Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Galactic alignment

calender is inaccurate

However, our calender is inaccurate and might not be in line with the actual alignment of the sun and earth and moon. Is this calculation inaccurate due to our silly 12 month calender?

Or is this just bullshit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.27.170 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Allignment Predicted in 2012

I have been researching all that I can about 2012. From local events to the pole shift. The Mayan calender extencively as well. Thats what got me into this obsession. Loads of events are due at 2012, but the latest I have learned of is the Galactic allignment! When the Sun is to be centered of our galaxy. If u have feed back or if I learned to much and blended two subjects together, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.254.14 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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 comparable situation I don't know why; perhaps we weren't including "#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)

Sorry about the mess I made

But this article really needs to be reordered so that it doesn't wander from one idea to the next. Right now people are mentioned once, then forgotten, then mentioned again, then forgotten. This article's info needs to be corralled and straightened out, but I think I need to discuss it first. Also, Coe changed his predicted date from 2011 to 2012 in later revised editions of The Maya; it wasn't John Major Jenkins who came up with that date. Serendi^podous 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, though, it doesn't look too bad to me at present. However, if you really think it's worth all the trouble of straightening it out... (Personally, I suspect that most of it is rubbish anyway, and so is bound to be a ragbag of disconnected ideas!) --PL (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Serendipodous, I have faith in you, so go ahead and rearrange. Of course, to an extent PL is correct, as the 2012 predictions are a hodge-podge of supeerstition, old age mystic flotsam and new age mystic jetsam. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've finished the reordering I planned, though I have removed any and all references to ET contact, as it is neither falsifiable nor sourced. Serendi^podous 16:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Planet X

This is not about one scientist, or one magazine. The overwhelming consensus among astronomers today is that Planet X, at least as envisioned by Percival Lowell, does not exist. The cite was simply a contemporary explanation of the finer details of its refutation.Serendi^podous 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Anyone who wishes to cite "the overwhelming consensus among astronomers today" is welcome to bear the WP:BURDEN. However, a 16-year-old article in a non-peer-reviewed magazine is not, as far as I am aware, the voice of "the overwhelming consensus among astronomers today". Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the current/compromise version of that section seems fine, at least at first glance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit war. I just don't want to give readers the impression that Planet X (at least Lowell's Planet X; there are many other "Planet X's" proposed that have nothing to do with Lowell) is anything more than a discredited hypothesis. Serendi^podous 20:10, 30 April 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)

"End of the world" section

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)

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)

I think Serendipodous's recent footnoting of the point covers your point very neatly and adequately, without imposing comparisons. --PL (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)