I did not give out enough information for anyone else to understand it. You won't find anyone who has the astrological expertise to understand the authentic Maya astrological forecasts for 2012 in the Dresden Codex or the galactic alignment and it's actual relationship to 2012. ~*~ M ~*~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.145.1 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The "end of the world" meme started with Forstemann, who misinterpreted the Dresden Codex, spread by Morley, who influenced Arguelles and Coe. Coe influenced Waters who influenced Jenkins who was published by Bear & Co. ~*~ M ~*~ 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.145.1 (talk)

OK, now that Mardyks has been blocked, we can actually discuss his point, which at core, is valid. It is entirely probable that Coe based his idea of Armageddon on Forstmann's interpretation of the Dresden Codex. Unfortunately I don't know where to find any reliable sources that could support this. Mardyks is no help, since all he ever does is point us to his own work. And besides, since Coe is still alive, it makes far more sense to track down his thoughts on the matter than Mardyks's. Serendi^podous 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Forstemann predicted the "end of the world" with the "serpent numbers" in the Dresden Codex. This can be found near the end of his Commentary on the Dresden Codex (free access at Google Books). Morley repeated this in his popular book on the Maya. It was Coe who first associated "armageddon" with the end of the 13-baktun period aka 2012. We don't believe the CIA will allow him to tell the "real" story. ArmyOfThe13Monkeys 97.123.22.20 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2013: Day 1

On February 26-27th in Palm Springs, California; there was a conference :"2013: Day One" where the world's top 100 new age believers, prophets of all kinds, biblical scholars, scientific futurists and the like, met to discussed them. To further add on the theological aspect of the last 13 days of 2012 are vital for mankind, the conference calls for a new age of humanity if we're lucky to have been spared extinction or mixed optimist-pessimist realism, along with attendees' various predictions and projections of what the world could or will be like.

One scientist felt that by the year 2045: Mankind will be immortal, and that statement was on the March 6 front cover of Time Magazine on a science article about extending human longetivity and other medical breakthroughs of the day. Another person, an astrologer, literally thought the eliptical zodiac shift created a new 13th sign, Ophiuchus, shown us the world's polar shift by 2 degrees did take place on Jan. 1 2011, when thousands of reports of dead bird and fish kills worldwide occurred. A third person, thought the 3rd antichrist is here, alive and well, a prediction taken from the passages of Nostradamus' book said a man named Maddus/Mobius/Onaman is currently president in a "Persian-Arabian" empire about to bring forth the end of the world by nuclear annihilation/war.

And finally, the politicized speculation of the Reconquista of the Western US will happen by social, cultural and demographic changes of North America, thus the indigenous-Hispanic-"third world" element might "reclaim" their ancestral homeland around this time when Los Angeles, California, USA again has a majority of inhabitants being of Latin American Indian descent, the first time since 1850 after it was annexed after the Mexican-American war. Considering 300 of Spanish + 30 years of Mexican rule, now to see if 150-160 years of American rule expected to expire, the Maya and Aztecs finds their ethnic or cultural legacy in modern descendants of Mexico or Latin America have resurrected the legendary Aztlan. + Mike D 26 (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So? Ray Kurzweil's lunatic ideas have nothing to do with 2012, and neither does the point at which LA becomes majority Hispanic. The Maya don't live anywhere near California, so what does that have to do with their calendar? Serendi^podous 11:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The topics about the "end times" or "new age" were discussed in the conference and their attempts to connect prophecies with current events such as climate change, seismic activity, social upheaval, economic crises and new age beliefs, is a complex issue. California was thought as the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, but the 2012 phenomenon is associated primarily only with the Maya not related to Aztecs, though are geographically close to each other. Again, my apologies. + Mike D 26 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be only one of several such conferences. There was one at Glastonbury as well. Only one news site bothered to mention it, so I don't think it is that notable. Serendi^podous 11:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with the 11:11 phenomenon

I am surprised that this hasn't been included in the article yet. The 11:11 phenomenon is also related to the 2012 phenomenon.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce, informs that the winter solstice for 2012 will occur on December 21st at 11:11 UTC.

Is it possible to unblock the article in order to include this? Negyek (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting do you have a source connecting the two 11:11 to the 2012 outside the Noaa prediction? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Using the algorithms in Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus I calculate it as 11:12:59, so this could be BS. cite a reliable source? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

As stated above, the reliable cited source is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), where it is listed as 11:11 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC):

The Vernal Equinox, 2004-2017. National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

On the other hand, you might have to review your calculations, as the online Equinox & Solstice Calculator by Ken Slater, using the very same algorithms from the book Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus - Second Edition that you cite, lists this as 11:11:32 UTC. Negyek (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Solstice Wikipedia article gives it as 11:12 but doesn't give the seconds. This is from the US Naval observatory's Ephemeris. 01:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs)

NASA's Horizons website and interpolation of the Sun's apparent longitude gives the solstice at 11:11:38.4 Senor Cuete (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The online Equinox & Solstice Calculator by Ken Slater 11:11:32 UTC measurement is very close to the NASA's Horizons website 11:11:38.4 measurement. As these measurements are over 30 seconds past 11:11, this explains why some sites round this up to 11:12, though the real hour and minutes time is effectively 11:11. Negyek (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE:User:Mike D 26, please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not areas for general discussion; they are only for discussing the article. Please keep your personal views on 2012 to yourself. I have removed your comments. Serendi^podous 11:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.48.152.196, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove the text at the beginning of this article. It is not at all appropriate, and reads: "PURE BULLSHIT. NO-ONE WILL DIE. THIS IS ALL A SCAM. YOU ARE ALL LOSERS FOR CREATING SUCH A STUPID, RIDICULOUS MONEY MAKING SCAM. GO DIE, IN HELL."

Thank you!

96.48.152.196 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism, i've removed it now, thanks for letting us know--Jac16888^Talk 21:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

11 archives

is it really necessary to archive so often? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.159.171 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of debate about this topic. The "traditional" length of an archive is about 30k, and that's the minimum length of an archive on this page. Serendi^podous 08:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bolon Yokte' K'uh image

This image was difficult to find, and I believe it to be quite seriously non-replaceable... does FAC involve stripping out all images that aren't totally free? Shii (tock) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In essence, yes. Because it can theoretically be taken by an amateur and uploaded onto Wikipedia as a free image, the FAC crew wouldn't allow it. Believe me, I didn't want to take that picture down, and I'm even contemplating taking the article to FAC with it in it, but I've had WAY too many fights over copyright to expect it to pass. These people are vicious about it. If you feel you can make a plausible case that it is non-replaceable, then that's fine, but you'd also need to argue that the article absolutely requires it. Serendi^podous 08:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put it back. Let's see if it gets through Peer Review. Serendi^podous 09:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wrong Date - The Significant Date is December 23, 2012" section

It's a pity this is a protected page. The Mayan calendar period ends on December 23, 2012 and not December 21. This should be at the head of the article and not tucked away somewhere at the base of the article. This makes the article very misleading to anyone who is casually glancing at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.243.73 (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends which correlation you use. The correlation most accepted by scholars, apparently, is December 21. Serendi^podous 18:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was some recent thing about it being in the year 2112 or something. Even though the whole doomsday thing is crap that the Mayans themselves do not buy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mayan of today have nothing to do with the mayans from thousands of years ago that made the calendar.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Why isn't there a critisicm section for the entire 2012 phenomeneom. There are numerous accredited scientist that have debunked all of the 2012 claims but yet they are not part of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.244.124 (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is mentioned in each individual section, rather than a giant section of its own. It's tidier. Serendi^podous 08:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit unsatisfactory and lacking critical validity that each proposed 2012 incident is given one to two paragraphs but the criticism, or more appropriately debunking, is usually a sentence or two.

I'm not sure what you mean. The doomsday theory sections spend more words debunking than explaining. The Galactic alignment section spends most of its time trying to explain what precession is, apparently unsuccessfully, judging by peer reviews. And while I admit there is a lack of criticism about the timewave, given that its entire premise rests on what is essentially an invisible pink unicorn at the end of time, I'm not sure there is any way you can criticise it. Serendi^podous 10:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I figured out what I'm trying to say, thanks for bearing with me. Basically the article is disorganized and disjointed, lacks more information regarding the 2012 Phen such as the Doomsday scenario and better criticism against the '2012 phen'. The 'Long count calendar' section has its separate criticism or objection section but all other main sections do not,I do see the criticism within the sections but they should all have a standard format. The 'Tortuguero' section only connection to "2012 Phen' is based on a PhD Thesis conducted by "Independent Scholars" with no peer reviewed backing and could just as easily be included in the 'New Age" section (Citation #32). I think that scientific articles should be used but some non-sicentific or at least articles that haven't been peer-reviewed are being used as fact and conclusive support on the validity of the whole '2012 Phen'. Also, more emphasize, i.e. Name-dropping, is given to the proponents of '2012 Phen.' than its critics to which are just as numerous (http://www.2012hoax.org/) I'm not connected to the website I just linked to but I think it does a better job of providing a template on explaining the '2012 Phen' thoroughly regardless of the main objective of the site which is to debunk it. I would also like to see this article be a Featured Article on Dec 21, 2012 but as it stands, it's a bit of a mess. Vhrico (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

2012hoax.org has a prescriptive agenda. In other words, it sets out to combat the 2012 phenomenon outright. Wikipedia cannot take such a stance because it would violate the concept of neutral point of view. As to the reference you refer to, I will leave defending that to the person who added it. In any case it can be changed; there are other references to deal with the Tortuguero site. I don't see where any "facts" are used in "support" of the 2012 phenomenon; occasionally people's personal websites are used but that is only to verify that they say what the article says they say, not to support their ideas. I think "name dropping" the other side would actually be counter-productive from your point of view, because it would turn the article from "one person against the mainstream" to "one person says this, another person says that". Serendi^podous 13:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the website has a perspective agenda, i wasn't referencing it so it could be copied or used as a source, only in that it does a good job of providing a more complete job of listing everything that's associated with the 2012 Phen which are missing in the Wikipedia article (I'm not just talking of the criticism). As for the name dropping, it's wasn't meant to turn it into "he said, he said" but actually providing the names of the people that have disproved or criticized the appropriate material, ex: in the criticism of the galactic alignment it just says "Astronomers argue that the galactic equator is an entirely arbitrary line", ok but which ones? Also the Galactic alignment does happen, but it happens every year in December according astronomy and stated by Neil deGrasse Tyson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2nFVGxzcM), it's not arbitrary name dropping but actually citing an actual astrophysicist. But if you think it will lead to an online "She said, She said" then it can be bypassed as long as proper citation to scientific and verifiable sources are done properly. Another example, in the Geomagnetic reversal section, the critic cited is a news blog when a better citation could be the British Geological Survey. I'm sure there are more but i hope i got my point across (don't want to sound condescending, sorry if it comes out that way). Vhrico (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The section already says that the galactic alignment happens every year. The reason it isn't included in the criticism section is because the guy who came up with the idea, John Major Jenkins, also says the galactic alignment happens every year. And why does something that is visible to anyone looking up at the night sky require the validation of Neil deGrasse Tyson? If we were to say that "Neil deGrasse Tyson says the galactic alignment happens every year", then that implies that other astronomers who are not Neil deGrasse Tyson disagree. That is not the case. Indeed that fact doesn't even need astronomers to back it up, because it's self-evident. As for the British Geological Survey, well, if they've ever written about 2012, then great. But unless their articles mention 2012, rather than just scientific data, then we can't use them, because they would violate WP:SYN. Serendi^podous 06:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I was using N. Tyson as an example of someone that can be cited in criticism of the Galactic alignment concept relating the 2012. The reason why it should be cited is because even though it's something that is "visible to anyone looking up at the night sky" I doubt that conforms to Wikipedia standards; which by the way, with all the light pollution now days the only people that can look up and see this usually don't have access to Wikipedia, much less 24/7, electricity. I don't think stating/citing one particular astronomer saying that the Galactic Alignment happens every year implies that other astronomers don't, but that astronomers don't validate the claim that the 2012 alignment is special either because its unique (not yearly which alot of people believe) or more exact then the other yearly ones, a claim being made by non-astronomers (as far as i know). It Doesn't have to be N. Tyson, I'm sure there are other respectable astronomers to cite from, but it always good to have proper citation.Vhrico (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the article already says that the galactic alignment happens every year. Serendi^podous 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Every year for the last 1,000 years or so, on the winter solstice, the Sun and the Milky Way appear (from the surface of the Earth) to come into alignment, and every year, precession causes a slight shift in the Sun's apparent position in the Milky Way" I'm guessing that's where you mean that it's already stated? If so it's a poorly written sentence which is what I'm trying to get at. "...for the last 1,000 years or so..."? according to who? and only started happening 1,000 yrs ago? From Universe Today "There’s another type of galactic alignment. This is where the Earth, Sun and the center of the galaxy are in perfect alignment from our perspective. This actually happens every year during the winter solstice, on December 21st. Because of a wobble in the Earth’s orbit, the positions of the constellations slowly shift from year to year. The most perfect galactic alignment between the Earth, Sun and the center of the Milky Way happened back in 1998, but now we’re slowly shifting away from that alignment. In the coming decades, the perfect alignment will shift to another day. Again, the alignment of these objects is purely a coincidence ", doesn't say that this only started occurring 1,000 years ago, but if there is a source that says it did, lets have it. Vhrico (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to find any scientific sources on this, because scientists don't care. Jenkins has a pretty good illustration of it. But precession isn't a made up thing; it happens. At one point in the past, the Sun and the Milky Way didn't intersect on the winter solstice. Now they do. Given that it takes roughly 2160 years for the Sun to precess through a constellation, then the Sun entered the Milky Way about 1000 years ago. Serendi^podous 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a note. Hopefully that will be enough. Serendi^podous 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

MacLeod section

Any arguments against this? I couldn't find any. Shii (tock) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Vhrico noted that the authors were "independent scholars", and that their paper was a PhD thesis that hadn't been peer reviewed. This is the sort of thing that gets flagged at FAC, especially with a topic like this, so it seemed safest to remove it. Serendi^podous 05:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Journals#P.E2.80.93Z, it was published in an ordinary peer-reviewed Mesoamerican journal... Shii (tock) 23:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wayeb Notes Is an online journal for Mayan studies but nowhere does it states that it's a peer-review, scientifically accredited journal. The description in the Wikipedia only states that it is a journal for Mayan studies. The following is from the Journal's about page: "The European Association of Mayanists, Wayeb, is an academically oriented non-profit association that promotes Maya Studies in Europe. It was created in 1996 by a group of young scholars seeking to build academic contacts." It also considers itself an Open Access journal, doesn't seem like a peer-review Journal to me, and the article itself doesn't appear in any other journal but this one. Vhrico (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent a message to the Wayeb president asking him for clarification. Shii (tock) 05:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

He responded saying that the journal is peer reviewed and Wayeb is the premier association of Mayanists in Europe. I'm not sure how much more sleuthing is necessary to establish its reliability. Shii (tock) 14:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good enough for me. Serendi^podous 14:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Propose Edit for Other concepts Section

Harbhajan Singh Yogi, or Yogi Bhajan, a Sikh who introduced Kundalini yoga and Sikhism to the West, taught that 2012 would mark the beginning of the Age of Aquarius, a new golden era of heightened spirituality. He had proposed several dates for this transition over the years, but 2012 was his final estimate, which he taught until his death in 2004.

I'm brand new to editing, so here it goes: could we put the text above into this article under the section "Other Concepts" within "New Age Beliefs"? Or would it be better to have it under a new section called "Sikh beliefs"? The info is all from the Yogi Bhajan wikipedia page, so it shouldn't be controversial. I think it is important to have as much info as possible about 2012 in this article. Yogi Bhajan is very well known, I think it would be good to include his prediction. Sorry if this is badly formatted or not done the right way, apologies in advance, I'm new to this. Please, any suggestions or criticisms are welcome.

TrustTheFather (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs a citation. It can't just be added without a reliable source to back it up. Serendi^podous 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I thought that since I am just re-stating what is already in a wikipedia article, it wouldn't need a source beyond that. Isn't wikipedia considered a reliable source? The source from the Yogi Bhajan article is ^ "Aquarian Times Featuring Prosperity Paths". Aquariantimes.com. http://www.aquariantimes.com. Retrieved 2011-01-02. I tried to fix it above.

TrustTheFather (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, because it can be changed at any time. If Wikipedia only sourced itself, it could say anything it wanted. And I don't think that aquariantimes.com would be considered a reliable source either. Serendi^podous 20:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Aquarian Times is published by the official website of the organization that Yogi Bhajan started. (http://www.3ho.org/get-involved/aquarian-times/) So it would be a reliable source for his views. However, it looks like the wikipedia article got it wrong: his prediction is for 11/11/11 not 12/21/12.Forget the whole thing, I'll try to put it on the 11:11 page. Could it still be applicable to 2012 since it is so close? I'm not a follower of Yogi Bhajan or trying to make ANY point, I just came across this info accidently and wanted to share it with people. Wikipedia seemed like the best place. what do you think would be a better place for this info, a specific prediction about the end of the age within two years? I could put it where you suggest instead of under 2012. Like I said, I'm just trying to help people get all the information they can about a very important and popular topic. Thanks!!!!

TrustTheFather (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand you want to get this information in, but one of the issues is notability beyond its core set of believers. Has it been cited in the news? Has it had an impact beyond its circle? Has anything of note occurred as a result of it? The number of 2012 predictions that have been made runs into the thousands. We can't include all of them. Provide me with some evidence that the prediction you cite is notable, and it can go in. Serendi^podous 06:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

New age publications don't generally qualify as WP:RS, nor any of the other possible sources already mentioned. I think it'd be best to refrain, at this point...Sebastian Garth (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the "Other Alignment" header be re-written since Galactic alignment and planetary are the only two cosmological alignment related to 2012, and planetary being the "other" is only one sentence long. Using the header "Other" implies there are several other alignments related to 2012. Maybe something like "Galactic Alignment Cataclysm"? Vhrico (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote it. Serendi^podous 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Should this be added?

I mean I know there are some wacky ideas on this page already, but this seems out there even by their standards. Serendi^podous 06:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Although, "Wenlock and Mandeville", "New World Order" does produce 9000 Google hits... Serendi^podous 07:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mesoauratus, 20 May 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello. Could you please include this mention of a book that deals with certain aspects of 2012. Please feel free to revise my text.

Expansion of Consciousness

In the book, The Revelatorium, by Delannovah Starr Livingstone, an intriguing theory is proposed about the year 2012. In the book, 2012 marks the end of an approximately 49 year period in which mankind has undergone 49 inductions for the expansion of the mass consciousness. December 21st, 2012 therefore does not represent an end of the world, but an end to an old way of thinking, and possibly an awakening of higher senses in mankind. The Revelatorium also discusses how the original Revelations story of the bible was meant to carry the blueprints for a worldwide magnetic grid that was meant to house the disparate types of consciousnesses that would be incarnating into the earth around this time. The copy of this text was taken by the Knights Templar to be delivered to the Mayans to become part of the Mayan prophecies. The book also discusses how the grids were set up, and explains the meaning behind the different metaphors used in the Revelations story of the bible.

Mesoauratus (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No; it needs more than just a self-reference; there has to be some outside reference to explain why it's more notable than the thousands of other similar ideas. Serendi^podous 17:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the template per Serendipodous. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.223.131.88, 24 May 2011

The Mayan date 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 is incorrectly given in the article on apocalyptic predictions for Dec 12, 2012 as 4.1 times 10^28 years in the future. Actually, it is roughly 2.83 times 10^28 years in the future.

To see this, note that the date is 360 days times 20^21 times 13 times (1 + 1/20 +1/20^2+....), where the ... represents 18 more terms, after the Mayan "zero date", which, for the purposes of this discussion, can be taken to be right now. The sum in the parenthesis, though not an infinite geometrical series, is close enough to one to be extremely well approximated by the sum of the infinite series, which is 20/19. This puts the date 1.033 times 10^31 days, or 2.82 times 10^28years, in the future; not 4.1 times 10^28 years in the future, as the article currently states. 128.223.131.88 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

13 to the 20th power bak'tuns is 144,000 days x 13^20.
There are 365.2422 days in a year.
So isn't this (144,000 x 13^20) / 365.2422 years?
According to my calculator this is 7.4929 x 10^24 years.
However authors that think that this is a date 10^24 years in the future are wrong because all of these inscriptions are paired with a calendar round of 4 Ahau 8 Kumk'u - the Calendar round of the start of this creation. These inscriptions are giving the start of the current creation as a more or less unlimited bunch of 13s in higher places Long Count. Distance inscriptions that specify a date before the current creation and Long Reckonings are counted from a date 13 bak'tuns before the current creation ie. ...13.13.0.0.0.0. Even if these inscriptions don't provide evidence that the Long Count ends at the impending 13.0.0.0.0 there is no evidence that there are 13 bakt'uns in a piktun and there is a lot of evidence that there are 20, in the form of distance numbers so the coming 13.0.0.0.0 is nothing more than a bak'tun completion. Also there is no evidence that there is any Mayan doomsday prophesy. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete