Talk:2012 phenomenon

wrong link and information under other concept section

under "other concepts" section link there is a reference to Kalki, and it links to some god man instead of actual Kalki article itself. which is very misleading. please correct the link.

Is the time that the whole world will return into H world.....> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.70.140 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

THat's the point; it's about the God-guy, not the concept. Serendi^podous 14:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Comalcalco brick is a hoax

This is completely wrong. First of all, here is a drawing of the brick: http://www.thecenterfor2012studies.com/comalcalco-brick.jpg. The Calendar round is clearly 4 Ahau 3 Xul. Supposedly this is the same Calendar Round as the one that will occur on 13.0.0.0.0. Unfortunately the Calendar Round on 13.0.0.0.0 will be 4 Ahau 3 K'ank'in. Whoever thinks this related to 2012 is delusional. In addition David Stuart is saying that the next glyph is a verb that uses the present tense so this has nothing to do with any future Calendar Round. When I search for information about Comalcalco I find a whole bunch of bizarre pseudo-scientific sites that claim that it was built by the Romans, the Hindus, etc., etc. Assuming that it is a Classic period site, the brick in question refers to Sunday April 12, 873, Thursday April 25, 821 or Monday May 8, 769 (Julian dates). Whoever in INAH claimed that it refers to 2012 is completely ignorant. This is just more dis-information related to the hysteria surrounding the new-age 2012 Doomsday Hoax. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

This was already debunked in Sven Gronemeyer and Barbara MacLeod’s 2012 paper on Tortuguero Monument 6, which last year referred to this Comalcalco brick, along with Erik Boot’s suggestion of a 2012 connection, and Marc Zender’s critique of this idea: http://www.wayeb.org/notes/wayeb_notes0034.pdf (see the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9 for the discussion of the Comalcalco brick in which Zender confirms that it is 3 Xul and suggests that it represents a date of 9.16.18.5.0 4 Ahau 3 Xul - Monday May 8th 769 (Julian)). Zender also discusses it here: http://famsi.org/pipermail/aztlan/2010-July/007528.html. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Fair enough. With these topics it's best to err on the side of caution anyway. Serendi^podous 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Now hold on... you can't just declare something a hoax because there's a disagreement between the Mexican government and some mailing list posts. Shii (tock) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There's NO disagreement. Erik Boot blew it by mis-identifying the Haab' glyph on the Comalcalco brick and before his paper was published and he could change it, somebody at INAH had announced it to the world. Read those links. Even if the brick had the same Calendar Round as 13.0.0.0.0 it would mean nothing because these dates repeat +/- every 52 years and the next glyph is a verb in the present tense. That article you posted has everything so completely wrong it's incredible. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Senor Cuete and I had an offline discussion regarding his comments, which I believe are unfair to Erik Boot (who I know). With regards to the assertion that Erik Boot "blew it," the reality is that his interpretation of the Comalcalco brick was preliminary and contained many, many caveats. His research on the brick had not been published. John Major Jenkins made a portion of the research public (according to Boot), and Marc Zender (who I also have met) was responding to what Jenkins had written. You can find Boot's side of the story here: http://www.famsi.org/pipermail/aztlan/2010-July/007576.html

Senor Cuete suggested I edit his comments regarding Boot, but I am loathe to touch another person's signed words, hence my posting here. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

deletion

This article doesn't comply with Wikipedia standards of notability. In 10 years this will all but forgotten. It should be submitted for deletion. 70.29.109.219 (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be submitted for deletion in 10 years? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this article should never be deleted. The woo-woos always like to recycle their BS by just changing the names and dates. -- Kheider (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, Meso American peoples thought that if they did not sacrafice human lives to the sun, she would die. So I wouldn't take it too seriously. OKelly (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:N is not transient. Either it's got lots of WP:RS cites proving that independent sources are writing about it or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it's deletable now. If it does, it's not deletable period. Even total nonsense is still notable, even if only for being popularly notable for being nonsense. WP is not just for things about which people care or are discussing at the moment. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Winter Solstice occurence

In the article about the precession of the so called galactic alignment it has the correct information but the winter solstice is only in the northern hemisphere at that time. so for a more worldy view the information in that article it should be changed or removed because the alignment isn't universal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.252.5 (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is; it just occurs in the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere. I suppose that could be revised. Serendi^podous 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The original galactic alignment theory of Ray Mardyks (1987) included the axis of the solstices (both) aligning with the galactic plane in Ophiuchus and Orion, the axis of the equinoxes (both) aligning with the galactic poles in Virgo and Cetus and also the celestial poles aligning (Polaris in the north). This "octahedral" geometry interfaces hyperdimensionally with other geometric patterns suggested in the third dimension by the two 2012 solar eclipses, one precisely aligned with the Pleiades, and the Transit of Venus, as described in the Dresden Codex. Jimini Cricket 199.233.80.251 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

An add from french version

Une autre croyance, indique que le village de Lemud pourrait, comme Bugarach, être un lieu de refuge suite à la supposée fin du monde de 2012. Cette affirmation s'appuierait sur un ancien texte datant du passage d'Attila, surnommé "le fléau de Dieu", à Lemud, le 4 mai 451, date à laquelle les Huns auraient enterré le "trésor de l'Apocalypse" sur les bords de la Nied, après avoir brûlé Metz (7 avril). Ce mystérieux trésor protègerait les survivants de la fin du monde[81]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.76.114 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Je suis désolé, mais je ne parle pas français. Serendi^podous 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Another belief, points out that the village of Lemud (France) could, as Bugarach, to be a place of shelter further to supposed at the end of the world of 2012. This affirmation would lean on an ancient text dating the passage of Attila, nicknamed " the blight of God ", in Lemud, on May 4th 451, dates in which Huns would have buried the " treasure of the Revelation " on the edges of Nied river, after having burned Metz (April 7th). This mysterious treasure will protect the survivors of the end of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.76.114 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Source? Serendi^podous 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"d'après : La Vie d'Attila de Marcel Brion, 1928 et légendes populaires locales"

What does this have to do with 2012? Serendi^podous 12:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Quiconque se trouverait à proximité du "trésor de l'Apocaypse" serait épargné par la fin du monde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.7.27.71 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

La fin du monde has been predicted many times. How does the year 2012 figure into this? Serendi^podous 12:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article

This article should be featured tomorrow on December 24, 2011, the original forecasted date of this "phenomenon", started by the venerable Michael D. Coe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.80.251 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the world ends on Dec 21. I have it marked on my calendar. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

THE MAN, Michael D. Coe who started this whole thing, had 12/24/2011 in his book for about 20 years. All the media events, TV shows and books in the later 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s repeated THIS DATE, HIS DATE. His current "expert" opinion states 12/23/2012, NOT 12/21. You going with the "New Agers" who believe it's the winter solstice? Hmmmm? Jimini Cricket 199.233.80.251 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Insofar as there is a point at all to answering one of your comments, Ray, I shall do so for the benefit of any other readers. December 21 is focused on in this article because it is by far the most widely cited date, and therefore the most notable. The fact that Michael D Coe favours the +2 date is mentioned in a very detailed note. Serendi^podous 22:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Various astronomical alignments and numerological formulae related to this date have been proposed."

There is something wrong with this statement for, exactly, how do humans propose an astrological alignment? Seems to me the wording here is incorrect. 15:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored a longer version of the line. Serendi^podous 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011

Hi, Reading the following section in the article:

"In December 2010, an article, first published in examiner.com and later referenced in the English-language edition of Pravda claimed, citing a Second Digitized Sky Survey photograph as evidence, that SETI had detected three large spacecraft due to arrive at Earth in 2012."

, I would like to add the two original articles, examiner.com/ufo-in-canada/3-very-large-objects-space-flying-to-earth and the one in Pravda as references if that's alright.

(I know that after 10 edits I would be able to do that myself but I don't think it's right to run around making edits at random in order to become autoconfirmed.)

Marczellm (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

examiner.com is blacklisted on Wikipedia, and literally cannot be added as a reference. The Pravda reference could be added, but is not strictly necessary. Serendi^podous 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Internet Rumor of Inbound 2012 Spaceships Untrue A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I restored an old ref that was removed when the original addition was cut down. Serendi^podous 17:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I'm upset about the way my edits have been handled in this article. One user claims that "Reality Sandwich" is an unreliable source but it's the online magazine published by Daniel Pinchbeck, who is featured prominently in this article. You can contact him at daniel@realitysandwich.com if you feel like you need to verify that. Another editor asked me to add additional external citations, which I did, but my content was still removed, by a user who is unimpressed by Adventures Unlimited even though this publisher is an entirely valid source -- the publisher David Childress regularly appears as an expert on the Discovery Channel. I intend to seek dispute resolution over this because I believe the material belongs and these editors are censoring it because they disagree with the content, which is not what Wikipedia is about (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Please discuss.Yonderboy (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Pinchbeck is mentioned in the article, yes, but he is not used as a unique source for his claims. His inclusion is backed up by a reference in New York Magazine. New Age ideas about 2012 are a dime a dozen. In order to show that your particular additions have relevance you have to show that they have reached outside New Age circles.Serendi^podous 23:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I want to add that since this is a featured article, any proposed edits must be carefully considered before they are inserted into the article. To this end, consensus must develop among editors and if there is no consensus to include the information it should stay out. Also mentions of censorship are not helpful. No editors here are out to censor anything. Ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's policies and vetting the quality of a proposed edit in a featured article is common sense, not censorship. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You've had 3 editors disagree with you, so maybe you should accept that you are wrong. Being on the Discovery Channel means the producers think you make good television and will attract watchers, not that you are some sort of expert. Childress is a fringe publisher of a lot of minor books full of nonsense. He's very successful at that, but that doesn't lend his publications credibility here. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Is it worth mentioning him? He's been cited as mentioning 2012, though the date appears nowhere in his quatrains. Serendi^podous 14:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Only to say that he never mentioned the date, nor indeed the End of the World (or at least, not in his book 'Les Propheties'). The last previous date mentioned was 1999: the next is 3797 -- which is probably code for 2242, one of the then-current favourite dates for the End of the World, given that he wrote it in 1555 (do the math!). --PL (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that somebody claims that Nostradamus predicted an event in 2012; there probably aren't many events since 1555 that someone hasn't claimed he predicted. The question is whether Nostradamus receives major attention from the 2012 crowd. If the Nostradamus claim is very widespread in their writings, or if one of the major 2012 writers devoted a fair amount of space to an argument that such-and-such cryptic passage in The Prophecies is really a coded reference to a Big Event in 2012, it's probably worth mentioning. If not, it isn't. A. Parrot (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to define a major 2012 writer, but the coverage given the topic in The History Channel has ensured that it has a pretty large web presence. "nostradamus 2012" gets over 8 million Google hits. Serendi^podous 21:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Waters (op.cit. pp. 269-70 -- 2 lines) briefly claims that Nostradamus predicted a 'polar shift' between 1999 and 2001 (in a section devoted to 2011, not 2012), while the Andrewses (op.cit., p.141, 10 lines) report allegations that he predicted earth changes and continents being 'split apart with waterways' (an apparent confusion with Edgar Cayce's predictions), as well as World War III, though with no date -- and both are in any case manifestly untrue. Only the derivative nutters hauled in by the History Channel for their videohype (for the Nostradamian aspect of which I somewhat unwisely agreed to act as consultant) seem to make the 2012 connection, though without advancing any convincing evidence that I'm aware of. I don't know of any other primary source that makes it. This doesn't seem to me to constitute 'a fair amount of space' or 'major attention'. If mentioned at all, the reference ought therefore to state that the idea is largely the copyright of the History Channel's editors, at least one of whom (I think I know who that may be) seems to have a 2012 bee in his bonnet -- but who, curiously enough, don't seem to have resurrected their 'Armageddon' or 'Nostradamus' films recently, and apparently have no plans to do so (are they now regretting the error of their ways, I wonder?!). Personally, I don't think the article should give any further oxygen to the disgraceful futurist propaganda they've been inexplicably putting out recently. Frankly, it has no credibility -- except to the credulous. --PL (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Planetary Alignments of 21/12/2012

I would like to dispute the assertion that no planetary alignments take place on Dec 21st 2012 as the source quoted is not an expert in Astrology. While it is true to say that there are no planetary conjunctions on that day, there are always astrological alignments. By not citing the source of the planetary alignment theory, this article creates a straw dog argument. Neilho (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Astrology is not science. But Venus will transit the Sun as seen from Saturn on 2012-Dec-21. -- Kheider (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source (preferably non-fringe, such as a news article) that shows that a plurality of astrologers have cited a particular astrological alignment as having some significance, then it can certainly go in the article. Serendi^podous 11:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If this article is going to futily use and emphasize the "ancient Greek theory" of the precession of the equinoxes, then it should at least mention the "neo-mayan" calculation of 5 times 13-baktun for 65-baktun or 1300-katun or 26,000-tun or 9,360,000 days or 25,626.83 years. Using this, the cyclic "galactic alignments" occur four times, every 6500-tun or 2,340,000 days. Prior events focused in Ancient Egypt (~4500 bce) and Atlantis (~11,000 bce) :) . Also, in addition to the "galactic alignment", many thinking astrologers follow Ray Mardyks (1991) by highlighting the Transit of Venus and the two solar eclipses, the one in May with the Pleiades. There is good reason why the Maya's Dresden Codex has major sections for Venus and Eclipses, both with forecasts to the present era. There is also a "Yod" or "Finger of God" formation circa 12.21.2012, pointing to the "Bull's Eye" star, Aldebaran, as there was for the Harmonic Convergence in 1987. Competent astrologers understand that a combination of factors contribute to major astrological events. Jimini Cricket 199.233.80.251 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should be deleted.

I can't believe this article exists. It's pseudo-science, esoterism driving an article in Wikipedia with "sources". The most ridiculous part is users taking this whole pile of shit as serious, quoting "reliable sources". Please, sorry for me rudeness. But this is Wikipedia being explored and escavenged by bad faith people. I'll be back in January 1, 2013 and observe how a plethora of ridiculous conspiracy theories survived for a year in Wikipedia. --201.79.185.95 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is pretty fun to read. I'm indeed watching it to see what will happen to it this year, just by curiosity. But there's no reason for it to be deleted. Wikipedia is not about science, but about objectively covering a subject, whether that subject is science or not. If some people talk about a ridiculous theory, then this is an objective fact and can figure in Wikipedia. Use you critical thinking abilities to choose whether to believe what you read or not. But you can contribute by outlining what should be put in a more objective way, or what part is lacking "reliable sources". Or just wait happily till 2013, and watch the diffs. By the way, maybe you'll have an opinion about this one. --Gzorg (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Orion prophecy

Orion prophecy redirects here but the article currently says nothing about it. From what I've gathered, even other New Age esoterics regard this idea as hokum, and finding decent sources on it will be difficult. Should we simply delete the redirect? Serendi^podous 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

deleted it. Serendi^podous 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Google news archives

I was idly looking for sources for this article when I had a passing thought. I placed 2012 "end of the world" OR apocalypse OR doomsday into Google News Archives and got 10,200 hits, as opposed to 4,600 hits for "year 2000" "end of the world" OR apocalypse OR doomsday. I wonder if anyone has determined if 2012 is the biggest apocalypse craze of all time? Serendi^podous 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's hard to factor internet growth into the equation, so I wouldn't use Google hit numbers. If anyone wrote something like you're asking for, what could make that statement reliable and less arbitrary? Oh, we don't need to discuss this, I just don't care. *grin* It certainly is a millenial prophecy/ movement of impressive size. --Jonas kork (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

http://www.insurancefor2012.com Pwolfe1987 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - you didn't tell us what to do. πr² (t • c) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

Requesting the following be added to the 2012 phenomenon article: "In 2008 a Japanese man named Shigeru Osawa made claims about cataclysmic disasters occurring in 2012 or 2013, a time when 'four mother (space) ships will land on earth' to save some humans." I wanted to add this to the Wikipedia 2012 article because it's the only instance of a non-westerner making such claims, and is verifiable towards the end of the article linked below:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20080401zg.html John SpiriJspiri (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Jspiri (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He's not the first non-Westerner to make such claims. Kalki Bhagavan in India has been making claims about it for years. Also, some Maya have jumped on the bandwagon, and Maya are not considered Westerners. Serendi^podous 09:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: You appear to be claiming to be the author of that article. While that doesn't make it unusable as a source, it seems ot me that it raises the question of conflict of interest. Do you have a reference which is independent for adding this content? Also, could you be specific about where exactly in the article to add this text? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews...

...jumping on the bandwagon! Then again the Zohar is way older than the 2012 phenomenon.

Some Hasidic Jews seem to believe that according to the Zohar the moshiach (Menachem Mendel Schneerson?) is coming in the Jewish Year of 5773 (starts on Rosh Hashanah, that is September 16, 2012).

See here: http://www.moshiach770.org/

Shall this be added to the article? I can provide more sources for this by the way. 178.201.16.24 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)