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)

21 or 23?

Hasn't it been determined which date it is`? 89.249.0.170 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)