Talk:2012 phenomenon

Archives
1 2

Check this out

This "doomsday website" is actually a viral campaign for the 2012 movie. How low can you go? Serendi^podous 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm wholly disgusted right now. _{<font-c=D2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!} 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes you wonder what they're getting out of it, doesn't it? Perhaps it's just the satisfaction of frightening the horses. But if it's money, they're going to have to spend it pretty quick! ;) --PL (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've just twigged that it's all a deliberate fiction. The whole thing is just a publicity stunt. Look at the picture on the 'About' page! Trouble is, some people will take it seriously... --PL (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Every page has "Sony Pictures Digital Inc" in the bottom left hand corner in small type so its movie hype. The intention is to cause a mass hysteria similar to the Orson wells alien invasion of 1938.Lumos3 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the case of Orson Welles occurred to me, too. As in that case, it's all presented as if it were perfectly serious. The giveaway here, though, is the pic of the European Union's HQ on the 'about' page as if it were theirs (!!), plus the over-certain assertions of their 'scientists' (= stooges?). It puts the History Channel to shame, who at least have the decency to insinuate (however sneakily), rather than baldly state. I've a feeling that Wikipedia has a duty to protect the facts here. --PL (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PS If you look further at their 'about' page, you'll see that not one of their 'experts' seems to have any independent academic history or qualifications -- but all the staff except one naturally have 'doctorates'! OK, so the so-called IHC seems to have its own website, but I suspect that, apart from that, it exists only in the imaginations of Sony's publicity department. --PL (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jenkins in Critical Summary

According to the critical summary: "John Major Jenkins's 'Galactic alignment' theory is based not only on a misleading astronomical claim, but in part on the same false calendrical premise." It might also be worthwhile to state that it's based on the bogus pseudoscience of astrology. When various heavenly bodies reach conjunction, opposition etc. what happens? Absolutely nothing. Even if there was a galactic alignment it would mean nothing. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You're welcome to try, but I suspect that somebody will protest that you're raising an objection which then itself will need validating. Jenkinsites might claim that the 'galactic alignment' was indeed believed in by the Maya (although it wasn't) simply because they believed in astrology (whether or not it's valid). Might 'a misleading astronomical claim' not already cover it, without the need for further justification and consequent 'legal' complications? --PL (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

December 23 to December 21

I've removed some text that referred to December 21 as opposed to December 23, because it was causing some confusion as per Jenkins's galactic alignment theory. But it is important to note the shift from Coe's December 23 date to December 21; the article in its original form made the claim that Jenkins's theory was the spur for that. But is it true? Serendi^podous 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No. As far as Mayanist scholarship is concerned, Jenkins has had zero input or influence over the identification of these dates, or any choice between these dates. Along with most of his other fellow speculators, Jenkins simply takes the output—ie, the correlation btw Long Count and western calendars—from actual academic research as the jumping-off point for their own musings.

The correlation between the Long Count and western calendar systems has been nailed down pretty much since 1927, when Thompson updated an earlier correlation proposal, published by Goodman in 1905 and modified 1926 by Martinez. This correlation has reigned supreme ever since, with earlier alternative proposals falling by the wayside and the couple of half-way decent challenges appearing afterwards failing to gain much traction or attention, if at all.

About the only room for respectable disagreement has been which day out of a 'family' of up to five days in succession the correlation specifically aligns to. Goodman's original correlation would place the baktun-cycle "end-date" at 18 December 2012; Martinez' a day later at 19 December; in 1937 Beyer reprised a variant that would put it at 22 December (at one point Thompson thought this plausible also). Thompson's original proposal would've equated to 23 December, but by 1935 he'd revised it to a correlation implying 'end-date' of 21 December. This second proposal of Thompson's (aka the GMT-correlation with JDN = 584283) has had majority acceptance and popularity ever since, particularly after his landmark 1950 publication, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. It was mostly after 1982 when Lounsbury (re-)advocated the JDN=584285 correlation that interest in 23 December was revived, most notably in Schele's subsequent & popular writings. In modern terms, only 21 Dec and 23 Dec get a look-in these days. Coe for eg pretty much adopts Lounsbury's interpretation (at least in his later editions, not sure what he said in the original 1966 edn). But many/most scholars would probably still adhere to the GMT (584283) version. However, the writings of Jenkins, Vollemaere etc play no part in how Mayanist scholarship arrived at or decided between these correlation dates.

In practice, most Mayanist researchers are usually not particularly concerned with deciding whether 21 Dec or 23 Dec is the 'true' correlation of the Long Count/Baktun cycle completion date. For the most part, it is not important whether some event recorded in the inscriptions (such as a rulership accession) took place on a Monday or a Wednesday. What's important is to know in what period the event occurred, and the GMT 'family' of correlations does this with an accuracy that is readily sufficient. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made some slight adjustments as per your comments, but it would be nice to get some of that cited information into the article, perhaps in its own "date" section. :-) Serendi^podous 08:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Np. Sure, reliable refs for the above could readily be sourced. But this article is prob not the place to go into that much detail about how the Long Count correlation has been worked out. What this article does probably need, however, is a para or two at the start giving a succinct and accurate explanation of what is known about the LC calendar and what this so-called 'end date' represents, from the standpoint of (actual) Mayanist scholarship. This shld provide the context/background, from which all of the speculative material mentioned here departs. Been meaning to get around to supplying something like it for a while, as well as rename/repurpose the article as suggested earlier....maybe will see if something can be attempted in the next week or so. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving this down in prep for an archive. It still needs to be resolved. Serendi^podous 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mabey the mayans were tired

Why would the mayans want to make a huge calender, mabey they just stopped because they got bored or ran out of ink Venomclaw (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)