Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Washington Post article

2012: Eh, It's Not the End Of the World, Washington Post, October 16, 2009. The article quotes David Morrison, senior scientist for NASA's Astrobiology Institute, who has also written an article in Skeptic magazine. --mikeu ^talk 13:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That Post article's pretty good, though it's mostly about Nibiru, which has its own article. I'd love to read that Skeptic article, but I can't get it. Serendi^podous 14:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read Skeptic in so long! How I miss articles like this issue's "Atheism Rising" and "Gullible Instructing the Gullible"... okay, not really. Here we go, 2012 article, pp.47-53. Ummm... we probably shouldn't cite this. It claims that Nibiru was the original source for 2012 claims, even though the Nibiru date was moved to 2012 only in 2003, at which point JMJ had published many books. The rest of the article is purely condescending. It does have replies for some stray claims by Nibiru wingnuts so I'll head over to that article and see if I can add anything. Shii (tock) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I have with Morrison's article is that it completely misrepresents the origins of the 2012 mythology, attributing it to fears about Nibiru that began ca. 1976 instead of speculation about the ancient Maya and Coe's clear remark in 1966 regarding the end of a Great Cycle and "Armageddon." Waters, Arguelles, and the McKennas all published on 2012 in 1975. Their work had more to do with the commercial success of Carlos Castaneda and the hype about Comet Kohoutek than anything having to do with Nibiru. Hoopes (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Morrison's main focus is on Nibiru, which isn't directly tied to 2012. Serendi^podous 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins quote about Wikipedia

"... Wikipedia is a joke; it's a breeding ground for the vindictive and envious ... " Verification available upon request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.20.2 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really have much bearing on the article. Might be useful for his biography page. Serendi^podous 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

2012 on Drugs

One of the dimensions that was missing in this article was reference to the pervasive influence of psychedelics on key contributors to the 2012 mythology. Arguelles, the McKennas, JMJ, Pinchbeck, and others have written quite a bit about either their own or the ancient Maya's tripping (or both) on substances such as LSD, DMT, psychedelic mushrooms, psychoactive toads, ayahuasca, etc., etc. The media hasn't yet picked up on this angle, which has been present since birth of the meme. I've gone through and added what I think are helpful references and hyperlinks. If you feel it's necessary to provide specific quotations, page numbers, etc., I can go back and do that. If it seems that whoever thought up the 2012 mythology (in our own culture, at least) was on drugs, it's because they were! Hoopes (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I think this is distinct and noteworthy in the case of the 2012 phenomenon, more so than in other aspects of contemporary culture (art, music, film, etc.) in which drugs clearly play a role, because psychedelics have been described (for example, by Stephanie South, Arguelles' biographer and by Terence McKenna) as being central to the realization of the "truths" about 2012. JMJ devotes a whole chapter to "shamanic journeying" using psychedelics in Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 and Pinchbeck says he was tripping on ayahuasca when Quetzalcoatl came and spoke to him about 2012. The mythology of 2012 is a pervasive part of psychedelic global subculture, from California to New York to Amsterdam to New Zealand to Tokyo to Hawaii. It's a given that, when December 21, 2012 arrives, many people will experience it in an altered state of consciousness. Hoopes (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, a good set of additions, but you forgot to add citations in a few places. I've tagged a few sentences that need citing. Serendi^podous 08:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, but is it really necessary to have "Many of these ideas have been inspired by the use of psychedelics" in the first paragraph? To me, this implies that anyone studying the 2012 'phenomenon' is some drugged up idiot that should be dismissed... If this was the first page i had read on 2012 i would certainly infer that and have stopped there. With the state of the citations i believe it certainly doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Cstof j (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Serendi^podous 11:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that one does not need to look very deeply into the history of the 2012 "phenomenon" to see that Arguelles and McKenna (starting in 1975) played pivotal roles in getting it started and that JMJ and Pinchbeck have been central figures in stirring up current interest. I don't think there was anything contained in the factual and correct statement about inspiration by psychedelics that implied a judgement about anyone being "drugged up" or an "idiot" who should be dismissed. That's your own baggage, not something contained in the sentence or its placement. Hoopes (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood however unless you can find a WP:RS that says "Use of psychadelics was instrumental to the development of ideas pertaining to an eschatological argument regarding 2012" it's WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE you run up against. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why wouldn't the same apply to the following sentence (that was led stand)? "Arguments supporting this dating are drawn from a mixture of amateur archaeoastronomy, alternative interpretations of mythology, numerological constructions, and alleged prophecies from extraterrestrial beings." Why not add "DIY shamanism" (or something more accurate and diplomatically worded) to the list? Hoopes (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Each of those phrases has its own corresponding paragraph within the text. "Amateur archeoastronomy"= Galactic alignment. "Alternative interpretations of mythology"=New age theories. "Numerological constructions"=Timewave zero. "alleged prophecies from extraterrestrial beings"=Planet Nibiru. I don't think that mentioning drugs merits its own section, and since there's only one sentence on the subject I don't think it merits mention in the lead. Serendi^podous 10:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and will work to compose something acceptable. The prominent role of Arguelles and McKenna in the 2012 phenomenon is undeniable and the influence of psychedelics on each of their thinking is also undeniable. As I've noted, psychedelics are also prominent in the work of JMJ, Pinchbeck, and others. I think a strong argument can be made that psychedelics are at least as significant (and in fact much more so) to the 2012 phenomenon as any discussions of Nibiru or extraterrestrial beings. Hoopes (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} I'd suggest banging together a properly referenced section on the use of psychadelics in userspace. Share it first and if it passes muster include it.Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my plan. I'll post a note when it's ready for sharing. (It may be a day or two.) Hoopes (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Andreas Fuls - year 2208 in stead of 2012

Today some articles appeared in the Dutch media, that state that Andreas Fuls has done a recalculation on the Maya calendars, and he came to the year 2208 in stead of 2012. Sofar I found only this Website in English, which lists some of his publications. Any comments? Wiki-uk (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is Andreas Fuls and why would his opinion matter? Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok did the leg work and found out for myself. I have to say that Fuls may represent a WP:RS although we should make sure that his 2208 long-count correlation represents the current understanding of the archaeological community before giving it undue weight. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

John Hoopes will know, and if it is I'll know soon. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My links to the anthropology community are mostly on the paleo-physical / primatology side of the fence... I am, however, curious. It'd be hillarious if after all this hype it turned out that the "The Mayans hadn't warned us about anything at all". :p Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

After clicking a bit further, I came across http://www.archaeoastronomie.de/mayaeng/corrtabl.htm (navigate from here), which gives a comparative table that shows the different results. Wiki-uk (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wooden lintels from doors at Tikal and other organic items that can be assigned to Long Count dates have been carbon dated and these agree with the GMT correlation to within the limits of the accuracy of the dating process, a few years. This confirms the GMT correlation and casts grave doubt on correlations that are not close to the GMT. In addition, one of the correlated dates that is used to derive the GMT is the conquest of the Aztec empire. This occurred on August 13th, 1521. The Tzok'in was one snake. A correlation could not be correct unless it differs from the GMT by a multiple of 260 days. This is not true of the correlation of 660,208 days proposed by Fuls, et. al. The date of the conquest would fall on 9 Ajaw. Many hierophanies have been proposed by attempting to use astronomy programs but the methods used by ancient astronomers were not accurate enough to use their data to get dates that accurately record astronomical phenomena to test these hypotheses. A very large number of correlation constants has been proposed by many authors but there is very little doubt that the correct one is the GMT. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I don't think Fuls' alternative correlation to the more widely used GMT should be given any special attention with respect to 2012. (This may be an attempt on his part to use a hot media issue to garner more attention for his pet theory, which remains to become widely accepted by Mayanists.) Fuls' correlation merits serious consideration, but belongs with discussion the Maya calendar. His is not the only correlation that would change the date. Hoopes (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Contribution for protected page

Ernst Forstemann, who is understood to have discovered for the modern world the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar stated in his 1904 Commentary on the Dresden Codex (Full View at Google Books), on page 263, "These large numbers pertaining to the destruction of the world are a reminder of the numbers, which on page 24, we believed were connected with the creation of the world. Thus here, too, we have the genesis and the apocalypse of all the mythologies." On page 265, regarding Dresden Codex page 74, he continues with, "This page can denote nothing but the end of the world, for which the serpent numbers have prepared the way." The precise calculations from the Dresden Codex that mark 2012 have been re-calculated and updated by galactic astrologer, Raymond Mardyks. Jimini Cricket 63.232.20.2 (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone please assist with linking to Commentary on the Dresden Codex by Forstemann on Google books. Thanks. Here's the url: http://books.google.com/books?id=iuUwT_cYQ30C&printsec=frontcover&dq=forstemann+dresden&ei=iJnnSrTAKob0ygTNuIGbDA#v=onepage&q=forstemann%20dresden&f=false

Here's a url for the "end of the world" image on page 74 of the Dresden Codex: http://probaway.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/kingsboroughp74_.jpg

Mardyks: If you weren't completely ignorant about Maya iconography you would recognize the god on the bottom of the page. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the rain would be poured forth from the heavens on Chaac. A lot of the codex is devoted to the four Chacs. Interpreting this as the end of the world is very dubious. It looks like the opposite to me. Your claim to have re-calculated and updated the calculations that lead to 2012 is original unpublished research at best or more likely a lie. You are banned from editing for excellent reasons. Get over it. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Thanks for the PERSONAL ATTACK, SC. Is anyone paying attention to this ???? MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

However, Mardyks (who is not "completely ignorant" by a long shot) may have a point in identifying Forstemann as an important early source for thinking (probably mistakenly) that the Maya were depicting "the end of the world" (even if it was an "end" of previous creation). I think Coe's 1966 remark about "Armageddon" may have originated in Morley's 1946 paraphrase of some uncited footnotes from Tozzer's 1941 translation of Landa, which (in the original) may have also been the source of some of Forstemann's erroneous notions. What's fascinating about this is that the sources Tozzer cites refer to post-Conquest documents and ethnohistoric accounts from Roman Catholic Mayas who had probably been schooled by Franciscan missionaries in both stories of the Great Flood and the Book of Revelation. When the Maya "end times" stories and prophecies come back to us, they're actually repackaged Christian eschatology in a syncretistic Maya wrapper. That said, you're right about Mardyks' unpublished calculations. Unless they're published, they can't be evaluated and critiqued--or cited here. Hoopes (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cuente, Hoopes, do not feed this guy. Right or wrong, his ideas are the purest form of original research and, quite simply, do not belong in Wikipedia. This is not the place to discuss the relative merits of his ideas. Wikipedia is not an internet discussion forum. For several weeks now, this guy has been relentlessly pushing at any crack in his quest to use Wikipedia as a platform to publish his own work. If you give him an inch, I guarantee he will take a mile. Serendi^podous 15:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mardyks is contributing valuable, verifiable contributions from the man who figured out the Maya long-count and was the first to use the expressions "end of the world" and "apocalypse". Isn't this what this article is all about? Here's the origin of this "phenomena". Damn good research. So POD, get over the hate vibe already. BE WELCOMING! Where's your backbone, Hoopes? I don't want a "mile", just a decent 2012 article on Wiki. MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Again with the third person. Who are you, Bob Dole? "Damn good research" isn't the point of Wikipedia. Research counts, but so does what goes in. We don't write essays here, we report what others say. There's nothing against using your own work as a source, provided that it passes Wiki tests for notability. So far, the only sources you've provided for your own work are obscure New Age publications. I know you feel JMJ hobbled your horse, but the fact of the matter is, he is mentioned in many third party sources, which makes him notable, and you are not. Wikipedia isn't about what's True, it's about what's verifiable and notable. So far, the only person I've found who considers you notable is you. Serendi^podous 08:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

POD. FYI. Here's a list of books that have been published that include discussion of me and/or my (Raymond Mardyks) unique approach to astrology: Inner Guide Meditation by Edwin Steinbrecher, p. 151 (Red Wheel/Weiser, 1988, 2006), Call of the Dolphins by Lana Miller (1989), Beyond Prophecies and Predictions by Moira Timms (Ballantine, 1996), Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 by John Major Jenkins (1998, Bear & Co), How To Practice Mayan Astrology by Bruce C. Scofield & Barry C. Orr, p. 109 (2007), Beyond 2012 by Geoff Stray, 10 pp., (2009 Bear & Co/Inner Traditions), 13th Step by Jude Currivan PHD (co-author of CosMos with Ervin László, Hay House 2008) Hay House 2009, The 2012 Story by John Major Jenkins, p. 143-144. (Penguin 2009). MARdykS 63.232.20.2 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am offering what Forstemann said. Try reading what I actually write POD! I'm over it with my own "research" as you call it. I'm playing by the rules, so how about you get current. Remember GOOD FAITH & BE WELCOMING. Maybe you can stop making this personal. It looks like personal attacking and harassment to me. READ what I ACTUALLY WRITE, OKAY. MARDYKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.120.172 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

POD - Re: JMJ. He is popularizing my "galactic alignment" idea. I'm glad he is doing what he's doing. I have no interest being in the spotlight about 2012 and the end of the world. My books are intentionally out of print and my web site is gone. I'm just trying to help Wiki, so that the 2012 piece doesn't suck. MARDYKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.120.172 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot provide reliable third party sources for your material, it cannot go in. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with my own personal feelings toward you (though I think we're several months past "welcoming" by now), it's just the way Wikipedia works. Serendi^podous 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

REALLY? Hoopes and others have filled an entire MAYANISM section with biased opinions bordering on "hate" and from me you keep demanding what is already done, including page numbers to verifiable sources available free on the Internet. And you say it not personal? If that's true, then shall we stay focused on the material and not the person. So what's up with the FORSTEMANN quotes??? MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed or toned down most of Hoopes's comments. But he cites people known to be involved in this "issue." True, he forgets to add page numbers. Which I have warned him of, and if he doesn't add them soon I'm going to delete his work. So no, it's not personal. Your only goal it appears, is not to add new information but merely to get your name included on the page, which makes your contributions personal by definition. Serendi^podous 08:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some guidance on the inclusion of page numbers for references. I can certainly add them, but their use is far from universal. Hoopes (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just put them in after the citations. And while we may not be able to include page numbers for all citations, it will help the GAN if we can find as many as possible. Serendi^podous 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. Do let me know if you need more of 'em. Hoopes (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

... and the Forsteman quotes ? He has his own page on Wiki. Simply leave out my name, POD. MARDYKS 97.123.24.84 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday theories-Geomagnetic reversal

I just want someone to update the Solar Cycle 24 predictions in this section. Many now predict that the cycle would be weak. Also due to the amout of spotless days in 2008 and so far in 2009 the peak might not happen till 2013 (If at all?). It is true that many predictions of a solar cycle end up the opposite of what they have expected. eg:- Cycle 19 & 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.164.199 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Fixed. :) Serendi^podous 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

page numbers

Several of the book citations don't have listed page numbers. We're going to need them if this article is going to move up the ladder. Serendi^podous 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2012 - 36 = 1998

"The alignment in question is not exclusive to 2012 but takes place over a 36-year period, corresponding to the diameter of the Sun, with the most precise convergence having already occurred in 1998."

Sorry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The 36-year window is Jenkin's speculation. Nothing more and nothing less. The "aligment" is like aligning a pool cue BEFORE making the shot. The "galactic alignment" is a 13-tun, pre-2012 event. MARDYKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.120.172 (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against your math, since the 1998 date is the point when the centre of the Sun precisely aligns with the centre of the galaxy. Serendi^podous 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the "centre" of the sun never aligns with the "centre" of the galaxy. Both of these things are points so how can they align? Actually I think what happened was that the Sun was at a point on the Ecliptic where it crossed the plane of the galaxy. As far as this meaning anything, of course it doesn't, since astrology is a pseudoscience anyway. This is one of the puzzling things about Mardyks. He's so obsessed with taking credit for predicting a non-event. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

As explained CORRECTLY in my 1999 book, Maya Calendar, Voice of the Galaxy; The "solstices" align with the galactic plane. Astrologically potent from September 1998 through September 2001 (THE 9:11 Event). It also states that this is one of FIVE astronomical events contributing to 2012, the others including the Transit of Venus and the two solar eclipses, one with the Pleiades and the other with the Serpent constellation. If this site is about what people say, then consider that the Maya who forecasted what we call 2012 were using astrology that was based on astronomical principles outlined in the Dresden Codex. McKenna & Jenkins got the alignment wrong (galactic center, 2012, etc) and are the main sources of the misinformation in hyperbolic circulation these days. I'm not obsessed, just trying to educate those in obvious need of it, like the 2012 editors on Wiki ... hahahahaha. No charge this time. MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to educate yourself on the TRUE "galactic alignment", this page has been up since 1999: [1] MARDYKS with LOVE

Also the blogs at [2] are dedicated to the "true" galactic alignment. Worth your time for sure! MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1998 was the year of the Great Home Run Chase, which we now know was fueled by illegal substances. Surely that was the beginning of the end of the world as we knew it? :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. BEGINNING OF THE END deserves it's very own Wiki page for sure. It's own section AT LEAST! BOTE for short! MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the links you posted would qualify as reliable sources under wiki rules, Mardyks. Serendi^podous 08:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

POD. Are you saying the man who discovered the Long-Count is not a reliable source? He has a page on Wiki. Without him, there'd be no rediscovered ancient Maya calendar, hence no 2012. This is like leaving out Einstein on the Theory of Relativity page! MARdykS 63.232.20.2 (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for response to FORSTEMANN quotes, POD & others. He's got his own page on Wiki. MARDYKS 97.123.24.84 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

This is not a forum. We do not need to feed the trolls. If somebody starts acting forum-like just blank the comment and move on. Simonm223 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dresden Codex - 2012 Connection

National Geographic has made the connection between the Dresden Codex and 2012. See: [3]. Dresden Codex -> Forstemann -> end of the world in 2012. It totally deserves entry into the main article. What more do you need? MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention Forstemann. And even if it did I wouldn't consider it reliable. More academically credible sources are needed. Forstemann was writing in the early 20th century, before the Maya script had been fully deciphered (yes, I know it isn't fully deciphered now, but it is certainly more deciphered now than it was then). So his opinions are outdated. If we were to include his idea, we would need to include the opinions of modern Mayanist scholars as well. And besides, going by your own quotes, Forstemann doesn't even mention the 2012 date (How could he? The calendar wasn't correctly calibrated to ours until the 60s), so to make a connection between Forstemann's comments and 2012 is original research. Serendi^podous 08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the calendar was correctly calibrated to ours over a hundred years ago by Joseph T. Goodman. J.E.S. Thompson added a slight correction in 1950, by which time it was pretty much done. The only significant correction after that was one of just two days suggested by Floyd Lounsbury but not universally adopted. I'm highly skeptical of Forstemann's interpretation, which seems to be based on post-Contact sources rather than information internal to the Dresden Codex itself. Hoopes (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

2012 Article

There was an excellent article about the 2012 doomsday hoax in last month's Sky and Telescope magazine by archaeoastronomer E. C. Krupp. The article can be downloaded as a PDF here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/69774827.html Senor Cuete (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Ah one piece of the puzzle fixed. Good find! :) Serendi^podous 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A recent article in Archaeology magazine was written by the guy who wrote "The End of Time: The Maya Mystery of 2012". I only added a few references to that book but based on what I read it seems to be full of good stuff. Shii (tock) 06:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

astroturfing?

Whilst this article is nicely sourced and everything, and probably deserves to stay on here, looking at the edit history and its creation, somthing doesn't look quite right, and it appears to me like the whole thing might just be astroturfing for the 2012 film. Maybe me being a cynical old sort :) Coolug (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This article quotes people describing the 2012 film's marketing campaign as "deeply flawed" and "ethically wrong". If we're astroturfing, we're the worst astroturfers in history. Serendi^podous 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

not disputing that :) Looking at earlier versions however made me think so. cya Coolug (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the film. The disaster meme is as old as the hills, and the year 2012 was chosen when the last several dates failed to pan out. These type of memes appear on the average of every ten years, but people have very short term memories. The Year 2000 problem brought out the same group of uncritical thinkers, and prior to that we had Heaven's Gate saying the same thing in 1997, and before that, twelve more failed predictions occured between 1990-1994.[4] Hundreds more can be found here. The problem is not that people are making disaster films or the writers are making money publishing books, but that the general public is not capable of thinking critically and can easily be manipulated into believing one thing or another depending on which way the wind is blowing. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that the meme is old, but I don't think it's out of line to be paranoid about the astroturfing; it's been marketed non-stop on multiple cable TV outlets via related documentaries... Even if they're not paid, or aware of their employment, there's definitely been some corporate shills messing with this page. It a tough situation. What happens when marketing is prevalent enough that any discussion of a particular topic is just product-mongering?

I've been working on this page for the better part of a year and I haven't noticed anything of that sort. Believe me, if I did, it wouldn't last long. If everything is product-mongering these days, that has more to do with the unscrupulous, reality-blurring nature of the campaign than any effort on the part of the contributors. As far as I know, theirs was the first and (I hope) only trailer to demand that its audience Google their topic heading. They were using the hysteria to push their agenda, and it worked, at least for a few days. Serendi^podous 01:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Since the page is protected, I can't make the edit myself. If some can edit this page, I propose adding "all of which lack scientific support" at the end of the first sentence, so that it reads "The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of beliefs and proposals positing that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur in the year 2012, all of which lack scientific support." The purpose of the edit would be to make it immediately clear to everyone that this is a non-scientific conspiracy-theory/pseudo-scientific/new-age-type idea, and not something that's actually being predicted by serious scientists. As the article reads right now, that point isn't made until the last paragraph of the introduction. It might help reduce the spread of the incorrect belief that the world is actually going to end in 2012, and spreading knowledge is in line with Wikipedia's aims, if I am not mistaken. 79.138.154.133 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While that would be a valid wording, I don't think it would retain encyclopedic quality. I'll change it to incorporate pseudoscience, however.
--K10wnsta (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New article

This may be useful. Ruslik_Zero 08:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins

Just out of curiousity, why is anything this guy says about the Mayans or cosmology being treated as reputable source material?

Additionally, I read through this article looking for where these various hypotheses were coming from and, aside from that clown, it appears a great deal of it is synthesized from articles exclusively devoted to debunking the claims. This subject needs to be approached as either a scientific article (and as such, held to those referencing standards) or an article relating the 2012 hype to the hundreds of other doomsday phenomenon presented by the manipulative and/or feeble-minded throughout human history.
--K10wnsta (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The origins of Timewave Zero and the galactic alignment are discussed in this article. The Nibiru collision and Web bot have their own articles, so their origins are well-attested and don't need to be mentioned here. The origins of the black hole alignment and the solar cycle are a bit obscure, but appear to have emerged from the fact that the next solar maximum occurs in around 2012, and a misreading of Jenkins's hypothesis respectively. As regards synthesis, well, we either use sources debunking the claims or we use sources supporting them. There is no middle ground; you either believe the world is about to end or you don't. Sources supporting them tend not to be reliable sources. John Major Jenkins's section does rely too heavily on primary sources, but he is well supported by secondary sources, which could be added. And last I checked, scientific journals aren't really in the business of publishing papers explaining why the world isn't going to end in 2012. Yes, we could find plenty of scientific data showing that each of these ideas is wrong, but unless the papers themselves also explicitly say those ideas are wrong, then we're committing synthesis. Serendi^podous 10:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hindu eschatology

After reading article Hindu eschatology, my commonsense 'figure out' that 'Hindu eschatology' got nothing to do with so called '2012 phenomenon'. Or may be I have lost meaning of commonsense after typing 'commonsense' so many times. If not, please remove that 'eschatology' in lead section. Thanks! RAMA (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2012 is listed under "inter-religious". Serendi^podous 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed to relate hinduism and 2012 phenomenon. I admit wikipedia is not discussion forum. At the same time wikipedia is not hoax spreading media. Hence reference needed. Thanks! RAMA (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no link. That isn't part of the article, it's a template. Every single eschatology page on Wikipedia has the exact same template. It's not there to suggest there's a link, merely to help those interested in eschatology navigate between the various eschatological articles. Serendi^podous 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tortuguero Section

In reference to footnote 22. One cannot make the assertion that tortuguero astronomers would continue the long count past thirteen baktun. They may speak of distance dates in multiples of 20 baktun, however, this does not negate the fact that the 13 baktun cycle repeats. It is more proper to think of the long count as a graph, upon which there is a line of 13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0.0 creating a slope through it. If the count went to 14.0.0.0.0, that line would be a curve. Im just saying, the long count, like a graph, has specific dimensions. It MUST go to twenty baktun. Similarly, the 13 baktun cycle MUST repeat. It is a formula. Read Christopher Powell's (student of linda schelle) thesis on line at mayan exporation center.

Yourliver (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sai Baba

You may like to add the Dictum given by SAI BABA This dictum was given by swami to his closest 18 students long time back. Now this one is updated on 28 Feb 2008. This was given by Julius Tan. Let's not judge things

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Gnanali (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, fixed those links, but those images are completely unreadable. Serendi^podous 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a doomsday prediction for 2010 attributed to Sai Baba. I don't see any reliable evidence that Sai Baba actually said these things. Shii (tock) 08:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Alignment

The galactic alignment section of the article states, "the ancient Maya had planned an intentional correspondence of a December 21 date with the winter solstice in 2012." Uh ... wasn't this the intention of the designers of the Gregorian calendar? This is so utterly confused. Looks like you got to fake it when you don't understand the topic. Does ANYONE understand the galactic alignment? GreenAppleEye 68.35.31.116 (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue arises because, depending on how you calculate it, the 13th baktun ends on either December 21st or December 23rd, 2012. But yes I agree it is unclear. Serendi^podous 08:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy who made it up understands it, but to a scientist (or anyone else, for that matter) it makes little sense. It's essentially a load of crap masquerading as science - the bottom paragraph is the only one in the whole section which is halfway worth reading, the rest of the section is confused jumble of astrology mixed with astronomy mixed with pure fiction. There's nothing to really understand, apart from 'there is no alignment in 2012'. At all. 87.102.75.213 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did some research and an astrologer named Raymond Mardyks seems to know what he's talking about regarding this galactic alignment subject. Can't find anyone else. Why is he not included here? Just noticed a mention of him by John Hoopes on FAMSI [9]. Van Stone defers to Hoopes who defers to Mardyks. He is also recently interviewed here [10] This is the only guy who makes any sense to me. Jenkins appears to be running with his ideas. GreenAppleEye 70.57.248.167 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, Hoopes defers to Mardyks? I must tell him that. I note that on one of those links John calls him an "individual who remains preoccupied with the idea that the ancient Maya were given estoteric information by extraterrestrials." Mardyks has tried hard to use Wikipedia for publicity, but despite those two mentions, he simply is not a reliable source (see WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Publicity? His books are out of print and he doesn't keep a web site. He is not pitching a 2012 book or selling anything. He is reliable enough for Hoopes, Jenkins and others but not for Wikipedia? There is something seriously wrong with your attitude here. GreenAppleEye 97.183.183.55 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No criticisms?

Strange there isn't a criticisms section addressing things like a Jewish or Islamic timeline used, or how we switched for Julian to Gregorian, etc. I know such criticisms must exist somewhere, it's a big world, full of thoughts. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

None of those specific criticisms are valid. The Mayans didn't use a Gregorian calender either. They didn't predict the end of time to occur in the year 2012, but at some point in their calender date. The 2012 date has already been "translated" into the correct calender system taking those things into account.68.210.187.89 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Jan 5, 2010

Meaning of Apocalypse

On date second of January 2010, the article stated that "Conversely, some believe that the 2012 date marks the beginning of an apocalypse." It is quite clear that 'apocalypse' as it is used in this context, indicates a negative doomsday myth perspective, perhaps as propagated by the rather unscientific National Geographic or the politics of Hollywood. As it is put 'apocalypse' is read as conversely from what is rendered an optimistic New Age orientation.

It is quite simply wrong to use the word 'apocalypse' in such context. 'Apocalypse' may have a negative connotation in many ears, but the more litteral meaning of the word is revelation. The concept is indicating, beyond the religious strata, a time or age of truth and honesty as opposed to an age of lies and hypocricy. The greek word 'apocalypse' is parallelled by the Sanskrit Satya Yuga, the age of truth, as complementary to the current Kali Yuga, age of darkness and lies. The Apocalypse of John is the last book of the Bible. Here 'apocalypse', may be understood in two different, but not necessarily mutually excluding ways. In the first way of interpretation 'apocalypse', 'revelation', refers to the text and the experience of John, the author, it can be read as a revelation of the cosmic proportions, of cycles and the micro-macro cosmic relation, traditionally explored through the development and use of sacred medicine. As such 'the apocalypse' is without reasonable doubt cosmological pertaining to Astrotheology, or say Astromythology. But also it is pretty evidently refered as an entheogenic experience, not merely in regard of the character of the visions, but also it is quite evidently referred to in the text itself (Rev. 10 v. 9 ff). Thus it is reasonable to read the symbolic of the revelation in regard of both a micro-cosmic body and the macro-cosmic astrotheology, as is done in esoteric traditions and schools. Apart from signifying the book and the experienced revelation itself, in this case by John, 'Apocalypse' may refer to an era where the apparent revealed truth, will become understood for all, as in the narrative of the Revelation of John who portraits a gradual (in folds of seven) unveiling of a divine architecture. In other words, to use 'apocalypse' the way it is used in the article (as noted above) is not promoting enlightenment, neither in a rational way or in any other way. Apocalypse in any case signifies an uncovering of what is hidden (cf. Calypso) --Xact (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

why it will not happen

Overseas in places on the otherside of the world, they will have december 21 before we do. If doomsday will happen would it happen there first , and if it does dont believe that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.95.41 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically nobody editing this article believes that the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012. That would be silly. However there are plenty of credulous people who believe this nonsense and that makes it notable nonsense. So instead of pleading to the choir that this article is crazy how about lending a constructive hand to improving the article? Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Planet Nibiru

The Planet Nibiru section needs to be edited to add that the reason why earth passing close to this body is a problem is because it somehow leaves a wildly radioactive trail which we will then pass through and be poisoned by and the reason as stated by believers in this idea as to why the planet cannot be seen by simply looking into the night sky is because it has a wildly elliptical orbit meaning its far away from the sun for most of the time (how convenient), only coming into the inner solar system once every X years when it spews its radioactive trail everywhere - so its more of a really big comet then a planet. Also connected with this idea of a far swinging planet is that its inhabited by beings who lace their atmosphere with gold in order to scatter as much sunlight as possible around their dim world (wait isn't this battlefield earth?), though what kind of sunglasses and sunscreen this means they have to break out for the rare time their planet is close to the sun I dont want to know! Also this wiki has lots of planet x type info that could be referenced : http://www.2012hoax.orgCyclotron (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Planet Nibiru has its own article, and a wiki like 2012hoax.org, however well-intentioned, is not a reliable source. Serendi^podous 15:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've never heard of the theory of that "far swinging planet"; where did you get that? I can't find it on that wiki site you linked - maybe it's just me? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Solar system alignment

Another reason for the world ending in 2012 on the 21st of december that needs to be added here is that according to graham hancock, in his book fingerprints of the gods or keeper of genesis (I think), that is when the earth is going to be on one side of the sun with all the other planets on the other side of the sun in a kind of tug of war with earth as the loser (I wonder if he ran this past an astrophysicist?). This leads to unbalanced gravity waves etc etc leading to tectonic plate activity that will result in an actual semi or total polar shift (and not just misnamed geomagnetic reversal) that would be highly disruptive to us all. However strictly speaking he is not apocalyptic instead saying that this sort of thing has happened before and everyone living on antarctica (atlantis in hancock land) at the time was highly put out since their continent was moved from just off the south pole to directly on the south pole. 2012 - Australia beware? Cyclotron (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does Hancock say the world will end in 2012? Page number please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry the gravitational-effects-causing alignment he mentions in FPotG is the 05/05/2000 one. Re the end of the world he refers to the Mayan Long Count coming to an end (and bringing destruction or the end of the world) on 23/12/2012 on page 161 and again on page 499. (Thanks Mom.) Cyclotron (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on refs

• Comment on refs

• Inconsistent style(s) e.g. "Connor, Steve" but "David Morrison"; "Richard N. Luxton" but "Jenkins, John Major". Is "Nuttall, Zelia Nuttall" correct?
• In refs but not notes: Barkun; Hanegraaff; Nuttall; South; Voss; Wagner. • Ling.Nut 07:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean the article is heading for a GA nom? Because I don't want to go through the hell of manually rewriting every ref unless there's a reason for it. Serendi^podous 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's currently being nominated. Rewriting references doesn't sound like fun, but I'd be willing to do it, since I haven't done anything with the article for months. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I seldom do GA reviews these days; I've kinda lost my feel for where they draw the pass/fail line in the sand. I hang out at FAC much more frequently. I know that inconsistent refs have no chance at FAC (I'd most likely be the one complaining about them)... • Ling.Nut 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2012 phenomenon/GA1

• See Talk:2012 phenomenon/GA1 • Ling.Nut 05:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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)