Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 3

Check this out

This "doomsday website" is actually a viral campaign for the 2012 movie. How low can you go? Serendi^podous 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm wholly disgusted right now. _{<font-c=D2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!} 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is bull**** this is Y2K all over again!!!!!! this is all **** just to make little kids scared. If I ever meet the guy who brought this whole topic to the world I'll kick his teath in and shove his ****'n fact up his *** so he should shut the **** up and get his fact straight before scaring kids! **** OFF! and **** YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.25.202 (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes you wonder what they're getting out of it, doesn't it? Perhaps it's just the satisfaction of frightening the horses. But if it's money, they're going to have to spend it pretty quick! ;) --PL (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've just twigged that it's all a deliberate fiction. The whole thing is just a publicity stunt. Look at the picture on the 'About' page! Trouble is, some people will take it seriously... --PL (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Every page has "Sony Pictures Digital Inc" in the bottom left hand corner in small type so its movie hype. The intention is to cause a mass hysteria similar to the Orson wells alien invasion of 1938.Lumos3 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the case of Orson Welles occurred to me, too. As in that case, it's all presented as if it were perfectly serious. The giveaway here, though, is the pic of the European Union's HQ on the 'about' page as if it were theirs (!!), plus the over-certain assertions of their 'scientists' (= stooges?). It puts the History Channel to shame, who at least have the decency to insinuate (however sneakily), rather than baldly state. I've a feeling that Wikipedia has a duty to protect the facts here. --PL (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PS If you look further at their 'about' page, you'll see that not one of their 'experts' seems to have any independent academic history or qualifications -- but all the staff except one naturally have 'doctorates'! OK, so the so-called IHC seems to have its own website, but I suspect that, apart from that, it exists only in the imaginations of Sony's publicity department. --PL (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. _{<font-c=D2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!} 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jenkins in Critical Summary

According to the critical summary: "John Major Jenkins's 'Galactic alignment' theory is based not only on a misleading astronomical claim, but in part on the same false calendrical premise." It might also be worthwhile to state that it's based on the bogus pseudoscience of astrology. When various heavenly bodies reach conjunction, opposition etc. what happens? Absolutely nothing. Even if there was a galactic alignment it would mean nothing. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You're welcome to try, but I suspect that somebody will protest that you're raising an objection which then itself will need validating. Jenkinsites might claim that the 'galactic alignment' was indeed believed in by the Maya (although it wasn't) simply because they believed in astrology (whether or not it's valid). Might 'a misleading astronomical claim' not already cover it, without the need for further justification and consequent 'legal' complications? --PL (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

However if you look at the sisuation from another prospective you will probably find a different opinon. What if the astraomical cliam is correct and we're wasting time fighting over whether or not it's real. Ever if it isn't there is a chance and you can't say there isn't because there is and why not do everything we can to be prepared for it. The Maya's were right about a lot of things and as much as I don't want anything to happen why not be prepared for it.

The Maya destroyed themselves through overpopulation and environmental destruction. They also practised human sacrifice and ritual bloodletting. They were an absolute monarchy with no democratic institutions. But yes, they did have good plots for Venus. 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

December 23 to December 21

I've removed some text that referred to December 21 as opposed to December 23, because it was causing some confusion as per Jenkins's galactic alignment theory. But it is important to note the shift from Coe's December 23 date to December 21; the article in its original form made the claim that Jenkins's theory was the spur for that. But is it true? Serendi^podous 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No. As far as Mayanist scholarship is concerned, Jenkins has had zero input or influence over the identification of these dates, or any choice between these dates. Along with most of his other fellow speculators, Jenkins simply takes the output—ie, the correlation btw Long Count and western calendars—from actual academic research as the jumping-off point for their own musings.

The correlation between the Long Count and western calendar systems has been nailed down pretty much since 1927, when Thompson updated an earlier correlation proposal, published by Goodman in 1905 and modified 1926 by Martinez. This correlation has reigned supreme ever since, with earlier alternative proposals falling by the wayside and the couple of half-way decent challenges appearing afterwards failing to gain much traction or attention, if at all.

About the only room for respectable disagreement has been which day out of a 'family' of up to five days in succession the correlation specifically aligns to. Goodman's original correlation would place the baktun-cycle "end-date" at 18 December 2012; Martinez' a day later at 19 December; in 1937 Beyer reprised a variant that would put it at 22 December (at one point Thompson thought this plausible also). Thompson's original proposal would've equated to 23 December, but by 1935 he'd revised it to a correlation implying 'end-date' of 21 December. This second proposal of Thompson's (aka the GMT-correlation with JDN = 584283) has had majority acceptance and popularity ever since, particularly after his landmark 1950 publication, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. It was mostly after 1982 when Lounsbury (re-)advocated the JDN=584285 correlation that interest in 23 December was revived, most notably in Schele's subsequent & popular writings. In modern terms, only 21 Dec and 23 Dec get a look-in these days. Coe for eg pretty much adopts Lounsbury's interpretation (at least in his later editions, not sure what he said in the original 1966 edn). But many/most scholars would probably still adhere to the GMT (584283) version. However, the writings of Jenkins, Vollemaere etc play no part in how Mayanist scholarship arrived at or decided between these correlation dates.

In practice, most Mayanist researchers are usually not particularly concerned with deciding whether 21 Dec or 23 Dec is the 'true' correlation of the Long Count/Baktun cycle completion date. For the most part, it is not important whether some event recorded in the inscriptions (such as a rulership accession) took place on a Monday or a Wednesday. What's important is to know in what period the event occurred, and the GMT 'family' of correlations does this with an accuracy that is readily sufficient. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made some slight adjustments as per your comments, but it would be nice to get some of that cited information into the article, perhaps in its own "date" section. :-) Serendi^podous 08:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Np. Sure, reliable refs for the above could readily be sourced. But this article is prob not the place to go into that much detail about how the Long Count correlation has been worked out. What this article does probably need, however, is a para or two at the start giving a succinct and accurate explanation of what is known about the LC calendar and what this so-called 'end date' represents, from the standpoint of (actual) Mayanist scholarship. This shld provide the context/background, from which all of the speculative material mentioned here departs. Been meaning to get around to supplying something like it for a while, as well as rename/repurpose the article as suggested earlier....maybe will see if something can be attempted in the next week or so. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving this down in prep for an archive. It still needs to be resolved. Serendi^podous 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Did it myself. Serendi^podous 12:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mabey the mayans were tired

Why would the mayans want to make a huge calender, mabey they just stopped because they got bored or ran out of ink Venomclaw (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They didn't stop. --PL (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they didn't. Besides, if I remember correctly, the Mayans wrote on stone tablets (the proper term is running away from my brain right now), and they chiseled their writing into the stone. It's kind of hard to write on stone with a pen, sweetie. (-: _{<font-c=d2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!} 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this idea that you can't have your calendar go over date 13.0.0.0.0 sounds very much like the Y2K bug. Except of course that it doesn't just affect computers, but everything. Way cooler ;-) ;-) ;-) --Lou Crazy (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical summary

Wikipedia frowns upon lists of information that could be expressed as prose. Since most of the information in the critical summary deals with info from the Dissemination section, I think it could be turned into prose and merged with that section. Everything else in the list is already mentioned in the article anyway. Serendi^podous 11:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is referring to listed summaries of what has already been (as you say) largely expressed in prose. As I take it, it's objecting to presenting primary information in that way. And rightly so, in my view. So I suggest the summary be allowed to stand, as it's clear, concise, and easy to refer to -- which, of course, is the object of the exercise.

Meanwhile, Serendipodous, may I respectfully suggest that you resist the temptation to fiddle with the article further (14 edits in the last two days -- what happened to the 'Show preview' button?)? It really doesn't need improving -- merely defending against vandals and nutters. As a non-specialist, in fact, you will merely run the risk of introducing gratuitous, if inadvertent, errors. --PL (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the information in the critical summary is primary information. As far as my lack of expertise goes, I've done a decent amount of research on this topic, enough, I hope, to at least present a more objective view of the issue then, say, Terrence McKenna or Jose Arguelles. Anyhoo, I've pretty much done everything I wanted to do with this article. I've been trying to get this latest batch of info into the article since I started. Now that it's in, I don't really have any outstanding issues. However, your kissoff notwithstanding, I still feel the need to keep an eye on this article. Serendi^podous 09:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! Somebody needs to -- because personally, I'm outta here. As I understand the Wiki rubric, what it objects to is the over-use of bullet-lists -- i.e. presenting the main material as a list rather than as a connected exposition. But there's no ban on lists as such, where appropriate. After all, Wiki itself lists the contents of each article. --PL (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I don't like the preview button. It leads to massive and irresolvable edit conflicts. Serendi^podous 09:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can do, if you take too long. In that case, best to copy and paste to Word while you're working on it, then repaste to Wiki. Failing that, go back to this page, copy to Word, return to the latest version of the article, then repaste. But then I'm sure you must have done that!--PL (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

While yes, the critical summary is mostly prose, it just looks...a little strange. Not wrong, per se, just strange. This article still needs people to keep an eye on it--the vandals are still there. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right there! IMO the summary is needed for ease of reference, since otherwise the summarised material in it isn't easy to spot amid the main text's verbiage, and it would be difficult to fit in the rest! --PL (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so I'm only right there, PL?  ;) The summary is needed; the article might not work as well if the reader tried to draw his/her own summary, and Wikipedia is meant to be clear and easily read. But that's just my opinion. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy mother of Pete's prizewinning turnip

Have a look at this

It's like this across the board; every related page got the same spike.

What the hell happened yesterday? Serendi^podous 11:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy crud! I have no idea. Maybe the vandals are working overtime? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No that's not edits, it's views. It's the number of people looking at the page. Serendi^podous 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be related to this. Ruslik_Zero 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's just more Sony publicity for the Emmerich movie mentioned in the article. --PL (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Serendipodous, I knew that. I guess I just didn't think over what I said.... But maybe it is the mention of the movie in the article that has sparked interest. I don't know. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And once again, there's been another spike in views. This one's ginormous. I find all this quite frightening. Serendi^podous 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

...I'm just going to go hide under my bed 'til this is all over...Chocolate Panic! (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

i think it's likely people are just reminded of it on the 21st of the month...173.48.62.136 (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Credo Mutwa

Went to a 2012 lecture last night. Found out about this. Added a comment over on this page, but thought it probably belonged here. Serendi^podous 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, especially as it doesn't specify the usual December date. I think we'd need further evidence that he actually said what is reported and that, if he did, he wasn't merely being influenced by all the 2012 hype that was already there, much as with the alleged Hopi prediction. Either way, the lengthy quote wouldn't be appropriate -- merely the briefest of references, IMO. --PL (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, just thought you might want to know: even other 2012 doomsday loonies think the Orion Prophecy is stupid. Serendi^podous 07:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone answer this

Why would the Mayans make a calendar that tells us the END OF THE WORLD???? Would I really want to know when the world would end?? Absolutley not! It would be a huge difference if someone predicted my death, but the whole species?

What they were interested in was the end of the present world, because they were obsessed with calculating such things, as many Christians are, too. In their case it was on a cyclic basis, and so they thought that it had happened before. People will do anything to support their theories -- even, if ncesssary, at the expense of the facts. 'Never let the facts interfere with a good theory'! Hence, perhaps, the Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter etc.... ;) --PL (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

, christianity...173.48.62.136 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename suggestion: Change from '2012 Doomsday Prediction' to 'December 21, 2012 Mayan Calendar theories'

Why I suggest this, is because the end of the world is only one prediction - another more optimistic prediction is the consciousness shift, another is aliens coming, etc

2012WorldPeace (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would need another title. The date could be 21 or 23 December. And it needs to mention that something world changing is predicted to occur. Serendi^podous 07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving as it is, as that's what concerns most searchers and what they will be looking for. Even the 'optimistic' versions assume that the whole thing represents a 'doomsday' of some kind -- whether for the world, for old forms of consciousness, for old ways of life or whatever -- and even the Christian doomsday is supposed to be a prelude to a better world, whether 'down here' or 'up there'. (Remember that the basic meaning of 'doom' is 'judgement' -- either way!) Besides, the whole thing has gone far beyond the mere Mayan calendar by now. It's become a given of popular belief, Maya or no Maya. And in any case, the first item in the title has, for simple search reasons, to be '2012' (the main article is currently at number 2 on the Google search list for '2012' -- above '2012 (film)' -- which then leads to an immediate link to this article: all the links to it would have to be changed.) So... hands off! ;) --PL (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PL. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Alignment section needs HELP ...

In the August 1991, edition of Mountain Astrologer Magazine, there appeared an article by Raymond Mardyks titled, When Stars Touch the Earth - An Astrologer Looks At The New Age Through Year 2012. The few quotes below make it clear that Mardyks’ writings were the “inspiration” for John Major Jenkin’s later 2012/galactic alignment theory, which was first published in the December 1994 issue of the same publication.

Mardyks stated, "It has also been calculated that the solstices align with the galactic plane in 1998-99. 1999 is halfway between the Harmonic Convergence in 1987 and the 2012 end date of the Mayan calendar."

"This all may very well signal a "return or Re-Turn" and a cosmic descent! What is of utmost importance in terms of timing is that the winter solstice aligns with the galactic plane in 1998/99. This only occurs once each 26,000 year cycle and would be most definitely of utmost significance to the top flight ancient astrologers. This time period and cycle is most probably encoded in megalithic structures, the Great Pyramid, and Mayan temples, etc."

“In Cosmic Astrology, the galactic center is associated with the Higher Self and other sources of "higher" information.” End of quote.

Galactic astrologer Raymond Mardyks, in 1987, 1991, and later in his Maya Calendar Voice of the Galaxy book (1999) was the first to discuss the solstice/galactic alignment as one of several factors contributing to the astrology of 2012. Other factors include the May solar eclipse near the Pleiades, the June Transit of Venus and the November solar eclipse with the Serpent constellation. He is recognized as having coined this phrase in relationship to Maya calendar dates, including the Harmonic Convergence and the end date in 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any evidence, other than your own opinion, either that Mardyks was the first to recognise this or that Jenkins was "inspired" by Mardyks' work. Serendi^podous 05:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

...or, indeed, that his statement squares with the other evidence cited. --PL (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ps. Although this anon ip 67.164.151.35 (talk · contribs) speaks modestly of Mardyks in the third person, I think if one reviews the edits (and sigs, when they leave one), we'll find we are receiving words of advice from the galactic astrologer, manu propria.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sony's 'Alarmist' Film

I'd suggest removing the entire sentence about Sony Picture's 2012, because it is both highly biased, and not sourced.67.70.16.61 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't think that Sony's own publicity is an adequate source -- quite apart from the fact that the facts adduced in the paragraph are fully referenced? Are you suggesting that people should take their site seriously? --PL (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Web Bot Project

This 2012 doomsday prediction has been getting some airtime (History Channel mentioned it) and it gets over 2 million hits on Google, but I can't find any reliable sources on it. Serendi^podous 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On the airtime and the hits, you mean? --PL (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, on what it is or how it "works" Serendi^podous 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they already covered by the article? --PL (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this appears to be a different phenomenon, Serendi^podous 13:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

London Olympics

As far as I know, there has been no apocalypse in any year that the Olympics were held in London, and as far as I know, there has been no doomsday predictions in which the location or existence of the Olympics played a role. Am I right? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nostradamus does predict the the apocalypse will be at the time of what appear to be the Olympic Games (the 'Hecatombic Games', he calls them at X.74)at the inception of the world's Seventh Millennium. Make what you will of that -- but I wouldn't take it too seriously! ;) --PL (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

2012 doomsday

I don't think its gonna be the end of the universe at least i really hope not. If doomsday is on the 23rd, well thats just great. I mean nothing wrong with the 23rd except my 18th birthday!sorry it just had to be said.

86.46.131.54 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please post this again on your 19th! ;) --PL (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Today this was mentioned in Dinosaur Comics, which (like many webcomics) can sometimes be a vandalism mill. Just for some prior warning in case any weird stuff happens. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Move from "doomsday prediction"

This article is about (1) Mayan inscriptions with no clear reading, but certainly not implying doomsday according to any researcher, and (2) fringe theories linked to the date, most of which do not imply doomsday. Shouldn't the page be moved to something more general? I suggest "2012 in esoteric culture" or "2012 and the Mayan calendar". Shii (tock) 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The article 2012 already exists, while the present article (which is the result of careful and prolonged editing by many contributors) is indeed devoted to apocalyptic predictions re 2012, just as its title suggests. --PL (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago Talk:2012_doomsday_prediction/archive_1#Article_title_.26_scope_suggestion I'd proposed renaming this article to something like 2012 millenarianism. It had support at the time but since then got caught up in other things and hadn't progressed it any further. I still think a name change along those lines is required, maybe now's the time to do it. What all these esoteric predictions & speculations have in common is a conception of some sort of significant change or "phase-shift" taking place at some level in 2012. While some of 'em might be called apocalyptic scenarios, more than half are of the positive 'shift-in-consciousness'/ 'dawning of a new age' variety. "Doomsday prediction" doesn't really cover all of the millenarianism aspects and claims that are floating about around 2012.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's rejected as an oxymoron, I like 2012 millenarianism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original term 'Doomsday' implies Last Judgement, end of Old World, and beginning of New, even though it's usually the destructive aspect that's emphasised. So actually it fits all the aspects discussed! --PL (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is someone who believes based on Mayan texts that the Last Judgement will happen in 2012 I will be surprised to see it. Shii (tock) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shii, that was a bit of a rushed move, although I agree with the idea, I think you should have waited a few days, certainly a full day - but you must know that. I don't see unanimous agreement here either. Why the hurry? I'd understand it ifyou were new, but... Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it was already agreed to above. If I had, I'd have simply responded in that section Shii (tock) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The move to 2012 millenarianism makes sense to me, & from what I've seen scholarly usage of the term millenarianism need not be confined to a literal 1000-year epoch. There seems to be considerable overlap in usage & divergence of meanings between sources, but most usages of millenarianism (eg. Wouter Hanegraaff's) I've come across can fit with our intended use of it here. Even given the terminology's ambivalence, and whatever the original scope in meanings for 'doomsday' and 'apocalypticism' (both of which AFAIK have largely lost any non-catastrophic element of meaning in modern everyday usage), I think milleniarian fits as well as any. Maybe the article could spend some time distinguishing its usage of some terms (apocalypticism, millenialism, millenarianism, chiliasm), or alternatively it could just decide to follow the usage of some prominent and relevant source, like Hanegraaff.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should ask ourselves what the purpose of the article is. Presumably it's to address the concerns of the many who are are worried (yes, on the basis of the alleged Mayan 'prophecy' -- just do a Google search!!) that the world might end in December 2012. 'Millenarianism' isn't on their agenda, even if they understand the term. That's why I favour the original title. OK, there are some who regard the prospect positively (as indeed even Christians are supposed to), but there's no reason why that fact shouldn't be mentioned tangentially. So, personally, I'd suggest reverting to the original title (though you could possibly object that it will merely encourage the idiocy!). Either way, any links to it will need carefully verifying.

Bear in mind that 'Doomsday' is the word used of the topic by both the History Channel and Sony's publicity, and is therefore already associated with it by many (perhaps the majority) of the public at large. Even more will it be when Sony's film comes out! --PL (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like the main purpose of this article is to address the New Age beliefs, because that is both where this originated and what most of the popular books on the subject talk about. Those beliefs are explicitly not a doomsday, but a "consciousness revolution" or what have you. It doesn't look to me like the doomsday beliefs are very widespread, nor are there many New Agers running around panicking or building survival bunkers. We should take care to be as inclusive as possible: "millenarianism" includes a doomsday but not the other way around. Shii (tock) 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Shii. Although perhaps a few in the general public might think 'end of the world' when they hear '2012' (cf. periodic anon vandalism) that's more to do with recent hype than the actual spectrum of 2012 esoteric associations. This is just one of those topics that does not have a fixed, formal or unique name that we could call it by; I think our best approach is to name it something that closely matches and is fully inclusive of its contents, and put in whatever alternative titles we can think of as redirects. If readers are searching for this info on wiki, they'd surely be using a range of terms & I don't see one formula being significantly more popular than another. Let's just make all roads lead to Rome here, that will achieve the same purpose.

Incidentally, it would be interesting for the article itself to trace and explore the development of this end of the world hype, and how it became attached to the much more benign, hopeful and transcendent views put forward by the earlier & original proponents.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that goes right back to Zoroastrianism, via Christianity and Judaism, all of which have always held a fiercely negative content as well as a positive one. The old had to be destroyed in order that the new might come to birth. The recent, milder New Age view has been largely a reaction to that, not a continuation of it. As a former 'New Age' author, I haven't noticed too much interest there in the concept of 'millenarianism'. They naturally prefer the term 'New Age', which is based on the oriental concept of succeeding ages and has nothing to do with millenarianism, which is an exclusively Middle Eastern/Western concept based on a straight-line view of history -- and we can't call it that!

But if we do go down the 'millenarianism' road, it's important that re-directs be created to guide readers seeking '20012 doomsday' and 'doomsday prediction' to the article, since that'll be what they'll be looking for after watching the History Channel spectaculars -- or the Sony film come November. It's primarily the 'recent hype' that most people will be responding to. Until it came along, nobody was particularly interested in 2012. --PL (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: Daniel Pinchbeck's book came out in 2006, before History Channel or Sony. But I agree wholeheartedly that we should make plenty of redirects. Shii (tock) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I meant 'What most people will be responding to will be primarily the recent hype' -- in which I would of course include Pinchbeck's book. Sony's film isn't 'recent' -- yet! ;) --PL (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes by Shii

Perhaps, Shii, you should study and report the sources rather more accurately? Schele and Freidel (who aren't 'a guy' and don't just offer a 'commentary', but present a body of highly comprehensive and widely respected professional research, much of it backed by prestigious universities) certainly don't support the idea that 2012 has any apocalyptic significance as you first suggest in your proposed note-reference, then deny in your edit summary. (If you disagree with yourself, that is nobody's concern but yours: Wikipedia readers deserve to be spared the argument!) Perhaps, too, you should do more than merely 'look through' their book: it takes and deserves prolonged study (including of the Endnotes, which are both extensive and in comparatively small print). However, should you feel like doing some rather more thorough and wide-ranging research and then carefully amending the article on that basis, please discuss your proposed changes here beforehand so that others who are familiar with the literature may help you vet them before publication. Wikipedia readers deserve nothing less. Perhaps the first step is to read what the current article actually says rather more slowly and carefully?

With this in view, to take some of your points in order:

i dont think one guy's commentary is all that notable

The article isn’t about what you or anybody else thinks. It’s about what the reputable sources say.

there seems to be some misreading of the literature going on-- these sources claim the OPPOSITE

The misreading, alas, is yours. Do read what the text says more carefully, and don’t just jump to conclusions.

I looked through this book and couldn't verify this; on the contrary, they support the original equation

See point above.

what is this? an amazon.com review?

Wikipedia expects all statements to be based on published, verifiable material. This involves quoting book titles, as you have done. Nobody mentioned Amazon.

In 1988, the famed anthropologist Munro S. Edmonson agreed that…

What was the person's specialty? If he was a reputable primary researcher into the Meso-American Long Count calendar, he should be mentioned alongside the others, not instead of them. If merely into Mayan culture and the Popol Vuh, is it relevant? Where does the Popol Vuh mention the calendar, and exactly what does it say that is relevant to the article?

Inaccurate theories

As the text states, most of these theories have already been mentioned, though not always very clearly. The list is merely a clear summary for ease of reference, which is why that’s what it calls itself. --PL (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"please discuss your proposed changes here beforehand so that others who are familiar with the literature may help you vet them before publication." Why? Is this article on probation? (Although I generally don't ask for permission even in articles like Liancourt Rocks dispute or Barack Obama.) When I read through it, the text was extremely confused and entire books were cited without any page numbers. I don't need anyone's permission to improve an article. You, on the other hand, need to explain why the quotations I added from prominent Mayan scholars don't deserve to be on the page, and why the opinion of some talking head from Slate matters whatsoever.

"Nobody mentioned Amazon." Actually that edit removed a bizarre (albeit creative!) WP:SYNTH footnote that cited an amazon.com review, among other things. Look at it yourself.

"The misreading, alas, is yours. Do read what the text says more carefully, and don’t just jump to conclusions." I did verify it. If you think it says something else, give me page numbers. The original, inaccurate, citations did not have any page numbers.

"What was the person's specialty?" He was a prominent 20th century Mayanist. I'm surprised you don't know him-- I got the cite book template I used from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Citations, because it's used frequently. And not only that, he was the source cited by one of the sources cited in Your Favorite Revision. All I did was use a quote by the original scholar rather than cherry picking from one of the many lesser scholars who summarized his work. Shii (tock) 17:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to integrate your proposed revisions rather better into the article. Re Amazon, fair enough, though the terms 'prominent', 'some talking head' and 'lesser' do rather suggest the intrusion of inappropriately personal opinions that would need further critical citations to justify their inclusion! ;) S & F do acknowledge Edmonson, but only among many others. Not sure how important page numbers are: they can vary from edition to edition, but if you want to include them, I have no objection. --PL (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good integration, I think this is even more of a collaboration than a compromise. But could you find for me the page number where Coba Stela 1 is interpreted to have religious significance, or better, to be equivalent to the the end date of the previous creation mentioned in the Popul Vuh? Shii (tock) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be S & F pp. 429-430, which mention (a) the PV's various prevous worlds (four, according to the Aztecs -- note 34) and (b) the creation of the present one (the fifth according to the Aztecs, but the fourth according to the Maya -- p. 81, and note 34) on the date given as recorded at Coba (note 39). The date-equivalence has to be assumed, but is pretty obvious from the text, given the explicitly cyclic nature of the date mechanism, and the fact that each world was supposedly destroyed by the basic element (fire, water...) of its successor. I have tweaked the text slightly to reflect this last point. Up to you to insert the page numbers in whatever way takes your fancy... --PL (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)