Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

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)

It is notable if it is picked up by reliable sources WP:RELAIBLE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are Hasidic (Internet) news papers covering this "Zohar prophecy", but it's in Hebrew. There are a few Rabbis speaking in English about 2012 and the Zohar (on YouTube). I keep looking for more sources in English! 178.201.16.24 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Leap years

There have been 514 leap years since Caesar created them in 45BC. The Mayan calendar did not have the concept of a leap year, so if you do the math, the world should have ended sometime in mid-2011. Oops. :) 12.189.105.226 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a debated question whether they did or didn't correct for leap year.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Long Count has nothing to do with the length of the year. It is a simple day count. So leap years don't figure in. Serendi^podous 08:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up

I found this article in today's Independent. I'm not interested enough in this article to make any edits based on it, but others might find it interesting to do so. __meco (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is sad...and friggin' hilarious!JoelWhy (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote added. Serendi^podous 17:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainpage

This is one of the FA's that haven't been on the mainpage - it should go up on december 21st.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the plan. Serendi^podous 18:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote for 20th. Lol. o____________o — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Small error

Can some one who can edit fix the part in the first paragraph(I think...) that says 'or with a planet called "Nibiru".' I believe there is a missing comma >.> .... It actually had me a bit confused upon first read --75.179.19.116 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That line's frustrated me too. I think I've clarified it. Serendi^podous 07:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Who?

The article states that 'Others suggest that the 2012 date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe.' Who states this? I have not seen anyone actually claiming this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhmmmm, what?! You seriously haven't heard anyone claim that this is going to be doomsday? Just look at all the references cited on this page making precisely this claim.JoelWhy (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you'd humor me and help me out - there are a lot of references like the History Channel, who 'kind of' cite someone they interviewed who usually make some kind of weak 'I'm just asking the question' type of claim, but I cannot find anyone who is unambiguously claiming an end-of-the-world (in the common usage sense of an actual end of the actual world rather than a 'spiritual transformation') specifically in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Try http://www.2012hoax.org for a list of names. Most of the people screaming doomsday in 2012 are a fairly low-profile bunch. It suits them to make their money and disappear before the apocalypse fails to happen. Serendi^podous 17:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks. Taking a look, this is exactly the problem I'm having. Their list of proponents (in order) contains a lot of this kind of thing:

• "Adishakti.org maintains a very large count-down page, which appears to be a collection of quotations from various 2012 proponents4 and websites5. Many of these quotations have no apparent bearing on the "2012 doomsday".";
• Alexander Retrov doesn't seem to make any 2012 claims at all; "Calleman does not propose an apocalyptic event in 2012, but rather in 2011";
• "Barrios makes claims in the introduction to his book which place him squarely in the 'transformationalist' camp of the 2012 believers.";
• "Daniel Pinchbeck is not a scientist, but rather is an author and an advocate of hallucinogenic drug use and shamanism. He opposes the idea of a global disaster in 2012.";
• "Flynn's new book is Temple At The Center Of Time: Newton's Bible Codex Finally Deciphered and the Year 20123. It apparently seeks to tie in the dimensions of the temple of Jerusalem with Isaac Newton's predictions, and integrate them with the 2012 mythos.";
• "Publicly, Jenkins does not support the idea of an apocalypse in 2012. "Personally, I think it’s about transformation and renewal. It’s certainly nothing as simplistic as the end of the world.”";
• "at the time of authorship of this biography (2009), Argüelles was living in New Zealand, trying to "prepare humanity for its shift into galactic consciousness" by sponsoring projects such as the "Circumpolar Rainbow Bridge Project, the goal of which is to telepathically connect the two auroras of Earth’s poles by 2012.";
• "His central beliefs about 2012 involve "Precession of the Equinoxes" and "Crossing the Galactic Plane", neither of which he understands, and both of which we have explained on the left side of this page6. He believes that we have already started to see an increase in the frequency and magnitude of geological events such as earthquakes and volcanoes, and that these are only a prelude to much worse to come." (thesis getting close, but it's hardly a prediction of the 'end of the world'.

Do you see my problem? Can you find anyone who actually predicts, unambiguously, an actual end to the actual world? If not, then the claim in the article should be made a little more clear.

The big ones on the list are Earthplay, Marshall Masters, Jayson Rand and Patrick Geryl. If you want you can go to their websites. The reason Wikipedia doesn't mention them by name is simply that they haven't got a lot of mainstream coverage, for obvious reasons, and so there's a dearth of reliable sources on them. Serendi^podous 18:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I've looked at their sites, and frankly I can't find it. Earthplay is predicting a new ice age in 2014, so it's hard to imagine that they think the world will end in 2012, Marshall Masters, as far as I can see from his site, is predicting a pole shift which may lead to a massive die-off 'as early as 2013', I can't find any actual claim by Rand on his site or anywhere else of an end-of-the-world in 2012.

Geryl is the only one who seems to make a claim that comes close "In the year 2012 the Earth awaits a super catastrophe: its magnetic field will completely reverse in one go. Phenomenal earthquakes and tidal waves will destroy our civilization. Europe and North-America will shift thousands of kilometers northward and end up in a polar clime. Nearly the whole Earth's population will perish in the apocalyptic events." Even this is a mass extinction even, not really the end-of-the-world. I really feel like the line in the article makes it sound like many people claim this - as far as I can see there is only one person who makes anything that you could even stretch to mean that?

207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.december212012.com/articles/news/Doomsday_2012.htm JoelWhy (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - this one is a re-reporting of the same story the Independent covered (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hippies-head-for-noahs-ark-queue-here-for-rescue-aboard-alien-spaceship-7584492.html). When you read it, it's unclear who, if anyone, is claiming a 2012 end of the world. It's peppered with stuff like this: "The people are expecting that aliens will come to save them from doomsday apocalypse by beaming them aboard their spaceships.", "The motley collection of esoteric New Age groups converging on Pic de Bugarach all share the belief derived from the Mayan apocalypse theory that the Mesoamerican Long Count calender predicts, in connection with special astrological alignments, the end of a 5,125-year cycle of history on December 21, 2012."; "According to The Inquisitr, the pilgrims, already over 20,000, believe that when Doomsday comes on December 21, aliens will appear in UFO ships at Pic de Bugarach to rescue all people awaiting them in the area and fly them off safely to a place of dawn of a new age and era.". While lots of news articles repeat the statement that these people believe this, there are no direct quotes attributed to actual people of a real end-of-the-world in 2012.

The closest it gets to attributing an actual claim to an actual person rather than rumors or reports of non-specific people who might believe something is this: "A grizzled man wearing a white linen smock, who calls himself Jean, set up a yurt in the forest a couple of years ago to prepare for the earth's demise. "The apocalypse we believe in is the end of a certain world and the beginning of another," he offers. "A new spiritual world. The year 2012 is the end of a cycle of suffering. Bugarach is one of the major chakras of the earth, a place devoted to welcoming the energies of tomorrow." It's ambiguous, to say the least. Yes - he talks about the end of a 'certain world', but in the context of a transformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you want a direct quote of some nut claiming it'll be the end of the world? That's easy: http://www.december212012.com/articles/bible/1.shtml JoelWhy (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - so embedded in that we have "The approach of a large comet in 2012 will trigger a solar eruption that will fry the Earth like a rotisserie."- Charles Seife. Bingo - thanks - an actual attributable quote of a specific person claiming an actual end of the world in 2012 - do you mind putting some references in the article, and making clear that many of the people commonly accused of proposing this are, in fact, not? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we would need a reference to cite to stating this. When a news article says '2012 conspiracy nuts are claiming the world is going to end,' per Wiki policy, we can rely on this. We don't need to show an actual quote from someone stating this; rather, we assume the reporter is providing factually accurate information. So, we would need reliable sources stating that 'many of the people commonly accused of proposing this are, in fact, not."JoelWhy (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? It's enough for you that 'http://www.inquisitr.com/' reports that, and that other news reports repeat it, even though it appears not to be true? I would propose that you at least cite the news article that makes the claim that conspiracy nuts make the claim, so that anyone interested enough could go see how tenuous it is? 207.189.106.4 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a fair reflection of what is happening here. We have NASA reporting that they've been bombarded with questions pertaining to this issue (e.g. asking about Planet X colliding with earth, asking whether there's any hope, etc.) We have a plethora of newspaper articles reporting on this from various perspectives. There are movies, TV shows, websites, etc all discussing this issue. It's not like this is all based on a single news report that theoretically could have gotten things wrong. The Inquisitor article is from 3 months ago -- we have article after article reporting on the same type of thing dating back a number of years. Here's an interview from Coast to Coast (the perennial conspiracy nut talk show) with a "researcher" who claims "...a shift will cause ocean currents to reverse, leading to massive flooding, volcanic eruptions and devastating global climate change...[but that] this will [not] be the end of the world." That's from 2007 (and it wasn't the only 2012-will-bring-mass-destruction guest on the show.)

That being said, I do think perhaps a nice thing to add will be the typical plethora of back-peddling done by all those who made these predictions. The closer we get to the end-date, the more people you will have stating they got the date wrong, or that this date is just the beginning of the end, etc, etc, etc. It happens every time there's a large-scale end-of-the-world claimJoelWhy (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, I just feel that the statement 'Others suggest that the 2012 date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe.' is, at the moment, misleading. Certainly when I read it it did not occur to me that it would be so difficult to figure out who these 'others' were exactly. From what you're saying it should not be too difficult to put together a reference for who, exactly, makes the claim that 'Others suggest that the 2012 date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe.'. If it's NASA, that's great - movies I'm a little more skeptical of as a good source.

I think it's telling that the Coast to Coast interview that you cite explicitly says "[but that] this will [not] be the end of the world.". I do think that it is relevant to point out that most of the people who predict large scale cataclysmic events are not predicting the actual end of the actual world. 207.189.106.4 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel that just because very few people have come out and put their names on a 2012 apocalypse (and those that have appear to be moving the goalposts, nothing new there) that means that 2012 apocalpyse scaremongering isn't happening. The vast majority of 2012 apocalypticism has been through Youtube, and Youtube posters do not need to give their real names. Serendi^podous 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the claim that is being made is not about scaremongering in general, it is about people claiming that 'the 2012 date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe.' I'm simply suggesting that we source that claim, and attribute it specifically to the person or organization who is claiming that. It doesn't seem an unusual request to me, especially as the claim seems to have a dubious truth value to it. If the best source for it is anonymous YouTube videos then so be it, but let's point readers to sources where they can verify this themselves. 207.189.106.4 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I am asking that we provide at least one source for the claim that 'Others suggest that the 2012 date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe.' so that readers can understand who is making this claim and its specific nature. From what has been posted here that shouldn't be too difficult, since apparently there are lots of sources. Thanks! 207.189.106.4 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you claim the world will come to a complete end, how can you $ell your $hit to $ucker$? And using your real name might leave you liable. -- Kheider (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about this? Good enough? Serendi^podous 10:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's hard for me to tell whether you're joking or not - in the UK the Daily Mail is sort of like the National Enquirer in the US. It's know for running ridiculous and inaccurate articles like Elvis on the Moon stories (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/daily-mail-wins-worst-science-article-prize_n_1291243.html), but, you know, whatever you think is the best source for the statement is fine by me. The Daily Mail one does at least convey the sense that the claim is mainly journalistic hyperbole repeated from one ill-sourced article to another without much basis in fact. That one in particular ranges incoherently from a discussion of the movie to an apparently unrelated story of a young boy carried away by a weather balloon. It does at least cite a particular individual who wrote a book that did predict, if not the end of the world, at least a large scale cataclysm in 2012.

I'm not so concerned with the particular source, whatever you want is fine, just sourcing it at all would be great. Personally I think a direct NASA source, or something more serious and less likely to be interpreted as a joke would be better, but the more I think about it the more I think the Daily Mail is pretty representative of the general standard of journalistic quality.

On a similar note, I feel personally that we can arrange sources on this on a scale of credibility with books like 'Apocalypse 2012' on one end, and NASA on the other. History Channel, and the Daily Mail are pretty much alongside the scaremonger books - not really adding much analysis or quality interpretation, rarely paying much attention to the facts, merely trying to make money by generating page views or viewer numbers by generating controversy or fear that, if it was there at all, was pretty fringe before they got hold of it. But that's my personal take. I'd like to see us try to use sources that have some sort of journalistic or scientific credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you feel that you can find a source to suit your exacting standards, then fine. But you're the only one who has a problem with this. This article has undergone 4 peer reviews, 2 featured article cadidacies, and 1 good article candidacy without this being raised as a problem. If you want you can take this to FAR or arbitration, but don't expect everyone else to go chasing down your sources for you. Serendi^podous 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Woah, relax! I'm not picking a fight, I'm just trying to up the standard of the article. My problem was that I couldn't find a good source for the statement, and that the first 20 or so suggestions from other people on this page are obviously to things that don't support it. I'm happy to put the Daily Mirror as the source of this if that is indeed the best source that anyone has for it, although frankly given that that seems to be the best we can come up with (a newspaper famous for its low journalistic standards) I think we might seriously consider removing it as an unverifiable statement. I take it from your comment that you think the Daily Mirror IS the best source for the statement?

Especially given that the previous statement about the opinions of 'New Age' groups IS sourced (to a New York Times article), I'm a little surprised that you seem to think the request to provide a source for this comment, which has proven so difficult in this thread to verify, is unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm saying that I am unable to verify the statement or find a good source for it. If nobody else is willing / able to find a credible source for it either, we should remove the statement. I think I am correct in thinking this is in line with normal wikipedia policy, and I'm surprised that you would recommend I take the issue to arbitration rather than simply follow established norms, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We HAVE provided you with sources. You just haven't accepted the sources as valid. So rather than chasing sources around the web until I find one that pleases you, I'm going to leave the search to you. And no, I am not taking that line down. You want that, you take this to arbitration. Serendi^podous 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, relax. There are no sources listed on that comment on the article. I've said I have no objection the Daily Mail if you feel that's the best you can come up with, but you have not put it up. I find your hostility really surprising, I don't feel the request to source this is unreasonable, especially given that most of the suggestions for sources point to things that don't, in fact, support the statement.

The idea that it is my responsibility to find a source for this is rather odd. I have looked, and can't find anything that supports it. I've told you that I personally think the comment is unverifiable and that there are few or no reliable sources that support it, so your assertion that it is my responsibility nonetheless to find material to support this surprises me. I think it is unverifiable, I can't find anything that reliably verifies it, therefore I think the burden is on someone else to provide a reliable verification. I am perfectly happy for you to use the Daily Mirror article, I'm simply saying that I think it gives the (perhaps genuine) impression that there are no credible sources that support the comment.

Please let me know whether you are refusing to put even the weak source that you have given on the article, or whether you are seriously suggesting that we need to go to arbitration over whether a statement of dubious truth value should be sourced. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if you are able to verify the whether there are actually groups who believe the world will end in 2012. What matters is that there are clearly sources that state that some people believe this.´Challenging these sources in the way you propose is original research. Its pretty interesting research and I am sure that if you write an article about how really nobody actually believes in the 2012 and its all hype suggesting that somene believes it it will get published thus adding a new reliable source to the article. We don't need sources that claim that the world will end in 20120 - only sources that claim that others claim so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

that's fine - if you feel that it's acceptable to source this with references that are pretty obviously inaccurate then that's fine by me. As far as I can see there is a refusal to add even those. What I find unacceptable is that the comment right now has no sources at all. We don't know who is claiming that anyone believes that the world will end in 2012. Please go ahead and add anything as a source that actually claims that people believe this. Of course I would prefer accurate sources, but if you can't find any, any will do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.107.161.123 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you put a reference to an actual author who does (more or less) actually claim the end of the world in 2012 - fantastic - I appreciate it, as will others who want to know who is saying this. I'm glad that you showed that it doesn't have to be hard to follow basic policy, and that arbitration isn't necessary to provide basic references for claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been a revelation, and I'm sorry it has come so late in the game (meaning the fate of the world will be decided in only a few months). As this thread developed, I thought it would be easy to find the root source of the apocalyptic claims related to 2012, but like the anonymous commenter (I do wish you would sign in as someone), I couldn't find the origin of it or anyone with two cents of credibility who proposed it. What the anonymous editor has done is what I think we all should have done, and that is dug into these alleged sources of a 2012 apocalypse and demonstrated them to be spurious. Cataclysms and disasters, sure, but the end of the world? Apparently not. This page would have done a greater service to the public at large if we could have said, from the very beginning, that the end of the world was just a giant meme. Many thanks to Mr. Anonymous. My consciousness has been raised nine months before the New Agers said it would be ... CoyoteMan31 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the end of the Mayan calendar combined with anonymous internet users that have claimed the world will/could(?) end in 2012. Youtubers and fringe websites/talk-shows like to bring in readers/viewers with sensational claims. Hollywood/tv have also made money off of it. There has never been a credible claim to a December 21, 2012 disaster. -- Kheider (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I listed four people (Patrick Geryl, Jaysen Rand, Marshall Masters and Earthday) who have made such claims, but they apparently have shifted their positions of late, which isn't surprising. I haven't mentioned them because a) there are few reliable sources willing to give these people the time of day; b) the idea that the world ends in 2012 predates all of them anyway, and c) the panic over the world ending in 2012 has grown so far beyond their limited horizon that it really doesn't matter who started it anymore. Serendi^podous 20:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In cases like this one, it's almost impossible to distinguish between Rudolf Otto's fascinans et tremendum. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 "doomsday" prediction was first made by Michael D. Coe in 1966, when he put a literal date to a mythic motif. This is quite possibly the biggest blunder in anthropological history. It has nothing to do with the actual Maya and "New Agers" are just following in the eminent anthropologist's footsteps. I'm surprised you all haven't gotten this in perspective quite yet. Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.65 (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on... You're taking the fun out of it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Movie / TV

I also think the Movie 2012 (film) and the National Geographic Channel show called Doomsday Preppers should be mentioned in the cultural section. Both of them are cashing in on the 2012 doomsday marketing machine. -- Kheider (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The section deals with cultural references related to the 2012 phenomenon. The fact that the show was released in 2012 is hardly sufficient evidence of a nexus between the two. Granted, I think it's clear they are capitalizing on the 2012 fervor because of all the talk of end-times, but you'll need to find a citation linking the two. Perhaps there's an episode specifically dealing with doomsday preppers who think the world will end in 2012 based on the Mayan calendar?JoelWhy (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I split the section because it was getting harder to read. I agree that the 2012 movie kinda crosses the boundary, but the section would have to be split sooner or later, and it probably belongs better there. Serendi^podous 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the move, but we still need justification for its inclusion in the first place. Unless there is something which shows a direct connection between the show and 2012, it should be removed. (I agree that the movie 2012 should be included, however.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

cited. Serendi^podous 14:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)