Talk:2012 phenomenon

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Natural or Artificial disaster

The article focuses on natural disasters without considering self fulfilling prophecies. A terrorist might cause more terror if he attacks on a beforehand predicted "apocalypse", or an invading nation might gain a psychological advantage if they commit a large scale attack in such a time period. So even if the "galactic alignment" does absolutely nothing, it would be nice to mention that artificial means of mass destruction (biological, nuclear weapons etc) certainly exist and are not limited by the randomness of natural events. We need a "Artificial Apocalypse" section. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Our job is to report, not to speculate. Serendi^podous 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a war on terror happening very close to poorly guarded nuclear weapons. Then there's the entire Dead Hand business. Besides, this entire article may be a report, but it is a report about the speculations some people have about the end of the world. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So provide other people's speculations on the matter. Serendi^podous 11:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On what matter? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On the matter you raised. If there are notable sources discussing this, then they can go in. Otherwise it stays out. Serendi^podous 12:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hunab Ku and Web Bot sections

I have doubts about the notability of both these sections. The first one I just removed, because the only link to the overall "theories" of Jenkins and Arguelles was a single page in both their books. The second one is also source to a single newspaper article, and not to larger skeptical works. Feel free to discuss this here. Shii (tock) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Arguelles' promotion of the Hunab Ku pseudo-symbolism goes beyond a mere passing mention, he prob more than anyone else is responsible for its proliferation across various new age sites. But be that as may, it has v little to do with any specific 2012-related claim AFAIK, so agree it's not really relevant here & is better covered elsewhere.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Web bot is just a summary with the main article elsewhere, so it doesn't need to be intensively covered. Whether it should be merged with this article, or even whether it should exist at all, that's a different matter. Serendi^podous 08:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

When I said, "doesn't need to be extensively covered" I did not mean "should not be covered at all." This section relates to the 2012 phenomenon and has been mentioned in many high-profile media, such as the History Channel. So it should at least be mentioned. Serendi^podous 07:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I'll look for sources to improve it. Shii (tock) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Name for the phenomenon

I live in the Mayan area (Chiapas and Guatemala). Clearly, there is an awareness of the date among many people in the region (Mayan and otherwise), although most do not assign it too much significance. The local shorthand for referring to it in Spanish is "13 Bak'tun", and it seems that most see it as the start of that era. (This is in conflict with traditional terminology in Mayan epigraphy, in which it would be the end of that era; but perhaps in line with classic Maya belief. I understand that the Mayan words for 21 translate as "one from the second man", that is, instead of counting up from numbers such as 20 they counted [past tense] towards 40, so correspondence between Mayan and Western systems cannot be exact.)

Anyway, my point is, should the name 13 Bak'tun, as a name for the phenomenon, be more prominent in the article, or should it be a redirect to here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.143.10.22 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I do think that the Mayan name for the date should be given more prominence, though I don't think it should be the name of the article. The reason is that a lot of people coming to this page will have heard something about the world ending in 2012 but have no idea why. Very few English speakers will have a clue what "baktun 13" means, and this article should explain it to them. Serendi^podous 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

13 Bak'tun should certainly be a redirect, but "2012 phenomenon" is how this subject is described by sociologists examining it from an outsider perspective. Shii (tock) 05:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Re: Galactic Alignment

Hello, I've been following this excellent article with great interest for several months, and have some comments that may be useful.

1. John Major Jenkins has a new book, The 2012 Story, which I reviewed on Amazon, under the name of "pdecordoba", on 2 Feb 2010. I'll paste that review here, at the end of the post. Here's part of it:

• • • • • Citation from Review begins *****

... Jenkins' own writings have ruled out the following alignments as unique to 2012:

Alignment of Winter Solstice Sun with the Milky Way --This alignment lasts from approximately 1550 to 2450 (Maya Cosmogenesis, pp. 113-114)

Alignment of Winter Solstice Sun with the Dark Rift --This alignment occurs in the unspecified "years around 2012" (The 2012 Story, p. 140)

Alignment with the Galactic equator --See the discussion of "The First Photo", above, and Jenkins' footnote #28 on p. 437 of The 2012 Story.

Alignment with Sgr A* (the true center of the Galaxy, and a probable black hole) --The closest alignment with it "occurs some 200 years after 2012" (The 2012 Story, p. 141).

To my knowledge, Jenkins has never identified any candidates for "once-in-26,000-years alignments" other than the ones he has himself ruled out.

• • • • • Citation from Review ends *****

2. In this article (2012 Phenomenon), the Galactic Alignment section contains the following statement:

As Jenkins himself also notes, there is no concrete evidence that the Maya were aware of precession.[42]

I've read the referenced web page, which reproduces the Introduction to Jenkins' Maya Cosmogenesis, and that Introduction itself. I did not see where Jenkins made this concession.

3. The Galactic Alignment section also makes the following statement:

Jenkins claims he drew his conclusions about the location of the galactic equator from observations taken at above 11,000 feet, which is higher than any of the Maya lived.[37]

Unfortunately, this is an inaccurate second-hand quotation. Jenkins drew conclusions about the extent of the Dark Rift from those high-altitude observations, rather than about the location of the galactic equator. (See Maya Cosmogenesis, p. 110). Jschiapas (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the cite; Jenkins used to have a much less ambiguous cite on his webpage that he seems to have taken down. Oh well. As for Jenkins's backpedalling on 2012, I have to wonder why, if he has opened the field so widely, he bothers mentioning 2012 at all. And I don't see the problem of using a credible second hand source vs using primary sources. Wikipedia tends to prefer secondary sources. Serendi^podous 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous, Thanks again for your great work on this article. You took the words right out of my mouth when you said that Jenkins has backpedaled so much on 2012, it's a wonder he mentions it at all. But I'm surprised to hear that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Especially in a case like this one, where the primary source is readily available, and the Wiki article's second-hand citation is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschiapas (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Because relying on primary sources alone unbalances the point of view. See: WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN. Serendi^podous 10:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous, If you read my post carefully, I think you'll agree that I didn't recommend "relying on primary sources alone". No matter how much we disagree with Jenkins, he does deserve to be quoted accurately. The article regarding the purpose of his high-altitude observations of the Milky Way (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-guest.html) misrepresents that purpose (see Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, p. 110)), and cites no reference for the purpose it attributes to Jenkins. Moreover, Wikipedia misconstrues the article it cites. This is carelessness that should be apologized for and corrected, rather than defended, but Wikipedia apparently sees nothing wrong with it. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, or in recommending wikipedia to anyone as a source.Jschiapas (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Woah. OK. Fair enough. I was going to suggest trying to find a way to work around it, but if you want to go off in a huff instead, that's OK with me. Serendi^podous 19:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

t218

The t218 (thompson number) "period ending" glyph would be a great illustration for this article, if someone could find or make a free version. Homunq (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What is that, and what does it have to do with 2012? Serendi^podous 17:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A Mayan symbol for the ending of a katun, I think. Shii (tock) 03:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Aveni's book

I received my copy of Aveni's book today and will be adding to the article as I read through it. Aveni is a Mayanist and takes a sympathetic but serious look at both New Age and apocalyptic theories. Let me know if there's stuff that should be cleared up. Shii (tock) 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a good drawing in this book which illustrates the article better than the current one, but it's non-free... Shii (tock) 03:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Date

Hasn't the date been settled? 89.249.0.170 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's never been conclusively settled, and probably never will be. Most historians are happy enough with a 48-hour window. It's only people who think the world is going to end on that day that care about that. Serendi^podous 10:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has been settled to the satisfaction of almost everybody. See Mesoamerican Long Count calendar#Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count. Mentioning the Thompson (Lounsbury) correlation in the article only serves to unnecessarily add confusion to the article and it should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Really? Because that's not what was said a few archives ago. Serendi^podous 17:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Really. Schele and Freidel are not a reliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I see only the date December 21, 2012 mentioned wherever I read about this phenomenon. Having looked at the two references that are openly available on the web used to attest to the mentioning of December 23, I cannot see how these support that date at all (there is some mention of December 22). The third reference is not online. Being myself deeply immersed in the "phenomenon" I don't see any merit for mentioning any other dates around December 21. Should another date be mentioned, and I strongly feel it should, that date would have to be October 28, 2011 which is promoted by Swedish researcher Carl Johan Calleman as the actual end-date of the Long Count calendar. This date is the only contender to 12/21/2012 as far as I can perceive. __meco (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The 21 date seems to have reached wider culture because it is the winter solstice. Since that is a fairly big coincidence, I'd prefer some more sourcing before I go one step towards depicting Baktun 13 as a Wiccan harvest festival. Serendi^podous 13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research for sure. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cutete

Is this a reply to me? I cannot see any connection to what I wrote. In fact, what you write appears completely non-sequiturial to everyting that's been the discussion in this section so far. __meco (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that the huge amount of material citing 21 December appears mainly to have latched onto it because it is the winter solstice. Since I have yet to hear of any academic source that has connected Baktun 13 to the winter solstice, and since to do so would be to tacitly endorse the New Age interpretations of this event, I want to see a large body of academic evidence irrefutably connecting the date to December 21 before I decide it should be done. Serendi^podous 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

By that argument I see you as basically inverting the burden of evidence which we should seek. You do realize that we are writing about a social and spiritual phenomenon first and foremost? I.e., we are not in this article attempting to establish the true end-date of the Mayan Long Count calendar. I was rather suspicious at your first mention of any consensus among historians, but I failed to comment on it above, however, as I just stated, this is primarily a movement of the popular culture (as opposed to academia) and should hence reflect this. __meco (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Serendipodous: No, the reason for the December 21 date is because that IS the date of the completion of the 13th Bak'tun. The debate over what correlation constant to use was long dead and buried before Linda Schele foolishly used the Thompson correlation in A Forest of Kings. She did this in deference to her mentor Floyd Lounsbury even though she was urged not to by people who really did know what they were talking about such as Denis Tedlock. Lounsbury analyzed two of the heliacal risings of Venus in the Dresden Codex and based on the fact that they were a very small fraction of a day closer to the days you get using a modern computer program to generate them, he advocated the Thompson correlation. See: http://www.alignment2012.com/fap3.html. You say "I'd prefer some more sourcing before I go..." The two uses of the word "I" make it sound like you own the article. You don't. You and Meco should read the articles about the Maya calendar and the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Beware of surfing the web for information about the Maya calendar. It is a complete cesspool of disinformation and Callemans is a perfect example of the ignorant fringe "researchers" that promote disinformation on the 'net. On a scale of one to ten, Callemans' credibility is ZERO. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

John Major Jenkins isn't exactly the academic gold standard either. It's precisely because of appearing to advocate his "galactic alignment" that I'm so wary of appearing to come down on one date or the other.Serendi^podous 15:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about Jenkins. The hard thing for academics about Jenkins is that he actually is a leading or maybe the leading authority on the subject but he refuses to draw the line between what is really known and wild speculation. He seems to look down on people who refuse to draw this line and regards them as mentally challenged. Yes, the "Galactic Alignment Theory" is as big of a pile of BS as there is. I added the link because it's a convenient way to find an analysis of Lounsubry and yes, it is the pot calling the kettle black. You say "...I'm so wary of appearing to come down on one date or the other..." Once again you describe the article as "I". Is it all about you, or about writing a factually correct article? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I'm not trying to claim ownership of this article; merely stating my position on this, and my concerns. Serendi^podous 15:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I were to remove all of those spurious references to December 23rd you wouldn't revert my edit it an edit war? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

If a credible source could be provided to justify doing so, then no I wouldn't. Serendi^podous 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:

Mesoamerican Long Count calendar#Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count

It includes extensive references and tables. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Actually, that section is not very well sourced at all. Indeed, it is rather poorly written on the whole and its central claim, that the 11 August correlation is correct, is not sourced. The five sources provided are all either dead links, New Age websites, or by Thompson himself. By the way, is the article saying that Coe thinks the 11 Aug correlation is correct, or simply saying that it is correct, regardless of what Coe thinks? Serendi^podous 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Have we sufficient sources to include the December 23 date in the first place? Unless so, why do we discuss finding sources which contradict it? __meco (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY! There aren't any reliable sources that use the 584,285 correlatioin. Only a vanishingly small handful of scholars used this, namely Lounsbury, Schele and Freidel They did it out of ignorance and now they are dead. This issue was settled in 1950.Senor Cuete (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Right now the article makes no firm claims about which date is "the" date. If we're going to choose a date (either date), sources should back that choice up. Serendi^podous 17:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first clause of the first sentence of the first paragraph in the first section of the article presently reads, "The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on December 21 or December 23, 2012,"" and if that doesn't push these two dates as equally significant on the reader, I don't know what could. And, again, I'm more than a little confounded by seeing you vascillate between the dates of December 21 and 23. Why? Because I must have read the first date some several thousand times duing the past five or so years, whereas the second date I have only seen in this article. __meco (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying I just made it up? It's pretty obvious from the above conversation that there is more than one possible correlation. If it is true that one correlation is favoured over the other then I would just like the article to back that statement up with a source. Serendi^podous 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this article by Vincent H. Malmström, Professor Emeritus of Geography at Dartmouth College, uses August 13 as the start date, which would give December 23 as the end date. So now you've seen the date in 2 places. Serendi^podous 20:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your citing academic papers discussing the technicalities of calculating the end-date misses the scope of this article. It is about the 2012 phenomenon. That means the new age-propelled movement centering on the end of the Mayan calendar or galactic alignment or whatever else the members and leaders of this movement hinge their activism on. This movement does not consider December 23 of interest, at all. If you want to have an article on the would-be controversies over the calculation of the end-date, then this is not that article. __meco (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That article by Malmström is TOTALLY SCREWED UP. First of all the title is 13.0.0.0. That date occurred on 12/11/-2857 (Julian Astronomical). What will occur on 12/21/2012 is 13.0.0.0.0. Then he describes the 260 day Tzolk'in and the 365 day Haab' which together are called the Calendar Round but he calls it the Long Count, which is completely different. Did you actually read that paper? Malmström says in it that in 1935 Thompson revised his calculation to the GMT correlation, contradicting you assertion that he supports the Thompson correlation. In the same sentence, he also gives the date in astronomical years. Sorry Malmström but astronomical dating is used only in the Julian Calendar, astronomers only use the Julian/Gregorian calendar, not the foolish Proleptic Gregorian calendar that is only used by Mayanists. I could go on and on but seriously, that paper is a travesty and proves that without a doubt Malmström is not a reliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You haven't provided any citations of your own to back up your claims. Until you do we're just shouting in the dark. Serendi^podous 09:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this "young earth, creationist" web page: http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/transoceanic-origins-of-mesoamerican-olmecs-shang-chinese-navigators-smithsonian-betty-meggers-dartmouth-geography-vincent-malmstrom-author-david-hatcher-childress-mystery-of-the-olmecs-maritime-star/ "Dartmouth’s Vincent Malmstrom and the Smithsonian’s Betty Meggers have written and lectured extensively about the transoceanic origins of the ancient Olmecs, the first civilization of Mesoamerica, which by the evidence was the western portion of the Atlantean Empire..." plus other complete codswallop.If this is true then Malmström is just another one of the whackos that have created an abysmal cesspool of complete crap that you can find on the internet regarding the Maya calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Since you didn't like the paragraph on Michael Coe in the long Count article, I edited it to say : In Breaking the Maya Code, Michael Coe writes: "In spite of oceans of ink that have been spilled on the subject, there now is not the slightest chance that these three scholars (conflated to GMT when talking about the correlation) were not right...". "We" aren't shouting in the dark. I am shouting at you in the dark because no matter how many references I provide, you won't accept them. I am rubbing your nose in the fact that "your" article is wrong so that when I edit it (and add a large number of references) you won't revert it. I plan also to site Aveni in the Long Count article. He explains why the historical evidence for the GMT is incontrovertible in the Skywatchers. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

In the Long Count article I replaced the sentence that said that the post-conquest Maya books are consistent with the GMT correlation with: Regarding these historical references in The Skywatchers Aveni writes: All the assembled data are consistent with the equation November 3, 1539 = 11.6.0.0.0. Thus for the GMT, or 11.16 correlation we find that A = 584,283...".. Am I still shouting in the dark? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I added this reference to the section on astronomical evidence in the Long Count article: "Modern astronomers refer to the conjunction of the Sun and Moon (the time when the Sun and Moon have the same right ascension) as the new Moon. For the Maya, New Moon was the first evening when one could look to the west after sunset and see the thin crescent Moon. If one assumes that that the New Moon is the first day when the lunar phase day is at least 1.5 at six in the evening in time zone -6 (the time zone of the Maya area) the GMT correlation will match many lunar inscriptions exactly, as in this example." I'm still howling at the Moon. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Thank you for finally quoting a scholarly source. I never said this was "my" article, but regardless, whether it is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant; what matters is what can be backed up by credible sources. I still feel that Coe's claim alone isn't enough to justify removing the alternate date. I would like, if you please, a credible source stating that the majority of Mayanist scholars agree with Coe's assessment. Serendi^podous 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, 2012 sites list the day as 21st, so what's up with this? 89.249.0.170 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Apocalypse 2012 redirect

this probable common search term redirects to the year 2012, rather than here. i want to redo the redirect to point the phrase here, as its more complete in its coverage than the year article, and since there is a book, "apocalypse 2012", which is mentioned in this article but not the year article. 2 birds with one stone. the book may deserve its own article, as its from a major trade publisher, as may the author, who has another related book on GAIA. unless someone objects, ill redirect the redirect.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

done. Serendi^podous 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

thanx.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)