Talk:2012 phenomenon

Unfocused article

This article is a grab-bag of speculation related to doomsday scenarios, most of which are not related to 2012. I would suggest that the title of the article be changed, somehow removing the reference to "2012", or that this article split into the 2012-related doomsday scenarios and the "we're all going to die in the coming decades" types of doomsdays. Madman (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

>>>I agree, there is not much basis for a lot of the information on this page, and not much of it actually relates to the 2012 idea. A lot is missing, including such things as Izaak Newton's hypothesis (see:http://thinkingshift.wordpress.com/category/isaac-newton) that the common era would end in 2012, and the same belief by modern astrology (although I have been told that they believe that the long count should end on Feb 5 2011--No source for this as yet). Definitely needs a review.

Lemphek. Offbeatdnb (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

It sounds like the article needs a little clarification, but you two are trying to swat a fly with a Cruise Missile. All the components in the piece reflect the information you'll find in the History Channel coverage of 2012, numerous 2012 websites, and the more popular books written on the subject. It's the convergence of separate lines of thought that drives the phenomenon, so each of these areas requires a brief elucidation. Only a few fringe folks actually think something big will happen on the date 12/21/2012. I'll look into Isaac Newton, but have not yet seen this presented elsewhere. HRIN (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't predict Doomsday in 2012, it doesn't belong. Scientific concerns not focussing on 2012 don't belong in the article. dougweller (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Doug.

A potential Yellowstone eruption and the Global Warming apocalypse are not tied to 2012 in the least. So, either the title of the article needs to change or the non-2012 scientific apolcalyptic scenarios need to be removed. Madman (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if sources could be found which demonstrate that these items are frequently (and notably) used by proponents of the doomsday predictions, they could be briefly mentioned, although in a different context. ClovisPt (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment, not feedback

It's evident that Madman and Dougweller are ill-informed about the topic while at the same time working Wikipedia channels to undermine the free flow of information to other users. This is not constructive criticism. Yesterday, an administrator informed me that my "See also" and Redirect links have been removed, per another user's request. This user expressed his conviction that the article didn't belong on Wikipedia at all. Today, I'm now being accused of not providing full explanations in the "Edit Summary" box whenever I edit lines in the article for clarity and style. I guess we know what some of the Bush Administration science advisors are doing now. HRIN (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please don't attack other editors. I reminded you about edit summaries because Wikipedia very much expects editors to use them, why is that a problem for you? Madman and I are likely to be better informed about the topic than you are in fact, you simply don't know.

You are doing a pretty good job, but it looks as though you need to learn more about working collaboratively. You also should read WP:CITE#HOW and possibly some linked articles to learn how to put citations in footnotes. From what I've heard about some Bush administration science advisors, I would wonder if they even have the capability of editing Wikipedia, and anyone can edit Wikipedia. dougweller (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maya Calendar DOESN'T END in 2012

It would be worthwhile to add a short, well written section describing the fact that the Long Count doesn't end in 2012, not even a Pictun and that there's no evidence of any Maya prophesy to the effect that the current creation ends in 2012. Also links to these facts as mentioned in the Maya Calendar and Long Count articles should be added. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The user above may be right, I found this article online, its appears to be from a well respected, though spiritual, and legitimate website, [1], the well crafted sites homepage, featuring the scholar is this, [2]. The site seems to make a good point, and it would be important to list the alternative date corresponding to the [Mayan Calender Doomsday prediction], which I think this article should be called. So anyways, does anyone think this is good enough to be included in the article?--Amerana (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a real scholar, this guy is just a variation of the Doomsday stuff. I'll go ask one where we can find a source. dougweller (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Amerana but Callemans is NOT a scholar of the Maya calendar. He's one of the complete lunatics that have come up with the hoax about the end of the world in 2012. He's not an authority on the calendar and instead of actually studying it he has invented his own pseudo-mayan interpretation of it. His Maya calendar conversions are completely wrong. Just because someone has a web site doesn't mean anything. Callemans, Jose Arguelles and Terence McKenna are the nut jobs that came of with the completely bogus 2012 Mayan doomsday prophesy which doesn't exist at all in any mayan texts, inscriptions or in Mayan folklore. You should read about these guys in Wikipedia before you blindly believe their complete BS. Also read the wiki articles about the Maya calendar and the Long Count. These completely discount any existence of any supposed end of the world date in the Maya calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Sorry I forgot to mention the forth stooge, John Major Jenkins, and his crap theory of a galactic alignment on 13.0.0.0.0 Senor Cuete (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Senor Cuete, if you know about the Mayan Calender this much, could you please tell me the correct date of the end of the Mayan Calender, I know it does not end, but the end of the 4th age. I heard that their might be no way to find the correct day because times change, thus the baktuns keep going, please enlighten me. So if you know the correct end time and why it is not 2012, please tell me. Thank you very much.--Amerana (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no inscriptions, codices, books or any other sources that give the date of the end of the current creation. One thing is certain, if 13.0.0.0.0 were it, there would be inscriptions describing this. Surprisingly, there are only two known inscriptions with this date. "No man shall know the day." - God. "It's always hard to make predictions, especially about the future." - Yogi Berra. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Well okay, FOR example: but don't you think if historians managed to translate the baktuns to for example one year, then the mayan say the world will be flooded from the creation 3114 BC to 2000 baktuns from that date, and guess what 2000 baktuns when translated is 1114 BC as the end of the world, so I know they give no date on the inscription, but when translated to the times we understand it becomes 2012, am I wrong, just a question. Thank for your future answer.--Amerana (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the wiki articles carefully about the Maya calendar and particularly about the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. If you want to know the source of the hoax about the 2012 doomsday prediction, read the articles about Mayanism and Jose Arguelles. There aren't any articles about Carl Johan Calleman or John Major Jenkins, but there is an article about Jenkins' book, Galactic Alignment (book). The article about the book says "...contains references to the Holy Grail, the fall of Troy, Venus, the Sphinx, Greek Sacred Geography, Atlantis, and over 200 obscure items of pseudohistory and cryptoarchaeology." Does this sound scientific to you? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Changes

Hi to any editors watching this page. It appears that this article needs to undergo some significant changes. Currently, the majority of the article is unrelated to the claims of impending doom in the year 2012. This includes most of the content in the sections Historical context and Evidence of past doomsdays and a far bit of material from other sections. Additionally, a decent amount of the information is factually flawed, such as "Because the Long Count calendar begins with the birth of the Maya's Zapotec and Olmec ancestors on August 13, 3114 B.C..." Typically, August 13, 3114 is not given as the starting date of the Zapotec or Olmec cultures. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to turn this into an accurate, concise, and generally encyclopedic article without substantial editing, including the removal of a decent chunk of text. Thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and begin this process - discussion is always welcome, and everyone should feel free to revert my edits, providing they have a good reason. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work. So far as I'm concerned, the article should focus on what the title says it is about, not general catastrophic stuff. dougweller (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have recently found a problem with the dates, Julian calender would be August 13, 3113 BC and Georgian calender would be August 13, 3114 BC right? Yet in the article(s) that have to do with Mesoamerican calenders, some say Julian is 3113 BC and others say 3114 BC, that means there are multiple articles on Wikipedia that contradict themselves, has anyone caught this, because if Georgian is 3113 BC, the end would be in 2011!

Another reason this article should be called Mesoamerican Long Count calender Doomsday prediction (or something like that), because all the other doomsday prophecies cite the modern times, but don't give a date, either change the title, or take out ALL other stuff that does not cite 2012. I personally believe we should keep the non-2012 stuff for important info to know about, and change the title, because even 2012 people have given different dates!

Now back to the issue in the previous paragraph, I know the correct date is 2012, but my main concern is that I don't know if 3113 BC or 3114 BC applies to the Julian calender. Is the Julian calender off by one year more(3114) or one year less(3113). Which date is Right for the Julian calender? Plus, after we find out, we have to go into at least 3 or 4 articles that contradict themselves and put in the correct date. I discovered this (smiles). Thanks.--Amerana (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda did read all the articles, I just got tript in 3113 thing, thanks for clearing it up. I never intending to make any changes, I said only if there was a problem. But I still think the should be changed a little, Mayan 2012 Doomsday prediction, or Long Count calender Doomsday prediction. I don't know, but totally up to you guys if you want to change it, its just a suggestion from my part. If you don't want to respond to this you don't have, anways thanks for clearing it up. Bye.--Amerana (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What articles have 3113 Julian? The ones I can find all say 3114 Julian and Gregorian, which is correct. dougweller (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Amerana wrote:"I have recently found a problem with the dates, Julian calender would be August 13, 3113 BC and Georgian calender would be August 13, 3114 BC right?" WRONG!. In 46 B.C. Julius Caesar adopted the convention of having three years of twelve months of approximately 30 days each to make a year of 365 days and a leap year of 366 days. This made the length of the civil year 365.25 days, close to the length of the solar year of 365.2422 days. This is the Julian calendar. In spite of this by 1582 there was an appreciable discrepancy between the winter solstice and Christmas and the spring equinox and Easter. Pope Gregory XIII, with the help of Italian astronomer Luigi Lillo, reformed this system by abolishing the days October 5th through October 14th, 1582. This brought the civil and tropical years back into line. He also missed three days every four centuries by decreeing that centuries are only leap years if they are evenly divisible by 400 so for example 1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years but 1600 and 2000 are. This is the Gregorian calendar. Dates before 46 B.C. are converted to the Julian calendar. This is called the proleptic Julian calendar. Astronomical calculations will return a year zero and years before that are negative numbers. This is astronomical dating. There is no year zero in historical dating. The year 1 B.C. (or B.C.E.) is followed by the year 1 so for example the year -3113 (astronomical dating) is the same as 3114 B.C. (historical dating). Long count 13(0).0.0.0.0 is equivalent to Monday, September 6th, -3113 in the Julian calendar and astronomical dating. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read the articles I suggested above, their talk pages and the articles about the proleptic Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar before editing this article. It's always a good idea to read about the subject before editing. You can get programs to do Maya calendar conversions. I have a Mac so I use this one: http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/25773/chac. This program's help file has a good explanation of the Maya calendar and the calculations needed to do conversions. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Article title & scope suggestion

Given that a fair few of the more notable (if still misguided) speculations concerning 2012 are not really apocalyptic in nature, but rather suggest some kind of cosmic or new dawning shift in consciousness — perhaps the scope and title of this article ought to be altered slightly so that the 2012 speculative phenomenon as a whole can be addressed. For eg, I don't think that folks mentioned here like Jenkins and Arguelles are contemplating that something catastrophically doomsday-like will come to pass; quite the reverse, in a few cases.

How about, a rename and refocus to something like 2012 millenarianism? I think that would be at the same time a broader and more accurate description for the grab-bag of speculative 2012 writings and claims now floating in the public arena. Thus the suggestions of the coming of a new era variously touted as benign, elevating, or even more of the same, by a few prominent writers—can be dealt with alongside those others telling impending doom. Thoughts? --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

An excellent idea. dougweller (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comes across as a sensible suggestion. ClovisPt (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific forecasts

The section entitled "Scientific forecasts" lacks sources establishing a connection with any claims made about disasters in the year 2012. As such, it appears to constitute original research, and I believe it should be removed rather than left as it is. What are the thoughts of other editors on this matter? ClovisPt (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If it isn't directly related to 2012 via a source relating it, it shouldn't be there as it is original research. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually came to this conclusion independently after reading the article and came here to complain. --Saforrest (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the whole section. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work. dougweller (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like OR at this point, but it might be possible to find sources linking it to the article's topic, or to find alternative article space for the material. In case either of these possibilities becomes apparent, for the sake of convenience, here is a link to the removed text as it appeared just before removal. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Deadly" Methane gas?

I'm not going to touch the question of how appropriate much of the information is on this page. I just want to say that it's reference to the release of "deadly" methane gas needs work. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, much more than carbon dioxide, but it's not toxic to humans at all. This is misleading, and I'm changing it. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm

What is a claimed end date? I know what you are trying to say, but the word "claimed" has a number of meanings [3] which really do not fit into this phrase. And by "end date" I believe you might mean "end-date", or finality, or termination, expiration, total collapse, the ultimate conclusion,...and so on and so forth. So when I read the claimed end date I am a bit confused. Perhaps there would be a much better way of stating the entire sentence. I think it needs to be rewritten. Also...first impression: the primary picture (plus caption) really does not do justice to the 2012 Doomsday Prediction. An image of either the Mayan calender, or the internet CenSEARCHip would be more appropos. (p.s. I know CenSEARCHip is probably not what I really want, but I can not remember the name of that internet search engine which is crawling every single byte of information every milisecond of this moment looking for the final solution to everything before December 21st, 2012.) I think it might be called Rod Sterling by the disbelievers. JiggleJog (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel-wordy blanket statement

I've replaced "academic archaeologists reject all theories regarding extraterrestrial contact" with "many academic archaeologists have been skeptical of all theories regarding extraterrestrial contact". The former is an unsourced, blanket statement that uses "academic archeologists" in a weasel-wordy sense, firstly because it is an unsourced generalization, but also because it is fairly meaningless without more clarity. In order for scholars, acting as scholars rather than as ordinary skeptics or as ordinary humans with ordinary preconceptions, to reject a theory, they need to have subjected that theory to some sort of scholarly (e.g., scientific or textual) scrutiny. The statement provided no citations pointing to such scrutiny, and therefore made no substantive differentiation between "academic archaeologists" and "skeptics on the street". Attrubuting the view to "academic archaeologists" might make the statement seem more credible, but what is really needed is an attribution to academic archaeology, i.e., to scholarly methods rather than to people who may or may not be relying on their scholarly backgrounds in order to form an opinion. My wording carries no implication that anyone supports anything, and simply reflects the caution indicated by WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:AWW. Anyone is of course welcome to provide references, but the WP:BURDEN of proof is on those making a given claim; they should not simply revert to a wording that presumes the existence of such references. I don't deny or even doubt that such references exist (although I still doubt the appropriateness of the blanket wording, because I know that some scholars always deviate from the mainstream), but I'm not the one advocating for the stronger version of the claim. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Doomsday really 2012.

In recent studies shown in universities that the world isn't going to end in 2012. In the Mayan calender it shows that yes 2012 is the last year and December 23, is the last day and month it will stop. The research collected shows that Dec. 23, 2012 isn't the real specific date. They have found that a cycle in life will happen in 2012 but not December actually November 23,2012. A lot of people proclaim that 2012 is the time the world might end and we all will be doomed. But reading and seeing research nothing really dramatical will happen. Just earth quakes might occur but just a new cycle might just happen. We might have a new cycle of life changing involvements such as the world might go green things like that or our world might go into chaos and we will all be at war. So you can take it how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.90.54.103 (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the Mayan calendar doesn't have 2012 as the end of the world, and even if it did, so bloody what? As for a "real" Doomsday (i.e., the end of the world) humans will either have become extinct or moved to a distant solar system by then. There was an earthquake today in Italy, there are earthquakes every year (really every day) and there's no reason to assume that on November or December 2, 2012 anything will be any different. B the way, the world hasn't had a year without a war since who knows when. As for suddenly going green, don't think so. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Codswallop, balderdash, BS. Read the wikipedia article about the Long count. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Suffice it to say that it certainly doesn't end in 2012, but literally trillions of trillions of years in the future! --PL (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Longer, actually, much longer, long after the universe itself has gone *poof* •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tortogurero Monument 6

This is a link to an attempt to translate the defaced Tortoguero Monument 6; the only Mayan inscription that mentions the 2012 date. It's by an accredited Mayan scholar, David Stuart, but unfortunately it could be better sourced. But it might provide a jumping off point for better sourcing. Serendi^podous 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. However, unless it refers to the end of the current world in that year -- and it doesn't seem to (!!) -- it is relevant to the relatively respectable 2012, not this article! --PL (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might go into the criticism section, or into the main section on the Mayan prophecy, since it obviously is a prophecy, whatever it may be saying. Serendi^podous 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a point. --PL (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of Fiction list

What on earth is the point of preventing readers of this article from seeing a list of fiction based on the ideas expressed in this article? --PL (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because the alleged fact is fiction? Seriously, I don't know. It should be here, rather than in the 2012 article. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be in the main article, or a common subarticle? I see there's no 2000#2000 in fiction, which would be the only comperable situation I don't know why; perhaps we weren't include #In fiction sections when that article was primarily constructed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it makes for an article cluttered with nonsense is best represented by a link to this article. The article now looks like absolute scheiss. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I merely suggest that, if there's going to be a list of fiction about 2012 Doomsday prediction at all, then here is where it belongs, not in the other article, whose reputation it can only damage. If it is to have a fiction list, on the other hand, it shouldn't be about 2012 Doomsday prediction. But then, I agree, it does seem pretty silly to have fiction lists attached to either, so I think I would support Arthur's suggestion to relegate the whole shoot to a separate article, or even to just ditch the lot (split infinitive!). Any volunteers? --PL (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers? Are you nuts.  ;) Seriously, a separate article would be good and shouldn't violate WP:FORK.

Incomplete reference

I restored the #References section to recover a full reference to a book which is incompletely referenced from a number of REF tags. The others may be relevant, but I should leave that to content experts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

it would not do you might never know ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.118.204 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 

Source Document for 2012

The oldest book written in the Americas is commonly referred to as the Dresden Codex. It is the main source of what is now known about the Maya Calendar. Due to its intense cryptic astrological nature, its message has eluded scholars, untrained in astrology, since it was first written about late in the 1880's. It is THE source document for 2012, although almost no one knows how to read or decode it. There is one exception, galactic astrologer Raymond Mardyks. For more info: http://www.geocities.com/heartystar/2012 and http://www.geocities.com/heartystar. If you wish to keep Wiki and its reader ignorant and stupid about 2012, please edit this away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.136.226 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)