Talk:2012 phenomenon

/archive 1

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)

History channel

After my latest bout of reordering, I suddenly wondered, is the History Channel material really all that relevant? Does it really matter so much what one cable network thinks about the end of the world? I mean maybe yes it should be mentioned, but surely it doesn't deserve three or four of its own paragraphs? It could easily be reduced to one.Serendi^podous 14:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at condensing it. Let me know if it was a step too far. Serendi^podous 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's more than it deserves probably. The History Channel seems to have found pseudohistory, aliens, etc. more profitable than history. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, but unfortunately it's not just a US cable channel, but a world-wide terrestrial, satellite and video platform that has had huge influence on people's perception of this particular question. Its treatment therefore needs to be similarly prominent -- unlike the 'Planet X' diversion which, however newsworthy, has nothing whatever to do with 2012 (or at least it didn't until one or two website alarmists got hold of it and twisted it unmercifully for their own purposes), or the 'Timewave' idiocy, which is supported by no research other than the speculations of its authors. --PL (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you accept, as I assume you do, that there is not going to be an apocalypse in 2012, and that the Maya themselves didn't believe that there was going to be an apocalypse in 2012, then you can't state authoritatively that any one 2012 theory is any "better" or "closer to reality" than any other. They're all crazy. The problem with the History Channel is that you can't have a section under "Theories" called "History Channel". The History Channel itself has nothing to do with these theories; they were around before it got ahold of them. Better instead to simply track down the various theories advocated by the channel and list them, individually, in the theories section. Besides, most of the theories advocated by the History Channel have nothing to do with 2012 either, so I don't know why you see them as more worthy of inclusion than any others. Serendi^podous 15:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. They're all crazy. But if a theory (a) doesn't even refer to 2012 or (b) doesn't have any independent research support, it shouldn't be presented here as deserving of serious academic consideration anyway. Which means, in effect, that it shouldn't be presented here at all -- which is why I've removed a couple of them. Unfortunately, one or two of the other theories mentioned by you in your edit summary do fit one or other of these criteria, and so should be left. I agree that that you can't have a section under "Theories" called "History Channel": it should be under 'Dissemination' -- which is where it is. As for the History Channel programmes listed having nothing to do with 2012, I suggest you look at the footnote-list. I should know -- I was (alas) their official researcher on two of those occasions (they completely ignored my advice, of course, so anxious were they to push the doom button)... --PL (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins is not an accredited academic. He's an amateur Mayanist and onetime computer programmer. No one in genuine academic Mayan studies takes his ideas remotely seriously, so if Nibiru or Timewave Zero don't belong here, then neither does he. Same goes for the Orion Prophecy. As far as I can gather, that doesn't even have anything to do with the Maya; it's mostly based on (crackpot) interpretations of ancient Egyptian monuments. From a credibility standpoint, it actually has less reason to be here than Timewave, which is and always has been linked to 2012 and, while it may be utterly insane, at least doesn't fall back on inane Atlantean cliches that were stale when Edgar Cayce was still blathering. And whatever your opinions on the relative crackpottiness of the Nibiru idea (and I assure you, I share them), most people who are panicking about 2012 will either be panicking about Nibiru or some misheard version of the galactic alignment involving black holes. So it's a good thing that the Galactic alignment is debunked here, and Nibiru should be too. At least a portion should remain to direct people to the main article. And as far as the History Channel goes, I have read the retroactively composed "prophecies" of St Malachy, the Book of Revelation, the prophecies of Merlin and the Hopi, as well as the quatrains of Nostradamus, and I assure you, none of them mention the year 2012.Serendi^podous 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right on this last point (though I rather doubt whether you have actually read the quatrains of Nostradamus, any more than most people have!), so I have amended the statement accordingly. I have also removed the reviews of three isolated and statistically unrepresentative books, which belong elsewhere (probably not in Wikipedia) and look rather like bookspam to me, as also the Planet X theory, which doesn't even mention 2012, even though it may have been subsequently co-opted by one or two 2012-ists for their own purposes. You may think that denying the theory will do some good, but actually it merely publicises it. By all means remove John Major Jenkins as well if, as you suggest, he shouldn't be there either — though the 'galactic alignment' idea is rather more widely discussed in this case. I have, though, duly inserted brief references to the pages featuring the books I have removed (they have their own criticism sections) – which is about all they deserve. --PL (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, if we get rid of Jenkins, then what's left? Do we just get rid of all of them? If not, then which ones do we keep? How do we determine how "important" one interpretation is over another? The number of hits on Google? This article has to be about something, I'm just not entirely sure what it is at the moment. Serendi^podous 08:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the claims and ideas that are best known, as reflected in the most widespread media outlets and not merely in one or two maverick books or on odd, isolated websites -- i.e. mainly the History Channel. On these criteria I doubt whether Jenkins qualifies. --PL (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How do we determine which are the most widely disseminated? It's impossible to gauge the relative importance of ideas that spend most of their time on the web, because mass awareness can be generated through one obscure website. As far as I can tell, there are three main "themes" for the end of the world or somesuch in 2012: the "galactic alignment", with its crackpot corollary, the "black hole alignment"; Nibiru, and the solar maximum. Terrence McKenna's Timewave zero also gets a lookin. But these interpretations are mostly intuitive. I don't think there's a way we could objectively measure the impact of any of them. Serendi^podous 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have read the quatrains of Nostradamus, in a number of different translations. Should I have read them in early modern French? Because my knowledge of that tongue is somewhat limited. Serendi^podous 08:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. The translations are almost universally awful, having been done by people who, by and large, don't know the language themselves. And, of course, all except one are in prose instead of verse, which immediately falsifies them stylistically. However, the fact that you have looked at a number of different translations is at least encouraging, because it may mean that you have noticed areas of uncertainty -- unless, of course, the ones you have looked at are all based on each other, as so often happens. --PL (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation methodology

Before much more reorganisational and expansionary revision is done on this article, would anyone object if the article's citation methodology were to be wholly converted to follow the WP:CITESHORT practice? At present there's a bit of a mix, it's hard to tell at a glance what refs are being used, what kind of sources etc; and cramming the full reference in some citation template embedded in the body of the text btw ref tags makes for an eye-squinting view in the editing pane.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Still not clear on this new format myself. Took me ages to learn the old one. Serendi^podous 09:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the same format that is used in Magnetosphere of Jupiter. Ruslik (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

All I really mean is, instead of incorporating the full details of a cited reference work as an inline cite in-between ref tags, that the inline cite be abbreviated (eg: <ref>Smith 2003, p.123</ref> ). These display as normal in a "Notes" section via {reflist}. The full expanded details of the reference work cited is then given once only in the "References" section, bibliography-style. One (or more) inline cites then correspond to some given entry in the References section. The editing pane is then far less crowded with citation details, and having an ordered biblio at the end makes it much easier to survey at a glance what works have so far been consulted/used— among other benefits. It is simpler to maintain, particularly when there's a need, as at present, to shift about and reorder large chunks of text and their embedded cites. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fact vs. Theory

I think a lot of the reason this article feels so 'muddled' is the lack of a clear distinction between known fact and speculation. For example, the "Mesoamerican Long Count" section includes a few of the new-age theories relating to aliens, which I feel establishes an early bias. Given that this page is a lot of theories, and is a part of WikiProject Mesoamerica, it only seems fair to give more focus to the known facts about the Mayan calendar. As it stands, the general lack of a consistent, fact-based, objective view makes the page look like a bunch of conspiracy theorists, New Agers, etc. are fighting over this page in an attempt to convince people that their beliefs are the only true ones. -A concerned citizen, 12:02, 20 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.126.44 (talk)

I've done a quick tidyup to keep the Maya and New Age material separate. Serendi^podous 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't actually about doomsday anymore

It's a rather odd reflection of the current state of this article that neither of the examples listed is actually about the end of the world. Where are the actual doomsday prophecies? Serendi^podous 09:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On the History Channel! --PL (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't help. The only actual doomsday scenario I can find linked to 2012, other than vague comments about war, plagues and earthquakes, is Nibiru. Serendi^podous 09:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

History Channel: 2012, End of Days (2006)? Maya Doomsday (2007)? The Last Days on Earth (2008)? Nostradamus 2012 (2008)? 2012: The End of Time? (Why do some people believe the world might end in 2012?)? 2012: The Sun (Could violent solar activity, predicted by some of 2012, end life on Earth?)? --PL (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The History Channel is probably doing more to reflect an existing anxiety than it is to create it. Most of the 2012 doomsday panic is being spread on the web, I think. Serendi^podous 09:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. But the History Channel is a world-wide multimedia platform which, I suspect, reaches far more people than just websurfers (who, among other things, are surfing... The History Channel!)! --PL (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Great Sage of A&E Television Networks, tell me, aside from dredging up prophecies recycled from Y2K, what exactly does the History Channel say about 2012? Serendi^podous 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

More or less as per the sillier parts of this article, I believe. You saw their own summaries of a couple of them above (see their Armageddon site). Basically 'Is 2012 going to be the End of the World'? Of course, they aren't saying it: they're merely co-opting various credulous, ignorant nutters and obsessive, 'esoteric' doom-mongers to say it for them, on the supposed basis of the Mayan calendar and anything else they can dredge up. That's how they work. You know the sort of thing: 'Is it true that Obama is an agent of international Communism?...'. Even if nobody ever suggested it, the idea is then 'on the table'. Then they bring in one or two tame academics, quote them selectively, make them seem to say the opposite of what they believe (they've done that to me), and before you know where you are we're all doomed, and it's the academics' fault. And Joe Public, assuming that the History Channel is supposed to be factual, believes it. It's a disgrace. Can't speak for the Great Sage of A&E Television Networks, though... --PL (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the rib. All meant in fun.:-) What I'm really trying to figure out here is what is this article about? Is it just about the Maya 2012 date? If so we don't really need anything other than the first section. Or is it about the phenomenon of 2012 doomsday hysteria? If it is the latter, then we need to decide what is the most notable form of this hysteria. We both appear to have differing perspectives on this. With your personal history with the History Channel, you seem to think the History Channel is primarily to blame. I, having come at this from the perspective of the Nibiru collision panic, see the 500,000 or so websites mentioning "Nibiru" and "2012" as the most notable form of the phenomenon. It would be nice, though probably impossible, to find some way to gauge which form of the apocalypse is causing the most anxiety among the public at large. Serendi^podous 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just?! I think it has to be about the general hysteria, but with the accent on the Maya thing. In other words, more or less as it is. But then how are you supposed to write an article about a nonsense? :( --PL (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Timewave zero

That article is a mess and most of its material is either uncited or brazenly opinionated. It has already been nominated for deletion twice, and probably would be best served to be trimmed down to its barest essentials and merged with this one. Serendi^podous 12:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Or just removed altogether? Its inclusion here would merely muddy the water, which is already quite murky enough!--PL (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I happen to know it was covered in at least one History Channel documentary... Serendi^podous 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since 2012 is a significant date to many people, the article should certainly not be deleted or merged with much more abstract articles.77.162.130.139 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This article may be a mess, but that is no reason to merge or delete. We don't delete based on the state of an article, we delete based on notability and proven facts. Timewave Zero is abstract and doesn't go into the detail that this article does. it just needs some work.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The article needs general clean-up, but there's no reason to delete it. This is indeed a notable article, since 2012 is a big thing for both believers and skeptics. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's not going to be deleted or merged, then what is going to happen to it? Because it can't exist as it is; it is in blatant violation of about fifteen different Wikipedia rules. It is effectively someone's personal promotional essay on Timewave, not an encyclopedia article on timewave. Since I know nothing about Timewave, I don't think I can redraft it. But someone has to. Serendi^podous 15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can try, but I'll definitely require assistance. Any volunteers? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do whatever I can, but most of my help would be stylistic and rules-based. The November 2008 deletion discussion refers to a number of outside sources which could be employed. Serendi^podous 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic help would be really good, especially since I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. And I'll need any help I can get. Do you have any idea where I could start improvements (as in specific parts of the article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Panic! (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I forgot to sign my post...Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the most troubling section is "Criticisms", which is basically one editor bashing critics of timewave without citing any outside sources. Serendi^podous 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find any references to cite in that section. Thanks again for helping! (: Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Use that as long as you are making improvements.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I still think Timewave zero would best work as part of this article. With the unsourced "Software history" section taken out, it would easily fit into a subsection, and, as it is is a major theme in the 2012 doomsday prediction, it should be alongside the galactic alignment or new age ideas. Serendi^podous 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Timewave Zero doesn't really work near as well on its own. Since this article and Timewave Zero go together so well and are linked, they should be merged. Plus, there doesn't seem to be a need for "Software History", although there are a few sourceds there. But that doesn't really mean that everyone will listen to us, right? (: Chocolate Panic! (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is,

(a) it would make the article more complex than it needs to be, and

(b) by multiplying its aspects, will tend to suggest that the whole concept is worthy of serious academic consideration -- or that Timewave Zero is -- when (to judge by the rest of the article) it clearly isn't.

If Timewave Zero can't stand on its own two feet, even when leaning on this one, then perhaps it should just be allowed to collapse? Ergo, kick the stick away?--PL (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been nominated for deletion twice and survived. It's not going anywhere. Simply leaving it to rot leads to what I just dealt with yesterday; cadres of true believers tailoring it to their own cockeyed agenda. All of the article's "information" can be preserved if properly condensed. Believe me, condensing this material will not be that difficult.Serendi^podous 09:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed more unnecessary sections, and were it to be included in this article I could easily reduce it by another 30% or so without losing anything. I promise, it will work, and this way there'll be more people to keep an eye on it. Serendi^podous 10:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Provided that it's removed entirely to here, on your head be it! ;) But are the two articles really worth spending all this time and energy on? --PL (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm just interested in symmetry. Bit like you and that Shipton sentence maybe. Serendi^podous 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. But at least that was about a fact! Meanwhile, IMO the new insertion is far too long, diffuse, complex, and largely irrelevant to 2012, and makes the Timewave theory seem far more important than 2001 theory itself. --PL (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on reducing it. Serendi^podous 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Timewave now has fewer words than Galactic alignment. Duly unimportant-ised. Serendi^podous 17:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh, you are always working on this when I'm sleeping! So, how much more do you think we have to do yet? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Give it a fresh read through and see if it makes the remotest bit of sense. If it does, then we're done. If it doesn't, square one. :-) Serendi^podous 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me. But I noticed that nowhere in this article does it mention the polar shift theory, which is the one I hear about the most. Should I add something? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Would this pole shift have anything to do with Nibiru? Serendi^podous 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

...Oops. It does to a degree, but what I hear and read about more often has to do with solar flares and the Earth's magnetic field. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"End of the world" section

It might be a good idea to gather together the various apocalypses (solar flares, Nibiru etc) into a section about apocalypse. Serendi^podous 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In a section in this article? (Sorry for the obvious question; I'm exhausted from three hours of dance, and my brain is fried.) Chocolate Panic! (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Serendi^podous 07:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I'll see what I can do. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedantry regarding 'Mother Shipton' statement

1. WP:ALLEGED discourages using ‘however’ to represent alternative referenced views, not to dismiss basic misapprehensions as here. It is the equivalent of the perfectly normal conjunction 'but'. Do read the regs less slavishly and with a little more understanding.

2. WP:PSTS recommends referring to published reliable secondary sources . This is exactly what the statement does. Both are published, and their reliability can be checked simply by referring to the original text (supplied).

3. WP:SYN bans advancing information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. The statement does nothing of the kind, since both sources say the same thing, and therefore there is no infringement, whether of letter or of spirit.

Even policemen are expected to apply the law appropriately and with common sense. Try it sometime? --PL (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Yes, "WP:ALLEGED discourages using ‘however’ to represent alternative referenced views", and that is exactly what your version does. There is the History Channel's view, and there is a contrasting view put forth by critical and editorial scholars. Your version implies that the latter diminishes the value of the former, or that the former should at least be viewed in light of the latter, which is precisely what WP:ALLEGED is getting at by saying, "These words can imply that one alternative is less favored than another." That guideline encourages "situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change", as would be the case in a statement like, "Day is bright; however, night is dark." The brightness of day is not, by any stretch of the imagination, being favored over the darkness of night. What you're advocating is more along the lines of, "Day is bright; however, blind people think that this characterization oversimplifies." Here it is implied that the former assertion should be qualified by the latter, which brings me to 2) Yes, "WP:PSTS recommends referring to published reliable secondary sources", and yes, your version does that...for each of the sources, but not for the sources taken together as a statement regarding Mother Shipton's relevance to 2012 or about the History Channel's efforts to connect the two, given that you do not provide secondary sources to demonstrate that such connections have been explicitly made. In fact, your wording suggests that the History Channel is challenged by the primary work of Mother Shipton, rather than by those who have edited or analyzed this work, and you have repeatedly reverted my good-Samaritan attributions to your secondary sources. 3) Yes, you're reading WP:SYN correctly, as well, but you're applying it, too, in error. This History Channel says one thing and two other sources say another thing. It may be reasonable to say, "The History Channel says X. Two other sources say Y", but it is not acceptable to say, in effect, "The History Channel says X, however Y is really true" unless there is a source that looks at X and Y together and reaches this conclusion on its own, in which case the X-Y synthesis could be attributed. Your version contains the History Channel reference about 2012, followed by two rererences that mention neither the History Channel nor 2012, and all of this is phrased in such a manner as to lead us to the implicit, unsourced third (or fourth, if you wish) position that the History Channel is wrong, or at best that pre-Mayanism editions and critiques of Mother Shipton have a refutational capacity in light of the History Channel's considerably later television programming. If the History Channel is, indeed, in error, and if the view that it is in error is in fact notable enough to mention, then this view should be easy to verify--and to verify in a manner amenable to clear, explicit paraphrasing that does not have to depend upon rhetorical gimmicks such as the dubious use of "however". To sum everything up, what we are trying to convey is not that "facts" are "relevant", or even that facts are factual, but rather that assertions are verifiable, because as WP:V famously begins, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I hope that this is "common sense" enough. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The history channel is by no stretch of the imagination an 'expert' being a cable television network, and as such is no more reliable than NickToons or Turner Classic Movies would be. Sorry, but find a better source. 155.188.183.6 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Then the wording can be amended accordingly, as per my slightly revised version. The article states the facts, and they are fully referenced, as required by Wikipedia. (You don't accept, then, that the view put forth by critical and editorial scholars diminishes the value of the History Channel's claims? You don't think that, if a source makes allegations that are patently untrue, as anybody can check for themselves, the truth of the matter shouldn't be stated by contrast -- or does that risk offending 'impartiality'? So if somebody writes: 'The suggestion has been made that the moon is made of green cheese,' we can't even write: 'However, most scholars have concluded that...?' Do me a favour!)

2. The History Channel's claims make specific claims about the connection, as witness the titles listed. There is thus no need to 'provide secondary sources to demonstrate that such connections have been explicitly made', since the History Channel makes them itself, as the final references indeed record.

3. The text does not 'suggest that the History Channel is challenged by the primary work of Mother Shipton, rather than by those who have edited or analyzed this work' (even though it clearly is): the first of the two references is explicitly to the book Mother Shipton's Prophecies (Mann, 1989), which is a book about them which, like the other reference, analyses them (even though it also includes their original texts, as it should).

Perhaps you should study what the text actually says (including the footnotes) a little more closely, and resist your apparent temptation to pick legalistic holes just for the sake of it? After all, you yourself were posting the wording you are complaining about only four days ago. --PL (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Latte here P. Unless Harrison's book mentions both Mother Shipton's work and the History Channel documentary, you're creating an unpublished synthesis. Serendi^podous 15:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't -- but the History Channel documentary does (see final annotation). So it's a published synthesis.--PL (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, P, what is happening here is that you're creating a syllogism.

Statement A: The History Channel says Mother Shipton predicted the end of the world.

Statement B: Various sources, cited below, show that she did not.

Statement C: Therefore, the History Channel is wrong.

Problem is, according to Wiki rules on synthesis, you're going to need a source to back up statement C (basically, it needs to say something like, "Therefore, so and so says that the History Channel is wrong"), otherwise you're using sources to challenge facts presented in another source, which is investigative essay writing, not encyclpedic reporting. After all, you can never be absolutely sure that your sources aren't wrong and the History Channel isn't right.Serendi^podous 16:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

All this is making my brain hurt -- quite unnecessarily, I suspect.

The History Channel itself actually features in its 2012 'Documentary' the 1989 book and the original 1641 edition that it contains (take a look at it!), admits that there is no evidence that Mother Shipton ever predicted anything else, but nevertheless then goes on to suggest that she predicted doom for 2012. So basically it's the History Channel that's admitting that the History Channel is wrong! Hence the footnote's suggestion that the reader compare what the History Channel says with the source that it itself features. What else do I have to do - stand on my head? Is there some sort of self-generated rule-based conspiracy to prevent obvious and undeniable facts being presented in Wikipedia? Is the Wikiwood strangling itself with its own trees? --PL (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to remove the sentence. I know, it seems self-evident, but it's not your job as an editor to pass judgement on your own sources. Your job is to report, not to prescribe. If you can find another source which discredits the History Channel documentary then it can go in, but it's not your job to do so for the reader. Serendi^podous 09:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is discrediting anything (and even Cosmic Latte doesn't seem to be complaining any more). The History Channel is discrediting itself. However, if you think the words 'In fact' are too judgmental (!!) (even though they can also mean 'Moreover...'), it's up to you to remove them. That's what editing is about. On your own head be it, though! But there is absolutely no reason to remove the properly referenced and sourced fact about the 1641 edition itself (though you could insert a paragraph break before it if you think the juxtaposition would be altogether too controversial for sensitive Wikireaders!). If readers subsequently find the contradiction worrying, that's because it is. They are simply going to have to deal with it!--PL (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK; I can live with that. Yes, I know this sort of thing may seem ludicrous, but it is a qualitative rather than a quantitative issue. It's not how much you do it, it's whether you do it at all. Serendi^podous 09:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. OK, I just have. --PL (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I stopped "complaining" because Serendipodous got the point and framed it even better than I did, so I saw no need to overstate my case. But I should point out something else, namely that the History Channel is being used as a primary source here because it is cited as evidence about its own activities (i.e., about its role in the dissemination of ideas) and not as evidence in favour of the ideas it puts forth (in which case it would actually be a tertiary source). (If my point is unclear, then see here or ask me to elaborate.) This is an acceptable use of primary material, but you're reading too much into it if you want the article to demonstrate that the material "contradicts itself", which is where not only the spirit but the definite letter of WP:PSTS comes into play when it says, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Basically, just keep in mind that the section is about how 2012 doomsday ideas have been disseminated, not about the validity of what is being said. If you're intent on bringing Mother Shipton into this, I see two plausible approaches: 1) something along the lines of, "Source X criticized the History Channel for spreading fears based on misinterpreted evidence about, for example, Mother Shipton's Prophecies, which have been noted by scholars for over a century not to contain any end-of-world predictions"; or 2) something like, "The History Channel has played Role A in disseminating 2012 doomsday ideas. Source Y has played Role B. Mother Shipton has played Role C [a proper wording of 'Role C' can mention the History Channel, but probably should mention more than just that]. Role C is controversial because..." If you can't find a source to demonstrate why Role C is controversial, then perhaps you could get away with broadening Role C to include Mother Shipton's role in spreading general apocalyptic fears as opposed to fears about 2012 specifically. In that case--as long as you've gotten away from trying to over-analyze the History Channel, which you could do by introducing the section with a passage about general doomsday-fear-dissemination--your main challenge would be to maintain summary style. You see, I'm not trying to prevent the inclusion of "relevant facts", but I don't want the encyclopedia to forget its role as a timeless compendium of knowledge and try to become an anxiolytic for the latest cohort of alarmists. Or, as another user eloquently put it, "I really don't think people are going to start thinking wikipedia endorses [a topic] as rock hard science just because the article doesn't say 'pseudoscience! pseudoscience! pseudoscience!' every second paragraph." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change

Ive never read anything about Schele theorizing that 13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 lay in the future. Though it may be true that she did(I didnt check your references)... most sources i have come across say that this is a distance number that counts BACKWARD in time from 3114 BC. In the 'Mesoamerican Long Count' section, you might want to say 'Schele and Freidel believe this date lies some blah, blah, blah in the future.' Yourliver (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

She did say that, but I've never heard anything about it being counted backward. I might add it... (by the way, they theorize that it lays 5 quintillion times the age of the universe in the future)Chocolate Panic! (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the article presently mis-states what Schele & Freidel are noting about that Coba inscription, the one that has 19 higher-order cycles above the baktun, all of which (incl. the baktun) are set at 13. On that inscription (and the several others which also write 13's in baktun and higher-order places) this LC date is just a fancy way of writing the mythical creation date, or LC 'starting point' if you prefer, 11 (or 13) August, 3114 BCE. Or put another way, the LC date of mythical creation has 13's written in the baktun and every higher-order place, notionally extensible upwards as far as you like. The very big number in years that Schele & Freidel give is supposed to be how long it would take for the highest-order place in that Coba inscription to click over from 13 to 1 (with every smaller cycle down to the baktun needing to click over first and progress from 1 to 19. Like an odometer). --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Schele & Freidel, p. 430: 'With this information, we can project how long it will take to convert the highest thirteen in the Coba date to one -- 41,314,050,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tropical years.' Note the future tense, based on the datum of 3114 BC. So that's what they say, then, as reported in the article, whose job isn't to criticise the research but to report it. --PL (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure enough, but the article is misreporting what S&F say in that quote. The Coba Stela 1 LC 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 the Maya 'year zero' in 3114 BC. It is a longer expression of the creation date, otherwise written as 13.0.0.0.0. It is a date in the past and not, as the article says, one that "lies some 41,341,049,999,999,999,999,999,994,879 years in the future". The 41,314... number in their quote above is S&F's calc for the approx number of years, starting from that creation date in 3114 BC, it will take before the "highest thirteen" in Coba's expression of the creation date [which I've underlined in the LC notation above] clicks over from a coefficient of 13, to a coefficient of 1. That's what they mean by 'converting highest thirteen to one'. Does that explanation clarify? --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But it doesn't correspond to what S. & F. say. True enough, 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0

is the Maya 'year zero' in 3114 BC. 'These thirteens', they say, 'are the starting points of a huge odometer of time.' They then trace its progress through the Olmec (fifth 400-year cycle), the earliest written dates (seventh cycle) and Classic history (eighth and ninth cycles) to the 'eighth calendar round of the great king Pacal's accession', eight days after the end of the future pictun on October 15, 4772. 'With this information,' they continue (as quoted above) 'we can project how long it will take to convert the highest thirteen in the Coba date to one -- 41,314,050,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tropical years' (my italics: note the future-tense 'will take' and the word 'project', which can only refer to the future).

Yes, the date mentioned is the starting date, as you say -- but it's also (inevitably) the starting date of the next cycle. Therefore the article is correct -- though I have tweaked it slightly to reflect your point. --PL (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the alternate expression of the 2012 date would be 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0, not 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0. Serendi^podous 11:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, depending on how fully you write out the number. In full it's:

0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0. And the next day will be:

0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.1... and so on. --PL (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lost Book of Nostradamus

I've moved the following from the dissemination section to here: "(actually the much older ''[[Vaticinia de Summis Pontificibus]]''),<ref>Gruber, Dr. E. R., advice to the History Channel's producers, July 2007, republished in the Nostradamus Research Group October 2007, on the basis of a copy in his possession</ref>". Gruber looks like a reliable source with a connection to the History Channel, but our current phrasing is unclear about what that connection is or about how this connection makes the "actual" nature of the "Lost Book" worth mentioning here or worth framing as a counterpoint to what we say about the History Channel. In other words, there may be a wording that doesn't run into problems with WP:EDITORIAL, WP:PSTS, or WP:SYN--but the current wording is not quite there. What did Gruber say, why did he say it, and--most importantly--how does Gruber contribute to knowledge about the History Channel as idea-disseminator (knowledge that would belong in this article), rather than to knowledge about the Lost Book/Vaticinia Nostradami/Vaticinia de Summis Pontificibus/whatever on its own (knowledge that belongs in Vaticinia Nostradami, which is already linked in this article for the inquiring reader's convenience)? Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, since you wish to know, here's the full text of his communication dated 16/10/2007, as an expert on this and related subjects clearly acknowledged as such by the History Channel itself (the following could be removed once seen), taken from the archives of the Nostradamus Research Group:

I was contacted by Betty Buckley before the production of the film and had a chance to view the images of the so-called "Lost Book of Nostradamus" on a password-secured website. Just to let you and our colleagues at NostradamusRG know, here is my statement to Betty from July this year. After that I never got a reply, not even an acknowledgement of the receipt of my email - not even after repeated contacting them. It was obviously not what they wanted to read and it seems they had evidently long made up their mind about the thrust of their production.

Best, Elmar

Dear Betty,

Here is my stance on the Vaticinia Michaelis Nostradami and what I could say about them.

It is difficult to ascertain the correct date when the manuscript Vaticinia Michaelis Nostradami de Futuri Christi Vicarii ad Cesarem Filium was written and drawn – especially without having seen it myself. The entry on p. 83 bears the date of September 1629 and mentions and the manuscript having been given in gift to Cardinal Barberini (the later pope Urban VIII, 1623-1644). On the other hand the other two pages of text from the unknown interpreter D.I.A. (maybe the anonymous writer wanted to suggest this should be the famous author of prophetic texts Joachim of Fiore (1130-1202) himself – Dominus Ioachim Abatis) has as last full entry an attribution of vaticinium VII to pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691), and the beginning of vat. VIII, which should be attributed following this list to Innocent X (1644-1655). We do not know how long this list should have lasted on the following obviously lost or unfinished page or pages. From the style of the writing it is well possible that this text entry is from the 18th century. Maybe it was written at the end of the 18th century during the time of the French Revolution which saw an upsurge in prophetic interpretations of the political upheavals and many fake ascriptions to Nostradamus. It is also impossible for me to ascertain the age of the drawn images. This could only be done by a thorough study of the paper and the colors used, but they definitely seem to be of an age later then the 16th century. According to the inscription on p. 82 under the picture in yet another handwriting the images are copies of a certain Tommaso Guidini from the year 1343. Now this date is certainly a fake as the style and condition of the images suggest a much later date.

This manuscript is a collection of copies of emblematic images connected to diverse prophetic traditions, foremost the pope prophecy known as the Vaticinia de summis pontificibus. From the style and condition of the images I strongly doubt that they are even contemporary with Nostradamus. Most of these images can be traced back to manuscripts from the early 14th century which were scarce and mostly held in monasteries or libraries of Renaissance princes. I do not believe that Nostradamus had access to them. Although he had access to the contents of the prophecies related to them as I will show later. The images themselves were only disseminated in print towards the end of the 16th and in the course of the 17th century – after the death of Nostradamus.

To give you an idea about the sources I enclose just a small selection of some pictures from the Ms CC Cim. 6 Vaticinia Pontificum from the Stiftsbibliothek Kremsmünster written around 1410-1415 and some from the first edition of the publication of the Vaticinia, Sive Prophetiae, Abbatis Joachimi & Anselmi Episcopi Marsicani of 1589 in my own antiquarian collection.

Vat09 corresponding to image on p. 12 of the supposed Nostradamus manuscript. (this is Vaticinium IX of the 1589 edition) Vat15 corresponding to p. 18 (Vaticinium XV of 1589) Vat20 corresponding to p. 23 Vat21 corresponding to p. 24 Vat31 corresponding to p. 34 Vat26 corresponding to p. 29 (Vaticinium XXV of 1589)

Definitely Nostradamus is not the originator if these images. I strongly doubt that he even knew about the images, let alone that he interpreted them. During his lifetime the images were not known in printed form.

The emblematic pictures of the pope prophecies and similar types if images of hermetic and astrological content as found in the compilation of the Vaticinia Michaelis Nostradami… were not codes or hidden messages pointing at future events, as Ottavio Cesare Ramotti wants to have it. By the way, I had several rather fruitless discussions with Ramotti during his life time. He was one of the many "inspired interpreters" of Nostradamus with no knowledge about historical facts and especially not about the cultural history of the prophetic tradition in Renaissance times, and came up with totally useless fantasies about Nostradamus' prophecies. These images have to be seen against the background of the troubles of the times (13th to 16th century), in which men of letters and science tried to find explanations for the upheavals Europe was confronting. They constructed a historical scheme for this in which history was a process of repeated events related to larger cosmic occurrences identified with astronomical constellations and their astrological interpretation. Under this perspective future was but a projection of past events. Studying the past in detail (a favorite pursuit of the erudite Renaissance men, as Nostradamus' was one) would lead to a penetration of things to come. Hence Nostradamus and his fellow astrologers and prophets were looking for model events in the past and projected them – in the case of Nostradamus, embedded in a hard to penetrate, oracular language – onto the future.

Similarly the images in the pseudo-Nostradamus manuscript have no prophetic content whatsoever; they are only allegorical images launched by certain political factions and draw their content from contemporary nuisances. The pope prophecy Vaticinia de summis pontificibus attributed to Joachim da Fiore, is based on a series of Greek oracles attributed to king Leon VI (886-912) and first appeared in manuscripts in 1304 during the papal interregnum. Quite a few manuscripts from the subsequent times are extant. In these the papal prophecies are presented in images, mostly but not exclusively containing a pope embedded in an allegorical image with symbolical objects. The images usually carried a motto and a short oracular text of very obscure content, which lead to many mistakes and conscious alterations by copyists.

The first Latin versions (known under the title Principium malorum - The Inception of all Evils were directed against Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280) who was a member of the Orsini-Clan (Giovanni Gaetano Orsini) and who was regarded as the beginning of evils. Hence a few of the allegorical images show bears (Italian orso for Orsini). During the course of times some images were altered and new series added according to the interests of conflicting parties. The implications changed as their proponents tried to change the more polemical pictures against the Orsini-Pope into a general prophecy about the succession of the popes after Nicholas III. This was part of a large-scale interest in prophecies during this epoch, in which the belief was widely held, that the people were living in the end of times. Now the papal prophecy should provide a source for hope, implying the purification and renewal of the church under a future angelic pope (pastor angelicus).

The end of the 16th century saw some publications of the papal prophecies which lead to a wider dissemination of the underlying ideas.

Joachim da Fiore's prophetic ideas about the spiritual renewal of the Church lead by a pastor angelicus ("Angelic Pope") found its secular equivalent in the hope for the rise of the „Great Monarch", the emperor of the end times, who would unite the world in peace and drive back the menace from the unbelievers.

Nostradamus was part of such prophetic currents, much en vogue during his life time and exploited by many astrologers and self-proclaimed prophets. His prophecies are full of allusions to the elements of the prophetic traditions as exemplified in the pope prophecies and other texts transmitted through widely read works, like Johannes Lichtenberger's (ca. 1440-1503) Prognosticatio in latino. Lichtenberger was an exponent of combining prophecy with astrological prognosis. His Prognosticatio was a best-seller that became some kind of prophetic handbook for future generations. Lichtenberger artfully combined prophecy with an interpretation of the contemporary political situation. His blend of astrology and prophecy became the model for a type of literature that would flood the young book market with pamphlets and almanacs of this type during the early 16th century. The same subjects can be found in Nostradamus.

Other influential works of the same type uniting prophetic traditions with utopian ideas of the Angelic Pope and the Great Monarch, whose presence can be traced in Nostradamus' writings were the Apocalypsis Nova ("New Apocalypse") from the Portuguese João Menezes da Silva Amadeus propagated at the onset of the 16th century, the Prognosticon de eversione Europae („Prognostic about the subversion of Europe ") by Antonio Arquato (or Torquato) and the Mirabilis Liber. The Mirabilis Liber, a compilation of astrological and prophetic texts, including Lichtenberger's and the pope prophecies of the Vaticinia de summis pontificibus (without the images!) saw several editions during the 1520ies. Also the Compendium revelationum of Girolamo Savonarola, entered the compilation of the Mirabilis Liber under the title Revelatio de tribulationibus nostrorum temporum ("Revelation of the tribulations of our times"). It was an immediate source for many ideas expressed in Nostradamus' introductory letter to his son Cesar in his Prophéties.

Can you think of a better way of phrasing the note in question?

--PL (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I know, by the way, that it is tempting to provide all the "relevant facts", and I am not arguing that the Nostradamus clarification is either non-factual or irrelevant. But when we have already achieved the goal of conveying relevant details, via the linking of relevant articles, we might do well to refine our goals to those that "polish up" the material that we've conveyed. So I'm not bringing up these policies and guidelines in order to create a WP:VAGUEWAVE or to practice for the WP:WIKILAWYER bar examination, but rather, as I said above, to ensure that the encyclopedia maintains a neutral, objective and detached, and, well, encyclopedic tone. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, then, polish it up! The point, of course, is that there is no such thing as the 'Lost Book of Nostradamus', so readers need to know which book it is that the History Channel is so dubbing. If you can think of a better way of telling them, please do. I've just had a shot at it. --PL (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger of Timewave zero into 2012 doomsday prediction

There is no consensus for the deletion of the Timewave zero article and its replacement with a paragraph only in 2012 doomsday prediction with the loss of background and detail that that entails. If you want to proceed I suggest you (User:Serendipodous )start a RFD for Timewave zero. Lumos3 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't intend to spend the rest of my life fighting off the whimsies of True Believers. If this is the only way to keep that article under control, so be it. Serendi^podous 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

2012, the end of free speech at wiki

Dear Mr. Has To Be WRIGHT,

The name is spelled MARDYKS and your inability to see the relevance to WIKI is your problem and WIKI's, not mine. There is a solid foundation to 2012 which you ignore and as the #1 Google spot for 2012, you irresponsibly perpetuate stupidity and ignorance about a very relevant topic to soon to be BILLIONS when the movie hits. Cut off the entire Santa Fe Library system if your censoring instincts are that intense. If you showed some respect and genuine interest rather than abused your position, Wiki would be a much better place for all. If Newsweek is not enough for you, then what is?