Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2012/December

Reverting edits by user:The Good Doctor Fry

I thought about it for a while and eventually decided to revert the good faith edits by user:The Good Doctor Fry in the Long Count section. The reasons are:

1. His calculations are correct vis. the Calendar Round but the big event in December is the completion of a bak'tun, not anything to do with the Calendar round, lords of the night, or year bearer. Inclusion of these adds confusion to the text, which probably could be more clear about 13.0.0.0.0.

2. It looks to me like the author might be the owner of the cited page and this would violate the prohibition against original research. The cited page contains errors which are contrary to the information in the Maya calendar and Long Count pages. For example: 13.0.0.0.0 might occur on 12/21, or12/22, 23 or 24 and that a 13.0.0.0.0 occurs every +/- 5125 years. These are wrong because the GMT correlation is correct and since there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun another 13.0.0.0.0 won't occur until 1.13.0.0.0.0. so this is not a reliable source.

3. Due to the great hoopla surrounding the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax, this article is vandalized several times a day and also edited carelessly. It's always a good idea to discuss changes to the article here before making them. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Senor cuete

Question

As far as I can deduce from this dicussion 22 21 december 2012 will correspond to 13.0.0.0.0 and the following day is 13.0.0.0.1. Am I wright? I must make sure of this to avoid the mistake on the {{Maya stela}} template.Japf (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No. December 21 will be 13.0.0.0.0 and the 22nd will be 13.0.0.0.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.85.176.77 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It was a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japf (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

New External Links - Aztec calendar - Maya calendar - Commercial Sites

The new link added today to the Aztec calendar site is crammed full of advertising. The headings of the pages have as many as three different ads. In the left column Under Adds by Google are three hyperlinked texts. These are linked to a page with lots of stuff for sale. In the upper right of the home and other pages are various ads from Google AdSense. The right side of many of the pages have adds. Wikipedia has a policy against linking to commercial sites. Wikipedia IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL FOR YOUR BUSINESS. For this reason I have removed this site from the external links. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Looking at the external links, I see that http://www.mayan-calendar.org/ should be removed as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I revisted this article page today in search of the chart provided in the external links section entitled "Time Periods of the Maya Calendar System" from the site www.mayan-calendar.org and created by the Unity Corps Research Library, Ethnic Studies (division/dept?). I notice that Senor Cuete has twice removed this link in the past. In reading the Wikipedia external linking policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links, it clearly informs that links to commerical sites "can be" provided and are in many of the articles of this site. No where is it stated that links to commercial site should not ever be added. Rather, what the policy specifically states is, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." As such, this chart reference was re-inserted once again because of the staunch belief that it is a tremendously useful reference which is both "on topic" and "accurate" information, i.e., a simplified breakdown of the Maya time cycles and how the public can easily see why it's leading up to the calendar's completetion date on 12/21/12. Nowhere else in the article is this chart shown. And in fact, it should be. So, if the link to this chart is continually disconnected it should be either directly inserted into the article page itself or the link to the (commercial) site should be taken out. I'm not sure about the policy regarding inclusion of images in the article itself, but I feel this particular chart should be shown especially right now since we're approaching the Long Count's completion date. I've shown this chart to others in the public and it's made it very simple for them to understand this whole subject of discussion.

With regard to the new Manus assertion that the chart doesn't add value. Please read the above so that you can see why I completely disagree. Again, if linking to a commercial site is a problem and "seems promotional", then a deletion of the link to the actual site should be done but not the useful chart listing itself. In either case, I feel it's always useful for people to know the actual sources of things (whether they're commerical or not).

Lastly, the actual page of the chart at http://www.mayan-calendar.org/reference/mayan-calendar-system.html has no commerical links of ads at all. Therefore, there should be no disgruntled feelings about this point at all. User: 66.69.117.14810:59 9 November 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.117.148 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The information in the link is superficial and without context, it does not go beyond what is already in the article or what is already represented better inb other extternal links. The site has no particular authority or reliability regarding this topic, but seems to be a little known NGO with no specialization in ancient Maya culture. There is no reason to add it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hardly superficial. It is what the article is about. It is within context, and does add usefulness by visually simplifying the cycles. With regard to the origin from a little known NGO, that has nothing to do with context of this discussion, i.e. the usefulness of the information being provided. If giving credit to the source is an issue of irritation, then maybe getting rid of the source notation is a solution. But then again, I believe it should stay. Quick simplification of long topics is a tremendously useful thing. 66.69.117.148 (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the reputation and relevance of the NGO is important since that is the only guarantee of the quality of the information. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As the "important date" is getting near I think this page must be protected.Japf (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The page does not "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." First, the information on the page adds nothing that's not already in the article and second it says that there's a 5125 year - 13 bak'tun cycle in the Long Count which is a bunch of crap, specifically and carefully denied by this and the Long Count article (which should be merged with this article). Also it says that there are five places in the Long Count which is wrong, specifically contradicted by the part of the articles about Pictuns and higher orders. Yes this article should be protected because as 13.0.0.0.0 approaches it's suffering from very high levels of vandalism and good faith but inaccurate edits. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

On this page of the site: http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg3.html the paragraph describing the work of Jean Meeus contains astoundingly horrible dis-information about him. He didn't die in 1998. I talked to him quite recently. He would certainly be surprised to find out that he is dead. Shame, shame on the authors of this absolutely horrible pack of lies. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Well Maunus, if you really feel that the "reputation and relevance of the NGO", a criteria based on your personal opinion, is more important than the accuracy and relevance of the information provided, then, I suppose we'll just continue to disagree on this and another new point as well. Whereas some people rely only on what others say, some people actually do like to think for themselves. History is filled with so many examples of authorities and popular public opinion that was completely trusted and then proven to be completely wrong.. and then alternatively, others who weren't readily trusted but then proven to be completely right. To me, the guarantee of the quality of "any" information isn't based on what others are saying but what I think of the information provided for myself. I look to see if what is presented makes any sense to me, and in this case, if it actually calculates to be right.

Senor Cuete, on the above point, I'd like to thank you for shedding some light on why I initially liked the chart, "Time Periods of the Mayan Calendar System" or "Simplified Breakdown of the Mayan Long Count Cycle", published by Unity Corps in 2009, in the first place. During the course of my research on this subject and the importance/relevance/newness of the chart information provided, I looked to see when the external link to the chart was first made to see if there was a note by the editor on the reason for its inclusion. I remembered first seeing the information on this chart about a year ago. So I used the Revision history search feature entering "From year (and earlier): 2011" to "From month (and earlier): December". I noticed a couple of things in doing so. One is that the link was there at least a year ago which confirmed my memory.. and the other is that both you and Dougweller ("sorry, but I don't see why this should be included, agree with Maunus") have been editing this page for at least that length of time. Beyond that I couldn't find any revision history, and especially not the first note. So I thought hard about this and the point of what this chart information does show that the article as it currently exists does not. I then read your disparaging remarks of the chart's information (and an article from a different site?) disclosing that the Long Count is 5125 years. Hmm... That is quite interesting.. as this is a pretty basic and important point. I was actually quite surprised that you were not already aware of this fundamental bit of information about the Maya Long Count being that you are one of the editors of this very article about the Maya calendar for at least a year now. If it has been much longer, I apologize for not knowing. Unlike some others (not saying you), I don't have all day or make a life of being in here on this Wikipedia site looking up all of these things about people's credentials or basic matters of attribution. What matters most is the quality and accuracy of the information being presented. On this, I think we can all agree.

So then, here's the deal. Because you seem to not currently know why this 5,125 year statement is actually true, I'm gonna explain it for you and any of the other editors who also might not know. But before doing so, I would like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you that this article should be merged with the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article. Because in order to understand how the Long Count calendar's length does actually calculate to be 5,125 years, and why inclusion of this information seen in the chart is a good thing, some of the pieces of information provided in the other article should also be known and included in this one. Before anyone wanting to understand how to figure out the length of time in years does so, they will need to use a calculator. So, I suggest that they grab one when they're ready to extrapolate this information unless they're wanting to do this exercise longhand, which would be exceedingly difficult to say the least...

I'm sure your knowledgeable enough already to know that today's date of Wednesday, December 12, 2012 in the Gregorian calendar is commonly interpreted to be 12.19.19.17.9 (GMT correlation) in the Long Count. The reference of these five place marker/cycle notations in the Long Count is also commonly known to be a reference for the number of Baktuns, Katuns, Tuns, Winals and Kins used in the cycle. This is clearly seen in the Wikipedia Long Count article in the "Long Count periods" section. It's explained very well there and very similar to how it's structured in the chart you've edited out. Your two statements that "five places in the Long Count.. is wrong" and that it's "specifically contradicted by the part of the articles about Piktuns and higher orders" are both incorrect. This too is surprising that you would even say this since you yourself referenced the upcoming 13.0.0.0.0 new cycle date. I guess it's necessary to also mention here that this is a reference specifically to just the 5 mentioned "cycles of time" only. The Piktuns, Kalabtun, Kinchiltun, and Alautun are not usually considered when discussing the Long Count calendar because they are not a part of it. The same holds true of the Venus cycle.

Although, the ancient Maya kept track of many cycles of time, some elders say as many 13 which is 3 more than what's being mentioned here, not all of them were included in the Maya "calendar" Long Count, which is in essence the more appropriately named Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. It might be helpful for you or anyone else contemplating this issue to think of it this way. Although we use our current Gregorian calendar consisting of 365 days within 12 months, that doesn't mean that we are speaking of all the cycles of time that our modern 10 based number system and science keeps track of, i.e., a Decade, Century, Millennium, etc.. when discussing this same modern calendar. In the same way, the Maya Long Count calendar, is not all of the "number of cycles" that the Maya kept track of, but rather it is specifically the 13 Baktun periods of time consisting of 144,000 days each. The chart by Unity Corps provided by the www.Mayan-Calendar.org site you took out clearly breaks this down simply by graphically showing how the upcoming date of 13.0.0.0.0 is made up of these 5 cycles of time used in the Long Count calendar. What is not shown on the chart (which should be) and also not mentioned in this article (which should be) is another extremely important point, which I suppose is assumed that most people who are familiar with this topic already know. But certainly, the general public doesn't usually. That is, the Maya didn't use our modern 10 based number system to create their Long Count calendar or measure of any of their cycles of time. They used a 20 based number system. Why is this important to mention? It's important to understand how the day before 12/21/12 or 12/20/12 written as 12.19.19.17.19 is the eve of the new calendar cycle. This point alone is crucial beyond that of merely providing information that a traditional Long Count cycle is approximately 5125 years. So, why are both of these extremely important points not mentioned in the article? One would think that the core foundation of a very different numbering system used for this calendar's creation which is receiving so much notoriety right now, and the actual yearly length of time for its cycle would be considered two of the "most" if not merely more important pieces of information to provide. Likewise, there is a heavy emphasis on the Venus cycle in this article page as there should be in that it was so important to the Maya. But here again, there's no mention of it's actual length(s) in time. This happens to be some examples on why many people are currently saying that Wikipedia itself can not be used as a reliable single source for accurate information. There's too much that is consistently missing. There is also too much misinformation that is consistently staying in place. I'm now starting to get a clear understanding as to the reasons why.

Also, it is most usually universally agreed that the start of the Maya calendar corresponds to August 11, 3114 BCE which is rightly stated at the beginning of the Mesoamerican article. What is also correctly stated is the very first thing mentioned, i.e., that, the Maya Long Count is a "non-repeating" calendar. Now I know there are many people who agree with this, apparently the "consensus" of people editing that Wikipedia article do.. and, there are also some other people who would actually disagree. Most often it's those who believe that the ancient Maya thought the world would end at the completion of the current Long Count/dawn of the 14th Baktun. Of course, this is a highly debatable assumption especially since the modern day descendants of the ancient Maya themselves don't believe this at all. In either case, the Long Count article states that the calendar is non-repeating whereas in this article here on the Maya "calendar", which would actually be better named "Maya calendars" (plural) or "Maya Cycles of Time", there is a major contradiction to this base point. There is also a difference between espousing religious or mythological beliefs and the actual linear measurement of time. In this article's reference to the Piktun that you mention, it states that "December 21, 2012 is simply the day that the calendar will go to the next b'ak'tun, at Long Count 13.0.0.0.0. The date on which the calendar will go to the next piktun (a complete series of 20 b'ak'tuns), at Long Count 1.0.0.0.0.0, will be on January 16, 5167." There are actually two things wrong with this statement. First, to state that the Long Count calendar would have a new count of 1.0.0.0.0.0 in 5167 is stating a premise that the Long Count holds six placements to accommodate the Piktun. It doesn't and for good reason. That would be an abnormally high count to consider for simplicity sake. It's too big of a number that's not necessary to mention. There comes a common point when it's useful to stop mentioning a numerical count, which can go on to infinity. I guess we could also say that today's date is December 11, 2012, of the 1st Epoch since the birth of Christ, or use a place notation for the Holocene Era that adds exactly 10,000 years to the currently world-dominant Anno Domini (AD) or Common Era (CE) system. Thankfully we don't. Anything beyond the mention of a millennium outside of serious scientific research is.. well let's just say not particularly useful. The second thing wrong is another conflicting prognostication assuming that we know how the ancient Maya would be numbering their Long Count after the completion of the 13th Baktun. That too would be incorrect.

A good reference to read more about how the next Long Count cycle might or might not have been numbered by the ancient Maya is located at: http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/MayaMath&WorldAges.html.In this article written by Lloyd B. Anderson of Ecological Linguistics in 2008, he states the following: "The most contentious point of debate seems to be whether the date 13.0.0.0.0 is a point in the future at which the Maya expected anything significant to happen, at which they expected a long count to begin again, or some world cataclysm to occur, either in a physical sense or in a cosmological sense. Considering the first part of this, have we written the dates 14.0.0.0.0 and those that follow it correctly above as the Maya would have? Or would they have written 1.0.0.0.1 for that same date, because a count had begun again after 13.0.0.0.0 (or a new count had begun, however we should think of it)? Unfortunately, we simply don't know."

To the point, one can't state an agreement with the premises of the Long Count article, i.e., that it's non-repeating, that it consists of the 5 general subdivisions listed in the article, and that it turns over at a reference date of 13.0.0.0.0 using a 5 place notation ending at the Baktun.. and then discuss accomodating a 6 positional count to accomodate Piktun or even more. To be consistent and non-contradictory, you can't have it both ways. Also, to delete a very useful graphical reference showing exactly this same type of information about how the Long Count is broken down while also arguing the need to merge this type of information provided in the other article shows another contradiction. And.. I am also wondering why you would let this apparently wrong information (to you) stay on page for at least a year if you truly knew it was "wrong" as opposed to being merely against it because it was from a commercial site as you've reasoned numerous times before? It would have been better for you to stick to the commercial site argument, even though to me this still means nothing and isn't a valid reason even referencing the Wikipedia external linking policy itself. It's seems your new objection is now a bit of a bait and switch tactic to attempt a discrediting of the information provided on the chart by now disparaging the creators of it and the site that is showing it, namely Angel Tenes and Xcano Media at www.mayan-calendar.org.

Regarding this new page that you brought up on a totally different site located at http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg3.html, which comes from the "TALE OF AN END WORLD PREDICTOR & MAYAN CALENDAR DOOMSDAY PROPHECY" written by Angel Tenes (not authors) and starting at http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg1.html, there are a few things about this modern day "tale"/story you should know. For one, it obviously isn't written about Jean Meeus, the Belgian astronomer, nor about anyone else who is currently living. As it clearly states on the first page of this tale, it's about an "end of the world predictor" who lived at the "end of the last millennium" and was of "Anglo Saxon Celtic ancestry" which is not even nearly Belgian. But, I'm glad that you did mention the link to this fictional story anyways. While I don't feel that fictional tales are an appropriate source to use for referencing in articles such as this one, this story does happen to be an extremely well written piece that does illustrate a lot of the reasons why so many people currently believe that the ancient Maya predicted an end to the world based on many of the modern publications that have been put out. It also shows why Wikipedia is being heavily criticized by so many right now. Too many of you regular editors don't know how to accurately read and interpret materials, and then as a result of this, you are very quick to wrongfully disparage the soundness and reputation of others because of your own personal lacks in understanding. So you know, I was already aware of this story. In fact, many are including one of the most universally respected organizations on this whole subject, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). It's on their website that I first found it. If you go to their "List of Links to Articles About 2012" located at http://www.famsi.org/research/vanstone/2012/2012articles.html, you'll see that in their listing of only 25 links provided, they reference both the Mayan-Calendar.org site and this other WorldEnd.org story at their 2nd and 3rd spots. With the exception of a few mentions, such as UT Austin professor David Stuart's personal blog, and these two article pages written by Angel Tenes, all of the other links provided are to national news reporting agencies or very prominent institutions of higher learning. Noticeably absent is a link to this very Wikipedia article that we’re now discussing. Can you wonder why this might be?

Ya know, my response here to you, Maunus, and Dougweller for opposing the allowance of a very useful chart reference has gone much much longer than what I anticipated it would or should. I guess I just felt it's important to spend some time explaining why Wikipedia itself is not usually perceived as an authority on "many" if any subjects at all. Like I stated before, there is too much that is often missing, not able to be provided because of what appears to a constantly lurking group of self-appointed public information police.. who act as if a clumped group that's ready to quickly stamp out the contributions and reputations of many others merely because they're not constantly on this site editing away like how many of you longtime regular editors do. It's unfortunate that so many of the Wikipedia editors don't really even full understanding the topics that they're editing. It is actually hurting the public good because of the popularity of this site. Another constant problem, is that a lot of misinformation on topics is allowed to stay in these articles. This is done with the rational that because they come from a traditionally printed book or some other form of national publication, they must be credible. That too is incorrect because not everything that is published is true. I could go on and on.. but I won't. Just like the Long Count, at some point you just need to stop. Besides, I really don't have this much time to be writing away in here like what I'm doing now. My God, this simple little rebuttal might even be longer now than the actual article itself. I guess this is what happens when writing about a topic like this that's so timely as this one now.

Okay, so finally, here it goes. The way to figure out the accuracy of the statement that the Long Count is 5,125 years is as follows:

Using your calculator, if we understand that 1 Baktun cycle is 144,000 days, and we know that 1 tropical (solar year) is 365.24 days (rounded off), then we are able to calculate the numbers of years that exist in 13 Baktuns or one complete Long Count calendar cycle. Because 365.24 days is one year, if we now divide the length of 1 Baktun or 144,000 days by the length of 1 year we then get 394.26 years for every 1 Baktun, i.e. (144,000/365.24=394.26). Now the last step which isn't show in either of these two Wikipedia articles mentioned, is to multiple the 394.26 years of 1 Baktun count by 13 times. In doing so, you will arrive at the calculation of 5,125.38, i.e. (394.26x13=5,125.38) or rounded off to 5,125 years. A second way of calculating this same result is to take the 144,000 days of a single Baktun cycle and multiply it by 13. In doing this, you will arrive at 1,872,000 days in a full 13 Baktun Long Count cycle, i.e. (144,000x13=1,872,000). So then now, if you take 1,872,000 days of 13 Baktuns or 1 Long Count cycle and then divide this number by 1 solar year or 365.24 days, you will arrive at the new number of 5,125.39 years or still rounded off as 5,125 years. The difference of the initially result of 5,125.38 using the first method and the other result of 5,125.39 using the second method is the difference between using our complete understanding of the exact full length of a true solar year and the abbreviated number of 365.24 days. That is, as of 1/1/2000 the mean solar year was measured to be 365.242 189 7 or 5 hours and 48 minutes and 45.19. This number changes with latitude and time. Like the extra number of place notations in the Long Count, it's not necessary or desired to calculate further for a precision in the number of minutes, and seconds of a day, If you have a hard time understanding the way I've explained it here, then you may wish to solicit the help of Jean Meeus who you apparently know to help explain it better than what I've done here. As you can see, I'm hardly the kind of person who knows how to keep things short. I'll say it again. Simplifying complicated topics is better than making then more complicated than they need to be. This is the reason that that link to the initial chart given was a good thing.

I'm posting a new external link to another very good article, "The Long Count Mayan Calendar System", by Keith M. Hunter author of "The Lost Age of High Knowledge" 2011, located at: http://www.ancient-world-mysteries.com/long-count.html. If you take the time to read it fully, the whole article that is, the book is also excellent and recommended too, you will understand more about the Maya Long Count and its 5,125 year cycle. Hopefully, you will allow this new link to remain. It doesn't have any ads on this page. However, the site does provide a link to the author's own book. But, this shouldn't be a reason to remove it. If it is removed, this will be once again another unequivocally example to the public about why Wikipedia is not a good source for information. Unfortunately, it is the quality of the editors who control over what's kept in the articles - when they truly don't have a complete understanding of the topics that they are editing. You have proven this by calling the 5,125 Long Count cycle "a bunch of crap". It's unfortunate you did that. This is an example of how you Senor Cuete are one of the problems to the confusion that's happening on this very important topic being discussed today. If you take the time to fully read the materials before you delete them, you'll understand the topics you're editing much better. You and many of the other editors in Wikipedia are continually proving daily you constantly don't do this. Too much is being deleted out. Other stuff that shouldn't be staying is kept but causing confusion. Too many editors in Wikipedia are attempting to act as an expert when they are not. This is the reason why it's not a good thing to have too many people trying to use too many sheers on one sheep at the same time. They will get in each others way making things more difficult and messy than needing to be. Things written from the perspective of one person and one point of view are less confusing. Whether their viewpoints are right or wrong, they're still usually not contradictory.

One last note. In this excellent article by Keith Hunter that I'm adding now, you will see that he speaks of the calendar resetting at 0.0.0.0.0. This is an example of how an author can take a premise that the calendar cycle is repeating. This is also an example of how that an article on the Maya calendar can take a position that's conforming to some reported ancient mythology and it's assertion that the ancient Maya thought the world ends on a new cycle - or that it doesn't, which is conforming to the idea that it continues in a never ending progression starting from 3114 BCE. To make the article here in Wikipedia more informative for the public, this type of issue should be discussed in the article itself. If you read the very first posting on this topic by 213.122.68.176(talk) at 11:34, 15 November 2002, it states that "This cycle is 1,872,000 days in length and terminates on Winter Solstice (December 21) 2012 AD". This is true. The determinant of whether a future count is recorded as 14.0.0.0.0 or repeats at 0.0.0.0.0 again is a matter of future human society.. and how well it will fully appreciate and understand the wisdom presented by the ancient Maya. User: 66.69.117.14810:59 12 December 2012

Removed Hunter's personal website - I see he had to self-publish his book. You can always ask at WP:ELN if editors there think the link should be here. Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Jean Meeus is surprised to find out that he's dead. He didn't know that. If there was any evidence for a 5125 year cycle it would be in the article. All distance inscriptions and long reckonings use 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. Examples of this are in the Long Count article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Piktuns_and_higher_orders. Exactly zero inscriptions mention a 13 bak'tun cycle. When you find one it can be in the article. December 12, 2012 is actually 12.19.19.17.11, not 12.19.19.17.9 using the GMT correlation. To convert 12/12/2012 to 12.19.19.17.9 you would have to use the Thompson correlation 584285 days. The only place where you can find the 5125 year cycle is in the context of the 2012 Mayan Doomsday hoax. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Doug: Thanks for removing Hunter's site. It contains obvious factual errors such as the Long Count starting on 0.0.0.0.0. All inscriptions use ...13.0.0.0.0. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Since you keep commenting back on this, apparently Wikipedia is also forum.

Your continual assertion that the doomsday tale at http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg3.html states Jean Meeus is dead is more than just wrong. It is intentionally misleading and misguided. What the story specifically says is: "Using these precise calculations made by Meeus, it was realized by our end world predictor that.." You may wish to be more careful about misrepresenting facts, especially regarding the living, i.e., both author and astronomer.

Your statement that "zero inscriptions mention a 13 bak'tun cycle" is incorrect. Regarding the 13 Baktun cycle, another merge to this article should also be done with the Wikipedia article on "Tortuguero (Maya site)" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_6 which does mention the Tortuguero Monument 6 explaining that it's "the only known inscription depicting the end of the current 13-Bak'tun era in 2012." Not only is it the only known inscription mentioning an end to the 13th Baktun. It's also the only using 13.0.0.0.0 (aka Dec. 21, 2012).

Other sources beyond Wikipedia's inner sanctum of brevity which are also highly regarded and do reference the 5,125 year 13 Baktun Long Count cycle are:

Dr. John Carlson, director of the Center for Archaeoastronomy, who is quoted in NASA's website that, "According to Maya theology, the world was created 5125 years ago, on a date modern people would write 'August 11, 3114 BC.' At the time, the Maya calendar looked like this: 13.0.0.0.0." Read article at http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/14dec_yesterday/

Tim Padgett of Time Magazine who writes in the article called, "Not So Apocalypto: What the Mayan Calendar Tells Us About Latin America in 2012" that "from the academic to the apocalyptic, because 2012 – specifically the winter solstice on Dec. 21 – marks what many scholars believe is the end of a 5,125-year creation cycle on the Mayan calendar." Read article at http://world.time.com/2012/01/04/not-so-apocalypto-what-the-mayan-calendar-tells-us-about-latin-america-in-2012/

John Roach for the National Geographic who writes in the article called, "End of World in 2012? Maya "Doomsday" Calendar Explained" that "It's true that the so-called long-count calendar — which spans roughly 5,125 years starting in 3114 B.C.— reaches the end of a cycle on December 21, 2012." Read article at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111220-end-of-world-2012-maya-calendar-explained-ancient-science/

Mayan-Calendar.com also makes an important observation that states, "It's important to point out that this is just one possible scenario for how the Long Count functions and flows. There are other scholars who believe that the count would not reset to 0.0.0.0.1, but rather continue with 13 as the bak'tuns, being 13.0.0.0.1, and then 13.0.0.0.2, and so on up until the 14th bak'tuns, being represented as 1.0.0.0.0. Lloyd Anderson has presented this scenario on his website at www.traditionalhighcultures.com/MayaMath&WorldAges.html. Since we have no texts presenting dates within the first bak'tun's range of 400 tuns, this particular question remains an academic debate."

Regarding December 12, 2012 being written as 12.19.19.17.9 instead of 12.19.19.17.11, in all honesty, this didn't have anything to do with the Thompson Correlation (although that's a funny coincidence w/the 2 days lol). As previously mentioned, I don't have a lot of time to be writing on these Wikipedia article issues. The long rebuttal seen above was initially started two days earlier than posted. When I did the spell check for words, proper nouns, and dates it didn't pick up on the 5 positions of the Maya Long Count. It's funny how our current software has a hard time with these modern transcriptions/interpretations of ancient dates. Thank you for the mention nonetheless.. ;) User: 66.69.117.14810:59 15 December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.117.148 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM#FORUM Senor Cuete (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

New additions from Dev94

Some parts could be used, but the mention to the vague year is wrong. The first vague calendar known to the european scholars was the egyptian calendar. This calendar had exactly 365 days with no leap year rules, and was called vague because was not as precise as the Julian or the Gregorian calendars, since it accumulates an error of 1 day in each 4 years. The Haab calendar is a vague calendar for the very same reason, and no other else.Japf (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Lock this article

please Senor Cuete (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Edit request on 18 December 2012

Hello, somebody can add this section?

=== The sound of Tzolkin ===
[[File:TZOLKIN - The Sacred Mayan Calendar.ogg|thumb|TZOLKIN - The Sacred Mayan Calendar]]
In 1995, Maria von Boisse translated the mathematical matrix of the Tzolkin to musical notes and set to sound in this. The final version of the work was developed in collaboration with [[Hubert Bognermayr]] in the ''electronic Försterhaus'' in Linz<ref>[http://randmusik.de/tolteca/ TZOLKIN - The Sacred Mayan Calendar]</ref>.

Ninxit (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Vacation^nine 14:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Why? What is the problem? One justification would be nice. --Ninxit (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nixit also asked me why I deleted this edit on my talk page. I replied: Because the goal of myself and the other editors is to write an accurate, encyclopedic article, supported by definitive references. The file you added is not consistent with that goal. Due to the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax, the maya calendar related articles are constantly being blasted with new-age spiritualistic interpretations of the Maya calendars that are inaccurate, unreferenced and detract from the goal. For new-age modern interpretations of the Maya calendars you could edit the 2012 phenomenon article.

Also because this of this constant stream of valdalism and un-helpful edits (and generally on Wikipedia) It's a good idea to discus your proposed edits here first so editors can tell you why they disagree, rather than making edits that will be reverted. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The sound is not a tribute to the hoax, it is just the translation of the Tzolkin in music as a long an hard scientific work together with an pioneer of the electronic music art. Pictures of the Tzolkin are allowed and the sound not? Thats not logically. --Ninxit (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you understand the Tzolkin while you are listening to that sound? Japf (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you understand the Tzolkin while you see the associated glyphs? --Ninxit (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

YES Senor Cuete (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The glyphs were created by the Maya not some new-age techno music guy. It's going to be very painful to be an editor of this article until after 12/21. Maybe the thing to do is to let all the new-agers run amok and then revert the article to some stable version like the one that was up a few days ago. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

OK, forget it. Maybe you are a bit paranoid? We let it be, that's probably healthier. Good luck. --Ninxit (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Solar Years

In the Table of Long Count units an edition war is starting. Some defend that a solar year is 365 days, and others defend that is 365.26 days. They are all wrong! A solar day is 365.2422 days. Please discuss here before amking changes in the text.Japf (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the article to which the IP editor linked, the length of the tropical year is 365.24219647 days citing Meeus. It appears that the editor didn't even read the article to which he linked. The table has the right values now. The table says "approximate" solar years so the values calculated out to a large number of decimal places makes the table worse. If the editor gets it right and adds the math to do this as a calculation it will have the same values as it has now so why bother. The editor could experiment with templates, etc. in a sandbox.

IP editor - I see that this is your first attempt to edit Wikipedia. A few suggestions: Register as an editor. This gives you a talk page, etc. Discuss changes on an article's talk page before editing. This is particularly important in this article. Editors are always defending this article against disinformation related to the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax. If someone reverts your edit discuss it on the article's talk pages instead of starting an edit war. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Also I forgot, IP editor: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Can you cite a reliable source that claims that the length of the tropical year is 365.26 days? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Reverted again. IP editor: You comment that the solar year is not 365 days. How do you know that the table was calculated using 365 days? Are you telepathic? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I calculated what was being use for this (I don`t need the rude/uncivil accusation of telepathy),
and it works out to 364.999, which is useless. Anyone who knows anything about calenders recognizes 365.26 days.
Someone else who knows something about math should take a look and fix it
because when I tried to do so my efforts were attacked. 24.79.38.15 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't derive what was used to create this table by analyzing it because the "approximate solar years" are rounded, mostly to integers. If "Anyone who knows anything about calenders[sic] recognizes 365.26 days" then why can't you cite any reliable or even unreliable source that says so? Everybody that knows anything about calendars knows that the length of the Julian year is 365.25 days. The length of the Gregorian year is 365.2425 days and the length of the tropical year is 365.24219647 days. I linked these so you can read them. You cite the wikilinked article about the tropical year as a source for your assertion that there are 365.26 days in the tropical year. PLEASE PLEASE READ IT because it says that there are +/- 365.2422 days in the tropical year and that's what was probably used to calculate the values in the table. If you use 365.2422 days and come up with some different answer than what's in the table, report it here and it can be fixed but don't edit the table based on unwarranted assumptions and a bogus constant. When someone shows that you are wrong and cites the sources for this fact you should admit your mistake. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I checked the figures for the number of days in the tropical year with my calculator and it looks to me like the number for Kalabtun, K'incliltun and Alautun are incorrect. Japf or some one, please check this. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I did it again and I come up with 157,703.57, 3,154,071.46 and 6,308,142.92 using 365.24219647 for the length of the tropical year. Can someone else confirm this? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think your calculations are correct. In order to avoid further misunderstandings I think it's better to use part of the IP suggestions by using the template {{round}}. What do you think about removing all the decimal places?Japf (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Table of Long Count units

Days	Long Count period	Long Count unit	Approximate Solar Years
1		1 K'in
20	20 K'in	1 Winal
360	18 Winal	1 Tun	1
7,200	20 Tun	1 K'atun	20
144,000	20 K'atun	1 B'ak'tun	394
2,880,000	20 B'ak'tun	1 Piktun	7,885
57,600,000	20 Piktun	1 Kalabtun	157,704
1,152,000,000	20 Kalabtun	1 K'inchiltun	3,154,071
23,040,000,000	20 K'inchiltun	1 Alautun	63,081,429

Your version of the table is correct. It uses the correct value for the length of the tropical year and editors can see this. Rounding all of the approximate tropical year values to zero makes sense to me. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Ok!Japf (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Senor Cuete (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Mustn't be the last number 63,081,429.86401201 years = 63,081,430 years? I was calculating with 365.24219647 d for solar year? And i can confirm the other numbers for correct... Oh, and it would be nice to see some coma for an better view  ;-) 79.245.80.112 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes on the rounding and yes, many countries such as the USA use the commas. Since the commas are used in the days column I see no reason not to include them in the years column. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Since the years column is created by scripting you would have to figure out how to fix the error in the round macro and format the results with commas. It's possible that the round macro is making an error because of rounding with large floating point numbers. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar

I think that the new image "Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is awful, adds nothing to the article, is redundant and should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Also it's original research. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Which baktun is it?

This article states, within the Long Count section, that "December 21, 2012 is simply the day that the calendar will go to the next b'ak'tun, at Long Count 13.0.0.0.0." However, the Baktun article states "[t]he current (13th) baktun will end, or be completed, on 13.0.0.0.0 on the Solstice (December 21, 2012 using the GMT correlation). This also marks the beginning of the 14th baktun, as such a term is usually used among Mayanists."

Am I misinterpreting what's written, or is one article 1 baktun off from the other? Ometecuhtli2001 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You are mis-interpreting. 13.0.0.0.0 is the first day of the 14th bak'tun. Maya dates were counted from 0. So 13.0.0.0.0 is the seating of the 14th bakt'un. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Request from Hookjaw

Hello everyone, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, happy 13th 14th B'ak'tun. And it is good to know the earth did not blow up yesterday.
6 years ago, I've made a full translation of this article to the Chinese language Wikipedia, and fortunately, it was promoted to GA. But now, the article is seriously outdated, and I'll update it in next few days. However, after I revisited the English article, there are several issues hinder me from making progress, this table of Haab' months is one of them. Some of the glyph meaning in the table is somewhat obscure in my opinion. "Turtle" and "owl" are fine, but as for "black conjunction", "red conjunction", ,and "black storm" etc. I can't figure out their exact meaning. Since there is not much resource in Chinese available, many of the English text and terms don't have their equivalent translation in Chinese, so it is important to make an precise translation. (Actually I have made some original translations, such as "long count' " to "長計曆", and it was somewhat wide-spread that I feel guilty after I found that it was already translated differently in some books.)
I have looked up some of these month names in the resources like Kettunen and Helmke (2010 revised edition) and http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18973 as mentioned above, but they didn't help much. As I looked up "Muwan'" in Kettunen and Helmke, it gave the following explanation: "possibly "sparrowhawk" or "screech-owl" but in most cases appears to refer to a supernatural bird of prey", and I'm satisfied with the result, but when I looked up "Yax" and its Classic Maya equivalent "Yaxsihom", then I got "yax: (1) blue-green, (2) clear, clean,(3) first" and "sihom: type of unspecified flower that comes in shades of white, red, yellow and blue-green". Could the meaning of Yax be "blue-green flower" instead of "green storm"?
And I have tried "Googling" these terms "dog, owl, red conjunction....." altogether, the best result i can find was this web site: http://www.energy-healing-info.com/mayan-astrology-signs.html, it seems like a mayanism website, which is not a reliable source in my opinion, and it doesn't list any further sources.
Due to my limited knowledge to both Maya civilization and English, I can't find the useful resource concerning this topic. Would you please to help me out with the actual meaning and explanation of the glyphs? Or at least show me some reliable sources so I can study them myself. Thank you! hookjaw (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The text above was lost in the middle of two-year-old discussions.Japf (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger

I think it is very good.Recommended articles merger.For example: Haab 'and the Tzolk'in--114.33.149.225 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Supplementary source

Source little--Herbtea (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Professor Robert Chalken?

There's a note on this article with this quote from a Professor Robert Chalken supposedly from a USA Today article. This quote is nowhere to be found in that USA today article, nor can I find any information online about this supposed "expert." A Google Search yields only lots of that one quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.2.247 (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

USA Today is as about as un-reliable as a source can get. That text could go. Given the current Blizzard of vandalism and un-helpful edits due to the 2012 doomsday hoax, you might want to wait a few days before editing the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Done. (This is the same user as before, I decided to create an account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heysickah (talk • contribs) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)