Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I don't get your edit Shii

Certainly this article isn't entirely about doomsday, and yes it was right to move it from 2012 doomsday prediction. But it has a section on the end of the world. Mentioning the doomsday in the lead is necessary as the lead must summarize the article's content. Serendi^podous 03:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any references for the words "many" or "Armageddon" (i.e., the Christian Apocalypse). Shii (tock) 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a question of wording. Easily fixed. No reason to remove a section of the article's content from mention in the lead. Serendi^podous 07:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Millenarianism

My dictionary defines millenarianism this way:

millenarianism |ˌmiləˈne(ə)rēəˌnizəm| noun the doctrine of or belief in a future (and typically imminent) thousand-year age of blessedness, beginning with or culminating in the Second Coming of Christ. It is central to the teaching of groups such as Plymouth Brethren, Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. • belief in a future golden age of peace, justice, and prosperity.

You seem to have re-named the article based on a vocabulary error. Doomsday prediction was much closer to what this is about. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think your dictionary has mixed up millenarianism with millenialism. Quoting the Wikipedia article: "Millenarianism (also millenarism) is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming major transformation of society, after which all things will be changed in a positive (or sometimes negative or ambiguous) direction. Millennialism is a specific form of millenarianism based on a one-thousand-year cycle, especially significant for Christianity." This is the accurate term. For example, look at this editorial I read in my local paper last week: [1] Shii (tock) 21:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately neither Wikipedia nor your local paper qualifies as an authoritative source! --PL (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My dictionary is the New Oxford American Dictionary. I think that your source is mixed up. Also the article isn't about either of these subjects, it's about the 2012 Doomsday Prediction, which could be theoretically an off-shoot or sub species of one of these concepts. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Milennialism and millenarianism are two words for the same thing. See here: [2] you will also note that the word is correctly used here - it can be used about doomsday prophecies without any paradise afterwards.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the article you refer to says. I agree entirely with Senor Cruete. To most people, millenarianism is an entirely positive concept. By definition it looks forward to the millennium, as Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary rightly confirms. Merriam Webster likewise defines it as

1 : belief in the millennium of Christian prophecy

2 : belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action,

while the Oxford Dictionary gives:

the belief in a future thousand-year age of blessedness, beginning with or culminating in the Second Coming of Christ.

The doomsday anticipated by most lay end-of-the-worlders and fans of imminent planetary destruction (the idea widely promoted by the History Channel and now by Sony Pictures Digital Inc., which is basically what this article was always designed to address, despite the later inclusion of one or two more positive ideas) is merely an offshoot of the idea, and emphatically doesn't look forward to any millennium, or they would be more optimistic about it. Therefore 'millenarianism' is inappropriate in the title, since it doesn't apply to all the ideas represented -- whereas 'doomsday' is intrinsic to Christian millenarian teaching at least. --PL (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the 2012 date comes from the Maya Long Count Calendar, not from the Christian millenium. 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

millenarianism is not just used about christian religions and it is not an offshoot form christianity but has existed at all times and there are millenairan religions shooting of from all major world religions. You seem to be writing from a Christian perspective. For Christians Milennarianism is only positive if you believe that you are one of those who are going to get to live in the millenial kingdom. Milennarianism is normally used equivalently to "doomsday cult" when it is used about Milennarian beliefs about new Religious Movements - there is nothing inherently positive or negative in the word - it depends on the viewpoint of the one who says it. As the Encyclopedia of Religion and Sociology (which is more authoritative than any dictionary because it describes the use by specialists not laypeople) states millenarianism or millenialism is only defined by a belief in the end of this world being close - t doe snot presuppose that anything comes after - although that is the belief of Christian Milennarians. Other Millenarian religions include the lakhota Ghost Dance, the Taiping rebellion, Brahma Kumaris Spitirual University, the Plymouth brethren and the Branch Davidians - many of these have nothing to do with christianity.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the Plymouth Brethren! ;) --PL (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

NO I'm *NOT* writing from a christian perspective. I'm an atheist. The article is about a new-age social phenomenon derived from mis-interpretation of the Long Count calendar and has nothing to do with millenarianism as defined in the several dictionaries I have now looked it up in. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

No I am not speaking from the point of view of Christianity, either -- merely from that of the major dictionaries, which is what most people are likely to operate from, given that they are lay people, not specialists. And the fact remains that (at very least) neither of the English-speaking world's two leading dictionaries (quoted above) mentions doomsday in connection with millenarianism. This inevitably means that most readers are likely to be misled by the current title, which wouldn't be very sensible, would it?

As for the Encyclopedia of Religion and Sociology, this defines millenarianism exclusively in terms of a "millennium of peace, prosperity, and righteousness", and not of world destruction at all. And meanwhile the Dictionary of Sociology states that 'millenarianism' is "a term used to refer to a religious movement which prophesies the coming of the millennium and a cataclysmic end of the world as we know it; or, more formally, which anticipates imminent, total, ultimate, this-worldly, collective salvation... It usually involves... the proposal that the coming millennium will see the installation of a new social order. This new society is usually constructed as egalitarian and just." Its emphasis is thus on (a) a religious movement anticipating (b) a future millennium (as stated above), or paradise on earth -- a concept entirely foreign to the Mayanism that lies at the basis of the article and most of its sources.

I therefore propose that the title be changed to 2012 end-of-the-world predictions or simply to 2012 end-of-world predictions (complete with all its references and redirects and the first few words of the article), given that ALL the approaches described predict the end of A world, while by no means all of them predict the beginning of a new one, let alone a religious movement designed to lead to it, as the word 'millenarianism' would require. --PL (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing your sources there, PL. I believe your quote above comes from A Dictionary of Sociology (orig edn. ©1994, ed. Gordon Marshall). The Encyclopedia of Religion and Sociology from AltaMira Press (1998, ed. William Swatos et al) is a different book, and it describes millenarianism more or less the way Maunus says it does. [redaction: Apologies PL, I had composed my comments here while offline, and was thus going off the original version of your comments above. When I was next able to log on to add them (have been on the road) I failed to notice that in the meantime you'd updated ur comments w the right attribution of the quote to Dict. of Sociology, plus add another from the Ency. of Religion & Sociology. But that newly added quote ("millennium of peace, prosperity, and righteousness") refers specifically to Christian millenarianism, not millenarianism in the abstract/general case (which it describes as "A set of beliefs concerning end times...often including images of an apocalypse or utopian eternity of paradise"). So per this def it may be either apocalyptic or utopian in nature, or somewhere in-between...]

Other sources may readily be found that give similar or variant definitions, some overlapping others with differences according to their specific intent and scope. What should be clear enough is that modern scholarly usage of millenarian/millennial is not restricted to judeo-christian beliefs, but applied generally in the sociology and study of religion, beliefs and politics to all sorts of analagous belief systems—with a frequent common-denominator component of meaning something like "anticipation of an imminent/forthcoming transition or transcendance [that may or may not be apocalyptic]."

When proposing the move to millenarianism I did not have in mind generalist dicdefs, but rather its appearance and usage in major scholarly sources on Mayanism, western esotericism and sociology. See for eg Wouter Hanegraaff's New Age Religion and Western Culture and his Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, Garrett Cook's Renewing the Maya World (with its coverage of "Maya millenarian myths", that pre-date this 2012 stuff), Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (quote: "...Arguelles has emphasized the greater importance of 2012. The millennial consummation on that date will expose.."), and others. I was also thinking of other research in Maya anthropology that has noted periodic resurgences of millenarian beliefs in various contemporary Maya communities, not (originally) associated with 2012 (but with lots of other years and predictions). Recently 2012 has begun to figure in some modern Maya (neo-)shamanic pronouncements and writers, see for eg a collection of these by Robert Sitler here.

I still maintain that calling this article 'end-of-the-world' or 'doomsday' predictions would be a mislabeling its contents. Take another look at those prominent claimants we mention here - Waters, Arguelles, Jenkins, Pinchbeck, and others we could mention like César Mena Toto, David Icke, Graham Hancock, Alberto Villoldo, Carl Calleman (heck, even current Guatemalan president Alvaro Colom could get a guernsey, given his apparent guidance in these matters by Alejandro Oxlaj). None of these are really proposing end of the world type doomsdays, rather a supposed opportunity for consciousness-alignment, spiritual transcendence, and so on. The systems that propose/forecast cataclysmic doom are few, whatever the movie's or the History[sic] Channel's hype.--cjllw ʘ TALK 10:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Granted, millenarianism isn't confined to Christianity, but it was certainly not espoused by the historical Maya represented by the Popol Vuh and the calendrical inscriptions -- and it was their alleged pinpointing of 2012 that started this whole ball rolling and that supplies the core of the article. I repeat that even the kookier writers such as Arguelles and Icke posit the end of A world on that basis (that of current beliefs and attitudes), even if it merely leads to a new one (as indeed Christianity originally taught). As for the word 'apocalypse', it merely means 'revelation', not necessarily world destruction (once again, even the book of that name merely insists that the world will be renewed). I therefore still propose that the title be revised along the lines that I have suggested, since 'millenarianism' simply doesn't describe the fundamental Mayan 'take'. --PL (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is a fundamentally Mayan take at all. This is a phenomenon in the New Age movement that has simply willy nilly picked facts from different sources and one sources happens to be Mayan. The Mayans didn't espouse millenarianism (or maybe they did) but that's besides the point which is that current new age circles do espouse "2012 millenarianism". I think "2012 phenomenon" might be a better title if it had to be changed.Thats what is used in "The 2012 Phenomenon: The New Age Appropriation of an Ancient Mayan Calendar", Robert K. Sitler, Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 9, Issue 3, pages 24-38, ISSN 1092-6690·Maunus·ƛ· 16:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case it should be entitled The 2012 New Age Phenomenon -- yet that's only part of the story, and what readers surely want to know about is the world disaster predicted by the History Channel and others. The New Age bit only got tacked on as an afterthought. Just 2012 predictions, perhaps?--PL (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the history channel programme is only part of the larger 2012 phenomenon that started in new age circles and spread from there. i think '2012 phenomenon could cover both the specific New Age connotations and its spread as a meme into popular culture.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article using an extremely esoteric word with which even a well-educated, literate person would be unfamiliar and which is not really a description of the phenomenon seems like sophistry and arrogance to me. The old title was good enough. Nobody had a problem with the original name for a long time. I vote to change it back.Senor Cuete (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I second that, though I could also go along with 2012 prediction, which avoids the irreconcilable arguments and states perfectly simply what the article is unarguably about (if it's not all millenarianism, and not all doomsday either, why try to decide between them?). --PL (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"phenomenon" is esoteric to you?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I still really don't see that millenarian/ism is too obscure or specialised a term that it wouldn't be recognisable by a majority of readers.

But be that as it may, we shouldn't be spending too much time worrying about what the article's called, we are going to have to put in place a dozen or more redirects coming in from various search-term alternatives; this is one of those cases where there's no formally defined name.

I had thought of 2012 eschatology, and I also thought Shii's earlier suggestion of something like 2012 in esoteric culture(s) has some merits. But if "millennial/millenarian" is thought too confusing...

2012 predictions would have some appeal, except that I think it's probably a little too broad—there are presumably any number of innocuous and mundane predictions that fall due in 2012, but our article is not really intended to cover those (and IMO adding 'doomsday' is not sufficiently inclusive, as argued previously).

If the current name had to be changed, I would be prepared to go with 2012 phenomenon. I've seen several of the proponents use this expression, and it has also the merit of being a term employed by (what seem to be the only two) academic works written specifically on the topic—, Robert Sitler's Nova Religio paper and an MA thesis by one of Hanegraaff's students. There's precedent for the term, and it gets a respectable number of ghits (fewer than '2012 prediction', but not significantly so and this latter also picks up a number of false positives). So if it is to be renamed, would PL, SC and any others be prepared to go with that?--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer your term 2012 eschatology, which is right on the money! OK, not everybody knows the term, but if its linked... --PL (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

eschatology is hardly less esoteric or easilier defined than milenarianism.·Maunus·<spanclass="Unicode">ƛ· 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Try referring to it? --PL (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support 2012 phenomenon for the reasons given by CJLL. When in doubt, the term given by scholars should be used. Shii (tock) 15:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be... --PL (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's no objection in the next few days I'll move the page (again) and give citations for the new name. Shii (tock) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"2012 phenomenon" is a bit too vague. Could imply the physical phenomena linked to the end of the world, which might in turn imply that this article assumes the world will end in 2012. Serendi^podous 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I reread that comment a few times and I understand your complaint: the word "phenomenon" could be interpreted as less objective than a name ending in "interpretations", "culture", or "-ism". Nevertheless, unlike the names we have been trading back and forth this seems to have been the one chosen by other people, so I think there's a strong argument that as a tertiary source we should use another name rather than creating our own. Shii (tock) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not change it back to "2012 doomsday prediction"? This describes it well and most people know about it because of the two god-awful Mayan Doomsday prophesy shows on the History Channel anyway. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Maybe Wikipedia users watch the History channel all day but I think the more relevant pop culture is the "Return of Quetzalcotl" book which has been hanging around on Barnes and Nobles entryways for many moons now. :) Shii (tock) 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean "Quetzalcoatl", don't you? Senor Cuete (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

This is an excellent article

I just wanted to compliment the people who wrote this - it's really very good. It strikes just the right balance between providing information about the various theories, and gently but firmly debunking them. I particularly admire this beautifully arch sentence: "This idea has failed to gain any scientific credibility or recognition."

This is precisely the kind of thing which Wikipedia does uniquely well. So, uh, thanks, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.229.51 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Most viewed

Interesting! see [3]. You'd reckon some majority of those views were intending to find this article...--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This page gets about 15K hits a day. Bit hard to show right now because of the recent name change, but if you look at July's stats, they're about the same, (except for that weird 10x increase) Serendi^podous 03:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal discussion on page name

{{movereq|?}}

2012 millenarianism → ? — Note: There is another "vote" going on a few sections below. Dekimasuよ! 04:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had a nice long discussion on the proper name for this page and I'd like to put it to a vote. Here's what I see as the facts:

1. The term "doomsday" or "end of the world" does not cover all the fluffy New Age stuff discussed in this article.
2. However, "2012 millenarianism" is a phrase we made up (I haven't seen it in our sources).
3. "Millenarianism" is hard to spell and remember. This is no small problem: one of our primary naming conventions is that "article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers".
4. Academics who discuss this objectively as a cultural phenomenon (rather than taking sides) seem to describe it as the "2012 phenomenon".
5. WP:NC: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." QED.

Arguments against this move:

1. It could be misconstrued as giving credence to thoroughly non-scientific claims. My response to this is that the link from "phenomenon" to "natural phenomena" to "future event" is quite a stretch, and to make it you would have to ignore the entire content of the page.
2. I just moved this page. :) But that was a temporary measure, not based on consensus.

So, please state whether you are for or against the move here, and if you are against propose an alternate name and cite policy for it. Shii (tock) 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The suggested name is disappointingly vague. Names like "Apocalypse 2012" which are used in the literature are not completely descriptive, but are better than no descriptive power what-so-ever. "Thirteen baktun" seems like a good title. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Return it to the 2012 Doomsday Prediction. You're casting your pearls before swine by trying to come up with an eloquent title for this article, which is about BS anyway. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete
  • ?! This vote should probably be discounted for disregarding NPOV... I'm trying to improve this highly visible article to FA quality, I don't think it's helpful to try to project a POV onto it on the way. Shii (tock) 23:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I supported the article's name change, and like it the way it is. Serendi^podous 07:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Eh...reviewing the references in the article, I'm not prepared to support any of the suggestions here. I basically agree with the nom, but not really with the target. You can change it to a "seeking input" nomination by changing the link target to a "?", by the way. done
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  What about just "predictions"? ie.: 2012 predictions
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think "millenarianism" is a stupid word, since it suggests that something happens about a/the millennium, but it is the English term for the concept explored here... 76.66.202.213 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article is perfectly fine where it is, but the name has to be changed. 'Millennarianism' is clearly a misnomer, and I suspect that the term 'the 2012 phenomenon' is only used by the academics who have coined it to refer back to a collection of phenomena that they themselves have just been discussing. You can't just use 'phenomenon' in a vacuum, since anything that happens in 2012 is a phenomenon by definition. Thus, I agree with Senor Cuente that the original name was just fine, but if it has to be changed, I like the earlier suggeston of '2012 eschatology' since that's exactly what it's about, and the article has umpteen links at the top to enable readers to clarify their ideas on what it means: the last one on the list fits like a glove. So what we need now is simply a list of possible titles for people here to vote on. --PL (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  So, you're not really "opposing", you just don't have a better idea?

  Anyway, the word "Eschatology" is so obscure that it really only shows up here on Wikipedia (do a Google search, and you'll see what I'm talking about). Looking at the actual definition I can see how it could fit, at least. Being a synonym for "Armageddon" though, this essentially just buries the actual problem with using the more common word by "sounding smart" through the use of an obscure word instead, and That's no solution. As the nomination states, there's plenty of "new age" material about 2012 that isn't at all about "Armageddon", which esentially sinks the possibility of using "Eschatology" as well.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, it isn't a synonym for Armageddon, except in the Judaeo-Christian context (it's a Judeao-Christian term!). The panel at the top of the article lists various others, states specifically that the article is part of a series on eschatology, and actually features the gist of this article in explaining what it's about. So what could be more appropriate? --PL (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  The eschatology template doesn't come out of references but is someone's idea of what this article is about. Nevertheless I agree with you that any phenomenon that happens in 2012 would be a "2012 phenomenon" so that might not be the best name. Shii (tock) 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  OK, then "Armageddon" is a synonym for "Eschatology". Either way, that doesn't answer the point that "Eschatology" is an opscure word that no one aside from specialists is likely to know. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a general audience. As for the issue with the template name, if that were up for debate I would be making similar arguments. However, in terms of this discussion, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relatively unimportant. Moreover, all of this completely avoids the glaring problem that the article is about more then "Armageddon", "Doomsday" or "end of the world" scenarios. As the nomination points out, there is a good chunk of content about New Age philosophy around 2012, and using "Eschatology", "Armageddon", or "Doomsday" is inappropriate to that content.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, "Armageddon" isn't a synonym for "Eschatology" (Revelation 16:16 'And he gathered them together into a placed called in the Hebrew tongue eschatology?!!'). As for the word's supposed obscurity, it figures no less than five times in the panel at the top of the article, where it stares you in the face and defines it for anybody who doesn't know it, in three cases in ways that don't mention Armageddon. It simply means 'the last or final things', which, for the present world, it surely is in all the versions featured. --PL (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  I already stated that "Eschatology" is used on Wikipedia. The problem is, it doesn't seem to be in widespread use elsewhere, hence my criticism that it is an obscure word which seems to have been created by and for specialists. You seem to be ignoring what I'm actually saying and wanting to argue about vocabulary, but that's not going to move the actual debate here forward. How does using any word which means "the last or final things" answer the issue that this article deals with much more then that subject? Looking over the article content, about half of it deals with New Age "philosophy", which decidedly is not about "the last or final things".
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  As I already intimated, 2012 is undoubtedly supposed to mark the 'last or final thing' for the present world order under all the approaches featured. Hence (especially with the article being part of a series specifically devoted to eschatology) 'eschatology' is the obvious term to use. However, like others here, I prefer the original title '2012 doomsday prediction' since, although it may not be too precise, it will at least register in the minds of the majority of readers, especially following all the propaganda so shamelessly put about world-wide by the Hysteria Channel and Sony Pictures Digital Inc.. I suspect we're not going to find a better title. --PL (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  The "New Age" content is not about "doomsday" or the 'last or final thing', at all.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Change it back to 2012 Doomsday prediction. The current name sounds like a misnomer, and I think the older one is better. I would also suggest the name Thirteenth Baktun, since the article is about the thirteenth baktun of the Mayan's calender. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 16:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose [i.e., don't move --Shii (tock)] To quote Wkipedia " Millenarianism ... is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming major transformation of society, after which all things will be changed in a positive (or sometimes negative or ambiguous direction." This seems to summarise nicely what is being talked about here better than the word Doomsday which is not even defined on Wikipedia. Wiktionary has it as being " Concerned with or predicting future universal destruction;" which is only part of the 2012 story. So Millenarianism is better in my view. Lumos3 (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But note (a) that Wikipedia isn't an authority on anything, and (b) that the phrase 'or sometimes negative or ambiguous direction' has been questioned as lacking a confirmatory source. 'Doomsday' simply means 'day of judgement' (whether for good or ill): isn't that what all the approaches expect it to be -- the day of decision? --PL (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Would everyone please take a look at WP:NAME. I seriously doubt that the current title is the one that is most commonly used. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If there was a commonly-used title, I don't think it would be so hard to choose a name. @harej 07:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose moving. The article is fine where it is, and I don't think there is a better title. @harej 07:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Certain users off the rails, out of process moves aside... The more I look at this article the more that I think it needs to be split into two or more more articles with much more specific subjects in mind. The current article is simply suffering from schizophrenia, and the meandering characteristic of this discussion and the off process attempts at using a straw poll solution are simply a symptoms of the disease that the current article is suffering from.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support "Phenomenon" is uselessly vague as has been pointed out already. A Tufts University report refers to it in terms of "doomsday",[4] as does a story in the New York Times,[5] along with a summary by the Rensselaer Astrophysical Society.[6] There are plenty of other sources available but I won't bother naming them because experience shows it's likely futile. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All of these articles are anti-2012. Shii (tock) 19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • So? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know how we got this far without this basic understanding, but read WP:NPOV, specifically WP:RNPOV, to understand how we describe beliefs that are held on faith. We don't cite articles mocking believers. Shii (tock) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did the number 41,341,049,999,999,999,999,999,994,879 come from?

I think this is an error. The long string of consecutive nines is a giant red flag, suggesting some small number was subtracted from a multiple of a large power of 10, and yet the date quoted contains very few zeros, suggesting it is not a large power of ten. The article writes,

Specifically, the date inscribed on Coba Stela 1, 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0, is recorded as matching the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumku. Because the Mayan calendar is cyclical, the above dating will also, of necessity, mark the end of the present Long Count cycle and the beginning of the next. With each column equal to twenty times its predecessor, this date lies some 41,341,049,999,999,999,999,999,994,879 years in the future, or 3 quintillion times the scientifically accepted age of the universe.

Assuming that numbers of the form ...x.y.z.w represent numbers of days with w being the ones place, z the 20s place (1 uinal), y the 360s place (tun), and x and all previous places representing 20 times the place to its immediate right, then, by my calculation, the number 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 represents 2.82859786 × 10²⁸ years, which is not the number given. Can anyone cite this number, preferably with some remarks as to how it was arrived at? If not, I think it should be replaced with the correct figure, or removed. skeptical scientist (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. Each 13 would, logically, be 13 times its predecessor, wouldn't it? After all, 13 baktuns is 13 times one baktun. So 13 piktuns (the next order up) would be 13 times 13 baktuns. I'm not sure where this 20x thing came from. As for the 9s, you're assuming the Mayan calendar begins now. You have to subtract 5125.36 years to arrive at the Mayan zero date. (actually, it's more like 5122 years, since this is 2009 and the baktun ends in 2012) Serendi^podous 04:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As has been mentioned here before, that passage is not accurate, it misrepresents what that Coba Stela 1 date is and what the cited source (Schele & Freidel 1990) has to say about it. That Coba Stela 1 date (13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumku) is not a date in the far-flung future, instead it is a date in the past. It is merely another way of writing the Long Count 'zero date'—the date in 3114BCE—that is usually and more economically expressed as simply 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumku. The calculation that Schele & Freidel provide is to say, that it would take "41,341,050,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tropical years" of the calendar ticking over before the highest-order coefficient (ie, the first/left-most 13 in the Coba date) clicks over to a value of 1. Note this is their calculation, it is not something actually expressed by the ancient Maya in that Coba inscription. On the other hand, the number mentioned in this article's text (41,341,049,999,999,999,999,999,994,879) is apparently a contributor's calculation, arrived at by subtracting 5,125 [the (approximate!) length in solar years of the 13-baktun cycle] from S&F's number, and then adding back on 4 years [the difference between now (2009) and the 13-baktun cycle end (2012)]. Regardless of whether that's arithmetically correct, the Coba date and this calculation don't really have much to say about 2012, other than perhaps to illustrate that the Maya could when they felt like it extend the calendar system conceptually to whatever higher-order cycle they cared to. But these long Long Count dates were more do to with showiness than any practical consideration or prophesy. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right about that. The reference represents an adjustment of the presumably round figure originally supplied by S & F p. 430. That info has now been added to the article. As you say, the exact significance is unclear, but given that the whole system is supposed to be cyclic (op. cit), the conversion of the largest figure to 1 should represent the renewal of the whole mathematical cycle, just as when the hypothetical car odometer mentioned converts its highest figure to zero. Mind you, for it to attain the theoretical 'start' figure again would presumably take over thirteen times as long (rather as though the car had to be resupplied 'as new' with 99999 miles already on the clock)! So perhaps S and F's possibly ball-park figure should be used instead, or a mathematical formula indicating at least 13 times as long? --PL (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my guess, that one person rounded the 29 digit number to 8 or so significant digits, and then someone else subtracted a tiny number, resulting in a ridiculous figure which implies a precision which doesn't exist. But without knowing where that number came from, I can't be sure. Obviously if higher value places are 13 times as significant rather than 20 times more significant, that changes the calculation, but I still can't get the quoted figure (even to a few digits) so I'm at a loss as to where it came from.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

From the Schele & Friedel work stated, p.430, which states: 'With this information [on the calendar mechanism], we can project how long it will take to convert the highest thirteen in the Coba date to one -- 41,341,050,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tropical years.' --PL (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the Long Count isn't strictly vigidecimal, a Bak'tun is 144,000 days. The number of days is therefore 144,000 x (13 to the 20th power). According to my calculator this is 2.7367147 x 10 to the 27 power days. Dividing this by the approximate length of the solar year - 365.2422 - days, I get 7.4928767 x 10 to the 24th power years or 7,492,876,700,000,000,000,000,000 years. Yes this a mantissa and an exponent and I'm too lazy to do the long multiplication/division. Schele and Friedel's math seems to be WAY off AND the fact that the cycle would reset is probably wrong as well. The evidence from distance numbers is that there are 20 Bak'tuns and all higher places, NOT 13. Linda wrote she "is not a numbers person" and that she really was lost when trying to comprehend the mathematical aspects of the Maya calendar. This proves that she was right. "With each column equal to twenty times its predecessor..." It actually says that most of these are 13 times their predecessors but hey, 13 is almost the same thing as 20, right? Once again here's proof that Schele and Freidel is a crappy reference for the study of the Maya calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Yeah, I wasn't sure if the radix was 20 or 13 for the higher order digits, so I tried both, and neither gave the cited number (or anything close). By the way, the article writes, "with each column equal to twenty times its predecessor," which is why I thought it was 20, so that should also be changed if it's wrong. (Obviously I'm not an expert here - I was relying on Wikipedia for info, and got skeptical when parts of the article didn't seem to make sense - so I'll let someone else do the actual revision.) I still think the quoted number is wrong, but since it does cite an ostensibly reliable source, I'll settle for changing the ridiculous 29 digit figure to something in scientific notation. That way it accurately reports what S&F wrote (correct or incorrect), without performing dubious mathematical manipulations that flagrantly disregard significant figures.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is all that anybody here can reasonably do, given that we are constitutionally limited to reporting what the sources say. This the article indubitably does. It is not its job to judge them. --PL (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Our job is to find better sources.Serendi^podous 09:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Who can legitimately say what is better, except on the basis of other sources? ;) Anyway, let's just say, 'the best available sources! --PL (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the "20 times its predecessor" figure come from the source? Because I think it's pretty obvious that this was meant to be 13 times. We should also leave some kind of note that the source's math appears to be wrong, regardless of which multiple is chosen. Serendi^podous 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. I just biked to the library to borrow this book, and it says, "At Cobá, the ancient Maya recorded the creation date with twenty units above the katun as in Date 1 below." (Date 1: 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumku) "These thirteens are the starting points of a huge odometer of time: each unit clicks over from 13 to one when twenty of the next unit accumulate." Apparently these 13s aren't really 13s and you should just pretend that they are zero, so each digit goes 13, 1, 2, 3, ..., 12, 13, 14, ..., 19, with the first 13 being a pretend zero, and the second 13 an actual 13. This makes no sense, but does explain how the number 4.1341 × 10²⁸ was arrived at: if these 13s are really 0s, and the radix is 20 (with the exception of the second to the last place which has a radix of 18 - place value 18×20 - then the date 1.0.0....0 occurs 20²⁰*144000 days = 4.13410456 × 10²⁸ years after the date of alleged creation. skeptical scientist (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think F&S are full of it. I really want a second opinion on this. The Maya had a zero. There's no need for placeholders. Serendi^podous 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

They ARE full of it. Your first clue is that they used the Thompson correlation in A Forest of Kings based on some very dubious reasoning by Floyd Lounsbury, even after Dennis Tedlock urged them not to. They still stated that 13.0.0.0.0 occurs on 12/21/2012 and that that this was possible because the Long Count was revised during the post-classic period. Of course the evidence for this is non-existent. Linda's excuse for this was that the book was written as a popular book not for experts in the field so it wasn't important that it be technically correct. Which it wasn't. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Senor cuete

Nevertheless, bear in mind that this may be a conundrum to which, lacking parallels in Western mathematics, there is no clear explanation, in which case all we can do is report the sources. Try reading F&S's text -- all of it? They seem to summarise the system pretty thoroughly on pp. 81-83 and 430-31. Seemingly the zeros are not just place-holders, but positive designations. The first day in the cycle, for example, is in fact day number '0000' (no katuns, no tuns, no uinals, no days). Everybody seems to agree on that. But it's still a day. It's a bit like calling the year 2000 the first year of the new millennium (which it wasn't), or the French calling a week huit jours (eight days). Beware of trying to out-expert the experts! --PL (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that comparison. The 2000/2001 confusion arises because the Latin numerical system, under which our calendar was created, had no zero, and thus the calendar had no year zero. If it had, then 2000 would have been the millennium. The Mayan calendar had a year zero, and so 0000 would be a perfectly acceptable date. The problem I have with F&S is that, since the Maya had a zero, they didn't need to use 13s as placeholders; they could just as easily have written 0.0.0.0.0.0.0... and I think that would have made more sense. Serendi^podous 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right -- but we can't say that in the article. Besides, 'perfect sense' is possibly a dangerous concept here. It looks rather as if 13 rolled over directly to 1 in the upper columns, without passing via zero. Who knows? (and I mean that most sincerely, folks!) --PL (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would have made a lot more sense to us if the Maya had used zeros, but that's apparently not what they did. So it seems that your argument is not with S&F, but with the ancient Maya. My guess is that the thirteens are there for mystical rather than calendrical reasons, and trying to make sense of their presence mathematically is futile. skeptical scientist (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And congrats on your latest revision re 13 and zero. You obviously read S & F more thoroughly than I did! --PL (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to pretend that I know more than an accredited scholar on the subject, but it does seem odd to me that the Maya would suddenly change the value of the baktun from 13 to 20, while keeping the value of the tun at 18. But unless I can find another source on the subject, I'll just shut up for now. Serendi^podous 08:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mesoamerican Long Count calendar says "It is a matter of dispute whether the first piktun occurs after 13 or after 20 b'ak'tun. Most Mayanists think that in the majority of inscriptions, where only the last five Long Count positions are used, the count recycles at 13 b'ak'tuns, whereas, if longer cycles are used, the count continues to the end of the 20th b'ak'tun (b'ak'tun 19) before a piktun is registered. In the same way, the fact that a 13-katun cycle was used, didn't negate the fact that there are 20 katuns in a b'ak'tun." So the situation is even more confusing, and we have more facts without citations... Maybe we should ditch the whole section about recording the creation date with more 13s, since it confuses more than it informs, and does not affect the fact that the end of the 13th baktun does indeed fall in 2012. --skeptical scientist (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to explain what the Tzolkin is...

or the haab/Tzolkin interlink, or the Mayan double-dating system, I suggest we starting thinking of rephrasing this line "..the 2012 date is only 4 Ahau 3 Kankin on the Tzolk'in, rather than 4 Ahau 8 Cumku when the Long Count calendar began..." as the terminology it uses is neither explained nor referred to again. Serendi^podous 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. Serendi^podous 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't have done? The point seems to be that the same figures won't produce exactly the same date in 2012, because the Ahau and Kankin will be different -- and they are also part of the date! However, your point about no previous mention is valid enough. --PL (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article doesn't explain what Ahau and Kankin are, or why they're different, or what the Tzolkin is, so there's no point of reference for the reader. We get it because we know a bit about the Mayan calendar, but someone who knew nothing about the Mayan calendar would simply see gibberish. Trying to explain it would require another article, so it's best not to include it. Serendi^podous 16:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. So let's get back to voting on a title for the article. --PL (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the current state of the discussion, it seems that the consensus is that the current title is fine. Which suits me. Serendi^podous 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A vote, I said -- preferably with transferable voting! --PL (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)