Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

22nd of December

On a serious, (but realistic) note, what do we do with the article on the 22nd of december? Should we edit it so the content is in the past tense or just get rid of it? --Jonie148 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The 23rd of December is another cited date, so this won't be over til Christmas at least. As for getting rid of it, why would we want to do that? It's of historical interest. Serendi^podous 17:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention all these claims will circulate the internet forever with some people just changing the names and dates... -- Kheider (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Come 2013 we simply say "The 2012 phenomenon was" such and such. Like all other non-events. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It won't just be that. Lots of new information is likely to surface when the date happens, as Mayan scholars are contacted by news media.Serendi^podous 21:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the content of the article, they have already made this point clear through their dismissal of people's claims on what Mayan ancestors said but if you go just a few days forward, it will be 2013. Then it would be folly to speak of the 2012 phenomenon in the present tense; either that or the name of the article will need to be moved. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoken version of article and changes before it is made

Is Serendipodous or anyone else planning to make major changes to this article, like adding information from the books published this year on this subject, before the article runs on the main page? I ask because I'm thinking of recording a spoken version of the article, as requested at the top of the page, sometime before the main-page appearance and preferably a few weeks before that, before the article's page views go sky-high. (I decided to do it because I'm strangely interested in the subject, and because I can pronounce the ejective consonants and glottal fricatives in Maya words like b'ak'tun and Popol Vuh.) If the Spoken Wikipedia wikiproject's guidelines are any indication, creating a decent recording of an article this size is a rather laborious process, so I don't want to do it more than once. But the recorded version should be as up-to-date as possible, so I thought I should try to time the recording after any upcoming major changes. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not have access to any new academic materials on the subject and the people who do (eg Hoopes) haven't made any substantial changes recently. If a major event (such as a Heaven's Gate-style suicide) occurs before Dec 21, then yes I will include it, otherwise no. Keep in mind though that once the big day passes, this article will be altered beyond recognition. Serendi^podous 18:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I know. The main point right now is to maximize accessibility so that as many people as possible see or hear this article, and as few as possible do something stupid between now and the Day When Nothing Will Happen. I'll probably make the recording in mid-November unless somebody tells me otherwise. (I'm a bit busy at the moment.) A. Parrot (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The date is not correct.

The date is not the 21st, it's the 23rd.

Now if someone disagrees, please go ahead and calculate it yourself. The date was set on 21st just because it happens to be the date of the winter solstice, which has nothing to do with anything. The actual date is the 23rd of December. That's all, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.202.233 (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We'll get back to you on Christmas Eve. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count. If I'm not mistaken, you base your assumption on the difference between the GMT correlation and the Martinez-Hernandez correlation. Although it seems you are not aware of this yourself. :) No offence meant! Jonas kork (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my own calculations in [http://www.amazon.com/2012-ITS-NOT-END-WORLD/dp/1907084150/ 2012: It's Not the End of the World] (pp.61-63) come up with the 22nd! ;) --PL (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A correlation constant is a Julian day number of the first day of the current creation. The correct correlation is the GMT correlation - 584283 days. See: Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count. The Julian day number of 13.0.0.0.0 is 584283 + (13 * 144,000) = 2,456,283.0. The arithmetic to convert a Julian day number to a Julian or Gregorian calendar date is quite simple using an algorithm such as the method of Meeus or the method of Baum which can be used for negative Julian day numbers, see: http://mysite.verizon.net/aesir_research/date/injdalg2.htm. Methods for doing this, including source code for calculating this in various languages including C, can be found in the Julian day number article and its talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_day. December 21, 2012 is correct. The IP editor's source is using the bogus Thompson correlation - 584285 days. Anyone with rudimentary programming skills can easily write the code to calculate this. Also one can get computer programs to do these calculations or use online calculators. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

What time of day (on whichever day), and in which time zone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The World Ends in 2012?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

is this true that the world ends in 21,dec,2012? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.65.201 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the article? Serendi^podous 17:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a not a chat forum, the talk pages are to disucss how we can improve the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We are also not a crystal ball. Get back to us on December 22, and we'll let you know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what the Mayans said. But the Mayans also practiced human sacrifice. Also, the other people are right. Wikipedia is not a forum, and this needs to get disposed of.McBenjamin (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Maya did NOT say that. Serendi^podous 16:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How accurate is the information on this article?

How accurate is the information on this article? I'm not talking about this talk page. I'm talking about the article called "2012 phenomenon". --Fladoodle (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Like any Wikipedia article, it's as accurate as its sources. The reliability of its sources can be determined by their publishers. Serendi^podous 05:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Circular reasoning aka petitio principii

Like any Wikipedia article, it's as accurate as its sources. The reliability of its sources can be determined by their publishers editors. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. How well those sources are interpreted can be determined by the editors. Editors had nothing to do with the creation of the sources. Serendi^podous 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Er, no. How well those sources are interpreted can be determined by the editors". That's enough: sources have not a reliability in themselves, their truthfulness is not self-evident. The paradoxes of the Catch-22, the bootstrapping, the circular reasoning aka petitio principii, the criticism of the impact factor, the Matthew effect: all epistemological problems still unsolved by anyone. Or do you believe to be an exception? Is perhaps Jimbo's motto: "not hesitating, editing without meditating?" Ps: "er", "er", "er": do you need a mouthwash? Sorry for the overlinking. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are familiar with the Wikipedia rules on personal attacks, right? Also, the one about Wikipedia not being a discussion forum? Unless you have something constructive to say about how we might go about editing this article, keep your opinions to yourself. Serendi^podous 12:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking to you, I'm just trying to give an answer epistemologically less indecent to the first user. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That may have been your intent, but your subsequent answer was utterly useless and impracticable... and your responses are both condescending... and rather vainglorious, too. Not to mention immature - but that's just my opinion. You are severely over-generalising, and yet you yourself are an editor of Wikipedia. Of course there's bound to be errors and instances where a source may be misconstrued entirely, but that's because humans are involved. I honestly can't see what point you're trying to make, and none of your wiseacre allusions assist me in doing so. I agree wholeheartedly with Serendipitous and believe the editors on this article have done a sterling job, and have presented a refreshingly neutral take on the whole [non-]issue. Peace :) Psychonavigation (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol!! "[non-]issue!!! How accurate can any one man be!?? I hope that come Christmas day or New Year 2013 we can smack our sides ROFLing in pure Laughter at just how stupid we can be as humans to actually believe such nonsense as end-of-world 2012 predictions. If you want genuine prophecies of accuracy and substance, you have to go to Prophets of God - genuine ones - not tin-can academics and the like!! I hope we keep this article come the new year so that we may always look back and witness how stupid we have been to entertain such nonsense!! ;) (58.165.166.9 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

The possibility of WR 104 sending a Gamma Ray Burst.

In the television series The Universe, On the episode, "Death Stars" (Series 4, Episode 1) they showed that the star WR 104 that is close to its end if its life that could possibly turn in on itself therefore sending Gamma-ray burst. The believe that there is a good possibility that the burst could enter our solar system and point towards Earth which could wipe out all civilisation. Should this be mentioned in this article? --Throttler (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

in a word, no. There's no reason to tie it to b'ak'tun 13. Serendi^podous 00:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

1-month pre-anniversary

It is the 1-month pre-anniversary and this should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.106.179 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be mentioned that 21 November is one month before 21 December? I'd have thought that would be obvious to anyone who knows about the concept of measuring time in months... Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Especially as there's disagreement over what the "real" date is supposed to be. Maybe come December 1, we could say it's verifiably a month before 2012 will be over and this nonsense gets tossed into the pseudo-history dustbin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It'll be replaced by 2013 phenomena.[1] These things are getting to be like elections - as soon as one is over with, they announce another. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This may become an annual tradition! I just figure that once it was proven we actually did land on the moon, the looney fringe had to look elsewhere for their amusement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2012

Add interwiki link please - ur:2012 ظہور Fmc47 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done by User:Serendipodous. DMacks (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 December 2012

Bethechangeyouhopetosee (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC) delete this: "and amount to "a distraction from more important science concerns, such as global warming and loss of biological diversity".[13]"

it is irrelevant to the article and in fact itself an obnoxious distraction from the topic.

I don't see how it is either of those things. A scientist is criticising the phenomenon by saying that it distracts from real issues. How is this bad? – Richard BB 15:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment and am closing this edit request accordingly. I question the text's placement in the lead section of the article instead of in a lower section, but I don't see a problem with including this somewhere on the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the "distraction" statement because it comes from an article about Niburu and not Maya 2012 phenomenon in general. I am now looking for multiple sources that support the statement, "Astronomers and other scientists have rejected the proposals as pseudoscience." Based on this, we need four references, two from astronomers and two from "other scientists." Or it should be rewritten. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I could only find one source who described the 2012 phenom as pseudoscience; I checked Aveni, Stuart, a few articles by Hoopes. Some did describe as 2012 theorists as "pseudoscientists," but I figured we should be precise. I reinserted the previous, not to put back the global warming statement, but to use the description of 2012 as a "hoax." That's all the fiddling i have at this time. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You probably won't find many sources calling it much of anything, as they probably don't think it's important enough to comment on. I'm not sure "hoax" is the right word, either, unless it can be demonstrated that its perpetrators were being purposely deceptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Our opinions as editors are not relevant. What do the experts say and what is supported by the literature? Many call it a hoax, and I found only one who called it pseudoscience. I don't think it's a hoax or pseudoscience, but what I think or believe should have no relevance here. That said, I'm not arguing to put "hoax" back in. We probably should strike "pseudoscience," however, unless someone finds more support for that term in the literature. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Try googling [mayan calendar 2012 pseudoscience] and see what results you get. In any case, once the calendar rolls over to 2013, the best description of this article's subject will be "irrelevant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2012

Under the heading "Other concepts", the first two sentences which talk about an Indian Guru are unsubstantiated and have been added with the intention of propagating the Kalki cult. Citation number 94 does not work, and the other does not provide any source. Both these sentences should be removed. Aforaugust (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the source doesn't work, even though the link checker missed it; perhaps it could be brought back withe the Wayback machine. Otherwise I think the ref could probably go. Serendi^podous 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Already done TBrandley 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2012

Gangnam Style video hitting 1 000 000 000 (milliard) views approximately on 21.12.12 needs to be added to the article as they claim it's the definite sign from the Nostradamus' prediction for the end of the world. ("Horse dance reaching nine circles") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.133.179 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What's your source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few: [2], [3], [4], [5] (I don't think any of these should actually be added to the article, just putting the links here for interested onlookers) Sasata (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You just made my day, that is friggin' hilarious! JoelWhy?(talk) 21:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nostradamus also said "From the calm morning, the end will come". Korea = "calm morning" country. O.O -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Small note

I was poking around the article and trying to get some details straight in my head, and I did a slight rearranging of sources to better support a statement. While looking at one of those sources, (Reference #2, the skepsis paper by Sasha Defesche) I saw a mention of the X-Files connection that people were asking to include in this article a while back. The paper says "there can be no doubt that [The X-Files] brought the year 2012 to a much wider audience than relatively obscure esoteric books could ever accomplish on their own." You said, Serendipodous, that you'd mention the show if you had a source stating its significance, so I just thought I'd bring that to your attention. A. Parrot (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, excellent! Thank you. Serendi^podous 10:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have two more small notes to add. As I'm going through the article and recording it, I notice minor issues that didn't stand out to me before. In the Objections section, it says that Martín Sacalxot is "of Procurador de los Derechos Humanos (Guatemala's Human Rights Ombudsman, PDH)". The problem, if I'm reading the relevant article in the Spanish Wikipedia correctly, is that the Procurador de los Derechos Humanos is a specific position, which Sacalxot does not hold. It looks like Sacalxot is somebody at the office of the procurador, which is called the Procuraduría. Procuraduría can't be translated as "ombudsman", but we could say that Sacalxot is "of the office of the Procurador de los Derechos Humanos". Should I change that?

'(Coyoteman31 here. That was my edit originally. "Procurador de los Derechos Humanos" appears to be used as the name of the federal department, although I also see it as "institucion de Procurador de los Derechos Humanos." If using "office of" clears that up, I have no objection. And a procurador functions as an ombudsman and can be translated as such. See www.pdh.org.gt, CoyoteMan31 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)])

Thanks. I'll just add "office of". A. Parrot (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Second is the extremely long date at Coba (13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0), which according to the article lists twenty units above the b'ak'tun. But there are twenty "13"s in that date, the last of which looks like a b'ak'tun date because it has four zeros after it. So wouldn't that make nineteen units above the b'ak'tun? A. Parrot (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A better question would be, once we get to 2013, what's to be done with this article, and will such details as you all are pointing out even matter anymore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

People keep saying things like that, but I think it's rather silly. We have an article on the Year 2000 problem even though the anticipated event had just passed with little incident at the time Wikipedia was established. Y2K has some long-term impact because it influenced how programmers think about computerized storage of dates. The 2012 phenomenon is, I would think, influencing how sociologists view pseudoscientific and New Age concepts and the importance of the Internet in spreading memes that go beyond Badger Badger Badger-style trivia to actually affect people's behavior. And both events say something about our society's fascination with apocalypticism. They'll be worth studying a century from now. In Wikipedia-speak, notability is not temporary. A. Parrot (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A. Parrot, you should read the section about Pictuns and higher orders in the Long Count article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Piktuns_and_higher_orders. There are many inscriptions that give the date of the current creation as a huge number of 13s followed by 13.0.0.0.0. Coba stela 1 is an example. If you look at the stela you will see that there are indeed 19 13s in higher places followed by 13.0.0.0.0 written with symbolic glyphs rather than head-variant glyphs. The next glyph is a partially effaced tzolk'in glyph with a coefficient of four. Eight glyphs later is 8 Kumk'u. Obviously this is 4 Ahau 8kumk'u. This is a date equivalent to Monday, September 6, -3113 (Julian astronomical) - the start of the current creation. The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article has it right and the 2012 article has it wrong. You can get Linda Schele's drawing of this monument here: http://research.famsi.org/schele_selects.php?image_number=490. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

So when you say this article is wrong, do you simply mean that this article should say "nineteen" instead of "twenty", or do you mean it should say that the extremely long Coba date represents the start of the current creation? And is that view universally held among Mayanists? This article does cite sources saying that the Coba date represents either 41 octillion years in the future or in the past. A. Parrot (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that there are 19 not 20 preceding 13s AND that the statement "placing it either 4.134105 × 10²⁸ (41 octillion) years in the future, or an equal distance in the past." is absolutely wrong. Read my comment and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Piktuns_and_higher_orders. For studying the Maya calendar, Schele and Freidel is not a reliable source. Schele was a brilliant epigrapher but she really didn't get it when it came to the calendar. For example, without understanding why Lounsbury advocated the Thompson correlation (584285 days), she used it in A Forest of Kings in deference to him because he was her mentor. People who knew much more about it than her, notably Dennis Tedlock, told her not to but she did it anyway, arguing that A Forest of Kings was written for a popular audience, not professionals, so it wasn't important that it be correct. Aveni should certainly know better as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Yes, I read them both. So are you saying that the Coba date refers to the beginning of the current creation, as the Long Count article seems to say? And can you point to a source? The statement in the Long Count article, oddly, is cited to the very book by Schele that you criticize, although there's also another citation to a different book and author. A. Parrot (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have Schele and Freidel at hand so I can't look it up but yes, it is an example of the date of the current creation. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

OK; I've revised it according to Linda Shele's argument. Serendi^podous 14:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Olmec origin

I have something constructive to say, remove all the references that the editors have added to support the text that they have written but have nothing to do with what anyone would expect (BTW, a rather common practice in Wikipedia, editors make up the references adding references somehow related to the topic of the article to support whatever they have written, a modus operandi much more harmful than the addition of original research or unreferenced claims, at least those aren't dishonest). For instance,

December 2012 marks the conclusion of a b'ak'tun—a time period in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar which was used in Central America prior to the arrival of Europeans. Although the Long Count was most likely invented by the Olmec,[14]

14. de Lara and Justeson 2006

Jorge Pérez de Lara and John Justeson (2006). "Photographic Documentation of Monuments with Epi-Olmec Script/Imagery". Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. Retrieved 3 November 2009. http://www.famsi.org/reports/05084/05084PerezdeLara01.pdf

There're absolutely no reference whatsoever in that paper to the possible Olmec origin of the Mayan calendar. Some editor just made it up. 80.174.254.239 (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions Long Count dates found at Olmec sites. The Olmec predate the Maya. At the very least, it confirms that the Maya did not invent it. Serendi^podous 10:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mayanism

I'm unclear on why links to the article on Mayanism have been repeatedly deleted. The latest justification says there needs to be a distinction between Mayanist and Mayanism, noting "the reference to Mayanism needs a note explaining the difference between Mayanism and Mayanist, and a citation for that," but that's something made clear in the articles on both Mayanist and Mayanism. The distinction is actually quite clear in Spanish, where the term for an academic specialist in ancient Maya culture is mayista which is distinct from mayanista (a practitioner of Mayanism). I don't think there's any specific published reference to the difference in English between a Mayanist and a practitioner of Mayanism, probably because there's never been any confusion between the two that needed to be addressed.Hoopes (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is not meant for readers interested in the Maya or Mayanism. It's meant for people who are interested/frightened about a supposed disaster on December 21-23 2012, many of whom will have no idea that the scare derived from Mayanism in the first place. The last thing we need is for them to assume that academic scholars like Linda Schele and Michael Coe are deluded New Agers. Serendi^podous 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of the 2012 phenomenon as focused on the supposed disaster on December 21-23, 2012 is exceedingly narrow and short-sighted. This article as well as many other sources--including Bob Sitler's original 2006 article in Nova Religio (a journal about New Religious Movements) in which the term "2012 phenomenon" was coined--make it clear that a significant this topic is the supposed New Age "transformation of consciousness" of which Mayanism is very much a part. By deleting references to Mayanism, you are shifting the emphasis of the article in a biased way towards the concept of a physical disaster, something that is really just the most hyped (by major media) aspect of the 2012 phenomenon. I don't think that academic scholars such as Michael Coe and Linda Schele should be assumed to be deluded New Agers. However, the reality is that Coe was a fan of H.P. Lovecraft and that two of Schele's co-authored books (A Forest of Kings and Maya Cosmos) were co-written by Joy Parker, first a ghostwriter and editor and then a co-author (of Maya Cosmos), who was strongly affected by her own New Age beliefs. (She has since gone on to ghostwrite, write, or co-author a number of books on New Age topics.) I think you're grossly underestimating the signficance of Mayanism in the 2012 phenomenon. I don't think it's fair for you to assume the interests of the readers of this article. I feel confident that many of them actually are interested in the Maya civilization and Mayan peoples and also Mayanism. I think you're allowing your personal interests and interpretations, rather than actual scholarly literature, to influence the content of this article. If you need some background, you need to read this and this Hoopes (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You claim "It's meant for people who are interested/frightened about a supposed disaster on December 21-23 2012, many of whom will have no idea that the scare derived from Mayanism in the first place." If they have no idea that's where it comes from, that's partly due to your repeated deletion of references to Mayanism from the article! Hoopes (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You're complaining like I'm deleting vast swathes of your work; we're arguing about a single word. I don't think you can argue that the inclusion or not of a single word somehow shifts the focus of a 6000+ word article. I am simply trying to resolve a potentially dangerous area of confusion. If you can find a citation that resolves that confusion, then great. Regardless, the term "Mayanism" is not one that has wide currency yet. The article on Mayanism contains no direct citations for the word's usage or notability, and you have yet to provide any such references to this article to warrant its inclusion. As academic references to the term are currently scarce, I would prefer leaving it out until it attained a greater currency. Serendi^podous 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's your own interpretation. I don't feel as if you're deleting vast swaths of my work. I think you're being narrowminded in not recognizing the utility of this concept (and the Wikipedia article about it) for explaining the non-doomsday interpretations of the 2012 phenomenon. The article on Mayanism actually does contain direct citations for the word's usage and notability (see notes [1] & [2]). As for wide currency, a Google search on "Mayanism" gets 33,000+ hits. It's got a page on the 2012hoax.org website and there's even a Mayanism.com website. Regardless of how you feel about the term, I think the non-doomsday, New Age context for the 2012 phenomenon is one well-served by a link to the Mayanism article. The issue is not about the word, but about the information it represents. I really could care less about the word itself, but I think the information in the Mayanism entry is highly relevant to the 2012 phenomenon and I don't think Wikipedia users are well-served by your deletion of links to it. Name it something else if you like, such as New Age fantasies about ancient Mayas or something like that. It's the information that matters not the word. Hoopes (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting this. Do you understand how important lack of ambiguity is in this article? People have committed suicide over this. Let's say you're a moody 12-year-old who is contemplating suicide over the 2012 apocalypse. You google 2012 apocalypse and, of course, this article comes up near the top, so you click on it. Early on you read the line, "There is nothing in the Maya or Aztec or ancient Mesoamerican prophecy to suggest that they prophesied a sudden or major change of any sort in 2012", said Mayanist scholar Mark Van Stone. Later, you read the line, Mayanism is a non-codified collection of New Age beliefs about ancient Maya wisdom and spirituality. What will you conclude? Will you bother to do the research to make the distinction between "Mayanism" and "Mayanist"? No, you won't. You will conclude that Mayanist scholars arguing against the 2012 phenomenon are a bunch of New Age loonies. That's not a risk I am prepared to take. Even if I do as you ask and hide the word "Mayanism" behind a hyperlink, that doesn't resolve the problem. The only thing that will resolve the problem is a note explaining the difference. The last time you added the word "Mayanism" to the article, I added a note, but it was tagged for citation. Since I was unable to find a citation, I thought it simpler to delete the word. If you can provide such a citation, then I'd be pleased as punch to put the word back in. Otherwise no. Serendi^podous 16:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are your own personal interpretations, priorities, and biases, which have NO place in a Wikipedia article! People have not committed suicide over this. People have committed suicide because of serious mental health issues, especially an inability to handle anxiety, and this becomes one of many things (including everything from broken shoelaces to broken marriages) that trigger self-destruction. I completely disagree with your interpretation of how people are reading this article. While mass media has hyped the doomsday story to an absurd degree, the reality is that the 2012 phenomenon is also responsible for New Age-themed events such as Unify Earth, Synthesis 2012, The Great Convergence, the World Music Festival, the Day Zero Festival, and countless workshops, cruises, and parties around the world that have little or nothing to do with fears about the supposed end of the world. Voices from Maya leaders to John Major Jenkins have been working to get the word out that (for them) December 21 is NOT about doomsday about a New Age "tranformation" or spiritual awakening/rebirth I think that's an incredibly important part of the 2012 phenomenon and I think the Mayanism entry helps Wikipedia readers to understand where that comes from and why it's significant. If I remember correctly, this article was originally titled something like "2012 doomsday" and that was changed to be broader and more accurately all-inclusive. The New Age aspects of the 2012 phenomenon have been a serious object of scholarship since Robert Sitler's original article "The 2012 Phenomenon" (2006). Hoopes (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not as if Serendipodous is dismissing the New Age side of the phenomenon; the longest first-level section of the article is about the New Age aspect. It does make complete sense to link this article to one on Maya-related mysticism, but I find Serendipodous' desire to avoid confusion understandable, too. Avoidance of confusion does not have "no place in an encyclopedia article".

I can't find the article revision that had the explanatory note about Mayanism versus Mayanists, so I don't know what the note said. But I would think that the distinction between professional archaeologists and New Age mystics is pretty clear, and whoever slapped a citation-needed tag on the note was overzealous. Maybe you (whichever of you) can re-add the note and declare "This is subject-specific common knowledge and I invoke WP:Ignore all rules to defend it." If neither of you is willing to do that, then find a citation for the note or leave out the mention of Mayanism. A. Parrot (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you feel the note can go back uncited, then I'm fine with restoring the word. Serendi^podous 20:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My reference to what has "no place in an encyclopedia article" is not avoidance of confusion (of course) but personal bias. I have to admit that I'm now confused. What note do you mean? Who will restore it? There are clear statements in both the Mayanism and the Mayanist articles that make it even more obvious that the two are not to be confused. (I attempted to include one in this article as well but it was deleted.) I think the citation-needed tag was overzealous. Do we really need citations for published distinctions between two things that are obviously very different? I really don't care what it's called, but I do think that the contents of the article on Mayanism are directly relevant to this article and I don't think including a hyperlink to it--whatever term or phrase anyone prefers--should be such a big deal. Isn't the point here to make Wikipedia more useful and not less useful as a source of relevant information??? I frankly don't care whether the title of the Mayanism article is changed to something such as "Maya-related mysticism," but I don't think that phrase really catches the sense of it as well, nor is it something that can be cited (as is true with Mayanism). Hoopes (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw the inclusion under the "New Age beliefs" section. I'm happy with that if Serendipodous is happy. :-) Hoopes (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Hoopes, it was you who originally put it there. :-) And yes, I am very happy with it. Serendi^podous 00:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I put it there, but it has been slightly edited since then. I'm glad you're happy with it! Hoopes (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon event started last Friday?

Many are saying the 2012 phenomenon event already started last Friday, 2 weeks before the main ultimate date. Is this true?--75.139.106.179 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I suppose you COULD read the article... Senor Cuete (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

How was last Friday notably different from any other day? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Exact time of Winter Solstice 2012

As the all-important date of 21 December 2012 is featured in this page, I think the exact time (11:12 UTC) of that solstice should be included. Could a qualified editor consider this point and add that to the page?

203.184.0.10 (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what the importance of that time may be relative to the end of the Maya calendar? First, the exact time will occur an hour or so before sunrise in the Maya world. Second, the Maya's calendarics were precise, but I am not aware they had celestial events figured down to the minute or even hour. I do know of several people who have expressed interest in the exact time of the solstice. Is that when the world is supposed to end? Mankind raised to a higher consciousness? Are we even certain that the Maya made any connection at all between the solstice and the end of the Long Count? I just don't see the relevance. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't even know for certain if 13.0.0.0.0 even happens on 21 December. The connection to the solstice could be just a coincidence. Serendi^podous 23:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you always refer to yourself as "we" but yes, some of us really do know that it's the 21st see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You've always been rather strident in your opinion about this, which I find strange; you shouted at me and called me names because I said that Michael D Coe believes the GMT+2 correlation, but guess what? He does. And so do a number of other Mayanists. It is clear there is difference of opinion on the issue, so stop claiming your absolute rectitude and just be civil for once, will you? Serendi^podous 08:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're right CoyoteMan31 then my least unsure guess after reading Mesoamerican Long Count is correct, that the baktuns start at sunrise because (them being weird and all and starting months at the last visible moon). Might as well be consistent and make day counts not involving the Moon start that way too. Why an hour before though? With only 2 days between December 21 and 23, they must be starting at moons only about a day from new, and exactly sunrise is the time to find such old moons (see any Astronomical Calendar) (well not exactly sunrise, it should still be hidden, but only by the tiniest of amounts will do). Coincidentally, the sunrise in the Maya areas will only be about 1 to 1 1/2 hours after the winter solstice [6]. A rather inconvenient place to put an apocalypse, they should've rescheduled. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Current Event notice?

I propose that the article be tagged as a current event for the 21st of December - seeing as many people will head to Wikipedia before noticing their impending doom is upon them and that they are all going to die...

If you can't tell, I'm joking :) :) --His Lordship,The Count of Tuscany (you wish to address his honor?) 02:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a current event yet. If the world starts to come to an end, at that point it will become a current event, and the proper template could be entered here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Misreporting of public reaction/popular culture?

Judging by the current state of these two sections, a future reader might think that the principal public reaction is one of gullibility and fear, even though most people presumably know from personal experience that the general public reaction is one of ridiculing the whole business, even if there may also be some unadmitted private nervousness (I am personally surprised by the apparent rarity or absence of 'end of the world' parties, leading me to wonder whether the world has gone superstitious or lost its sense of humour). Surely these sections need some references at least to debunking cartoons and similar phenomena.

Also simply quoting scientists blaming the gullibility's allegedly unusual extent on the Internet seems one-sided, given that debunking articles such as this one are far easier to access in the age of the Internet, and given that the exceptionally high reported levels of belief in China (although still only a 20% minority) have been attributed by the Daily Telegraph (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9729270/China-fears-end-of-the-world-is-nigh.html ), not to the Internet, but to the higher-than-usual success of the '2012' movie in China, reportedly because in the movie the rescue arks were built by the Chinese. That much at least probably needs to appear in the article.

Personally I suspect, but can't easily prove, that another factor may be a growing distrust of scientists and much of what they stand for, perhaps especially in countries like China and Russia who have experience of so-called 'scientific atheism' (better known as communism), but also wherever there are people afraid of proliferating nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, genetic engineering, GM crops, artificial intelligence, the technological singularity, the claim by evolutionists that we are nothing but apes, or by physicists that we have no Free Will, and are continually splitting into copies of ourselves in parallel universes according to the Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and similar more recent theories such as M theory, and so on. But I suspect my bias on this point makes me the wrong person to try to add it to this article, always assuming it should be added (which my bias again probably makes me the wrong person to decide). Similarly I suspect I'm not the best person to make the changes suggested in my previous two paragraphs.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent ref. Thank you. As to your other comments, well stats work both ways, remember; a 12% acceptance is an 88% rejection. But since those who reject the idea are less likely to kill themselves over it, it's that 12% we should keep an eye on. I'm not sure where I could find a citation for the idea that most people don't assume the world is going to end in 10 days, but then I don't think I could find a source saying that most people don't think the sky smells purple either. As to the internet, the issue is not availability of information, but a lack of quality control; there is no way to separate the BS from the truth, particularly if you don't accept the word of scientists, a problem not unique to ex-Communist countries, but as endemic in "spiritual" countries like the US and India. Serendi^podous 10:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You should stop referring to yourself "we". It's presumptuous and patronizing. "we" are perfectly capable of deciding who "we" think "we should keep an eye on." Also never end a sentence with a preposition. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Senor Cuete, you seem to be the only editor having an issue with his use of the term "We". -- Kheider (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Senor Cuete, I'd urge you to read WP:CIVIL. – Richard BB 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Planet X

I don't believe in this at all, but the main arugment against (That we could see the planet in the nights sky) does have one hole: What if the planet was on the day side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.2.48 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It would not be in conjunction with the Sun all year and it would have been easily visible a few months ago when more than ~20 degrees from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It actually would have been detected anyway if it somehow magically stayed on the day side, because it would be bigger and brighter than Venus, and Venus has been detected during the daytime. Kbog (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Message by the Australian prime minister

I'm not sure where and how exactly to incorporate it (perhaps in the last paragraph), but I think Julia Gillard's joke video is notable enough to mention in the "Public reaction" section? It has certainly received wide coverage. Waltham, The Duke of 18:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources other than the youtube video itself? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I ought to have procured specific examples from the start, rather than rely on people to search Google on my word alone. Here are a few: The Sydney Morning Herald website, The Daily Telegraph website, NBC News, The Huffington Post. Waltham, The Duke of 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What would be nice would be some kind of commentary. How was this stunt received in Australia? Was it seen as funny? Provocative? Dangerous? A waste of public money? Serendi^podous 18:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Timewave Zero. McKenna misrepresented

Under section 3.3 Timewave zero and the I Ching, Terrence McKenna is sited as a main reference for discussing timewave zero. The first paragraph is supported by two inactive citations, (92) and (93).

The last sentence, ″He conceived this idea over several years in the early to mid-1970s whilst using psilocybin mushrooms and DMT.″ easily discredits all other information within, with no proper citation. Suggest deletion.

Edits needed.

Chuggerz (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference 92 works fine for me. But I don't know if it supports all (or any) claims. It's a very long interview, and it's not fair to make readers skim through ten three hours (the date is specified, at least) to verify facts. Specific times should be noted in the footnote. I don't think someone's ideas should be discounted because they were tripping when they thought of them. We all think differently, even sober. Some of us swear we think better on certain drugs. The fact that he was on them (if it is a fact) should stay, to let readers make up their own minds about whether and how it matters to the theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dan Brown and the Washington Post (2456282.5)

The source cited says that the number 2456282.5 had to be "Decrypted" to find that is was the date for the ostensible doomsday. This is nonsense, the date is in Astronomical format. It is the Julian Date which corresponds to the calendar date of 21.12.2012. As such, no source needs to be cited. Please could someone make the edit? Cross check with the Wikipedia article on Julian Date if you like!

217.18.23.2 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

May be obvious, but it's still original research unless a source can be located. Serendi^podous 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a Julian date. Just the number of days after noon (Greenwich) 1/1/4713 BC (Julian calendar). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But again it's not in the source. Serendi^podous 20:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've subbed a source that has that information. In future, please do the same. Serendi^podous 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

THE WORLD WILL NOT END IN DECEMBER 21, 2012!

WANT PROOF?!?!?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxYedjUj2s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.156.209 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. government has already stated it won't happen, and that's good enough for me! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

London Transport has scheduled line improvements for 2013.

'Instant heritage industry' (ie 'cheap tourist tat') items for the royal baby is already being produced.

The 2014 WWI anniversary and 2015 Magna Carta anniversary events and publications are too far advanced for an inconvenience like the apocalypse to stop them.

QED. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. It also doesn't jive with Homer Simpson's equation (12-333x666=(axb2)>2=7(2+2b2)-144,000-0=3 15 05 18). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Brits saving the world from the apocalypse through sheer power of stiff upper lip.188.22.122.121 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For clarification "Wills and Kate Windsor's sproglet(s)" - and someone produced a 'royal baby' mug within hours of the announcement. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible for the end

It's impossible for the world to end because the Mayan calendar didn't count leap years so the world should've ended 7 months ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.45.139 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It did. You must have missed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Who was it who said that the world had ended, but nobody noticed?

I once came across a reference to 'some Russian athletes' who before WWI missed the Olympics ... because they were going by the Julian calendar. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This may be a coincidence...

But I think it's worth noting that, thirteen years before the end of the thirteenth baktun, The King of Kings descended from the sky. By his will, the Christian defenders were overcome by New Age outlaws and mankind was destroyed by a giant. Source, at the bottom. I get this may seem like original research, so I'll look for a source that describes these facts as prophecy, instead of chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Revelation 17:14 is somewhat supportive, albeit in a very synthetic way (think "Wolf in sheep's clothing"). I'll keep looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that these events occur nine days after Armageddon, which took place on 12-12. The significance of the number nine is probably apparent to the IP with the "Gangnam Style" theory above, but I'll continue to look for evidence more appropriate for a general readership. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WTF does wrestling have to do with the 2012 phenomenon? -- Kheider (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say until we see what the day brings, but the timing and circumstances are intriguing, and lead me to believe there may be something here. You might think it's a crackpot theory (or the start of one, anyway), but I think this whole "phenomenon" and other theories presented on it on this Talk Page are more than a bit wacky. Makes sense to leave it here, to see if anyone else has something to add (I'll also continue to look for valid sources), which may tie it together. If not, it doesn't belong in the article. But deleting it gives it no chance at all. Try to keep an open mind, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So the Mayans saw Hulk Hogan coming, but not the Conquistadores??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you know they didn't see the Conquistadores coming? SlightSmile 01:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, good point: Maybe they wanted to be subjugated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily a Mayan connection at all here. Could be that Vince McMahon simply knows something they didn't. He certainly foresaw the arrival of Los Conquistadores. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Properly pronounced "McMayan", don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See? Evidence. Not exactly the smoking gun type, but I'm sure that's buried somewhere in the landfill of Google results for phrases like "WWF", "prophecy" or "2012". While digging, I did notice the interval between the Twin Towers' final match and Hulk Hogan toppling Sgt. Slaughter at WrestleMania VII is quite close to that between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, 12 years later. The end dates are 5 days off, and the start dates are 21. As you may recall, 5/21 was the end of the world, once (as well as the date of the first WWF Judgment Day pay-per-view in 2000, and later in 2006). Not saying we should add this here (or anywhere, probably), just citing prophetic precedent. I'll keep looking for reliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, WWE Judgment Day 2006 (held in a city named for a symbol of cyclical rebirth and featuring a champion named "Mysterio") was exactly 5 years before Harold Camping's Judgment Day and, 21 years after WrestleMania VII, Wikipedia's featured article was The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (which happens to have been founded 21 years earlier). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Futurists have been wrestling with this question for some time now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As regards "voluntary human extinction", just keep in mind that for every human who decides not to reproduce, there are a thousand Honey Boo-Boo's being born. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs "Update after" tag

This whole article needs an {{update after|2013|01|01|reason=change verb tense}} tag :) .

Seriously, some of the verbiage is written in the future tense, but it will need to be re-written in a past tense within the next few days or weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As with any event or non-event tied to a particular date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But, who will be around to update it? Or even read it. <==sarcasm. We can do the update 12/22 -- have to wait until then as the Maya were not considerate enough to provide a time.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 10:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be safe, wait until January 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I would wait until all possible time zones on Earth pass by December 21, which would mean we need to wait until 1200 UTC on December 22 to do it. -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Tourism

In all likelihood, we'll get a lot of newscoverage of more or less local events. Hopefully, people will be peaceful and optimistic. AFAIK, there will be some touristic activity: people at Chichen Itza, maybe Bugarach, and possible elsewhere. Perhaps it's worth to include that in the article in a few days. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see some more scholarly articles over the next few years. --Jonas kork (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I just read something about there being 254 journalists and 100 soldiers in Bugarach, to deal with roughly zero tourists. That kind of (over)reaction is worth mentioning, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth going just to see all thse journalists in one place. Gosh, if anything should happen.... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice on the appcalypse

The (UK) fire brigade suggests that fire alarms should be installed on each floor of a building so that the rise of fire and brimstone can be monitored.

The Automobile Association suggests that if motoring during the apocalypse attention should be kept on the road.

Any other 'helpful official advice'? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

21st December is also the 31st anniversary of the last episode of Blakes Seven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Date notation

I'm not a native english speaker, so I'd like to ask here if I'm correct instead of modifying the article directly: when you say "whose classic period lasted from 250 to 900 AD", wouldn't it be more correct to say it lasted from 900 to 250 AD as if I understand correctly, AD means Ante Dominem (before the Christ), and therefore 900 AD would be BEFORE 250 AD. Am I wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC03:EE40:849C:DBCD:E33A:9B75 (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, BC is Before Christ, and AD is Latin for "Year of our Lord". So 900 to 250 BC would be right, and 250 to 900 AD would be right. BCE and CE are also used, the CE meaning "Christian Era", or "Common Era". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

AD stands for Anno Domini ("in the year of the lord"). 178.3.243.102 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. "Year of Our Lord" is more of a colloquial translation. Same idea, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of believers in the US

NewsFix (who are they?) is reporting [7] that a Religion News Service (legitimate org) poll claims that 6 million americans believe the world will end on dec 21. I could not find the actual poll results from RNS at their website. This fact, if true, along with the estimate that up to 1 million Chinese adherents of the "Christian" sect Eastern Lightning believe a variant of this, help to show the popularity of this idea. Should we put either fact in this article, or are they too sketchy?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This says the study suggests 2% of Americans believe they won't be getting a kiss on New Year's, and that we should assume this means they think the world is ending. Pretty sketchy. As for NewsFix, it seems to be run by KIAH. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Only 2%, eh? And there's ten full days of potential snogging to go. Is this the kind of in-depth spiritual mapping that Religion News Service (legitimate org) specialises in? Or are they just all born-again Mayans? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Other people observed solstices

In the 'Criticism' section it states "It is possible that only the early Mesoamericans observed solstices". I propose changing this to say something like 'of Latin Americans(?), only the Mesoamericans observed solstices', because European Neolithic people built stone alignments potentially aligned with midwinter or midsummer solstices. Lopifalko (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair, unless the whole article could be deemed to provide enough geographical context. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Header backwards

Hi - I can't edit the article header, but as the source of the issue is the mesoamerican calendar, this article should start with what the calendar and Mayan beliefs were, in the header, and mention the different subsequent beliefs, especially the "end of the world" nonsense, (sorry, but it is), later in the header. You have written this in the style of Tabloid sensationalism, attention grabbing headlines, etc, not an encyclopaedia. TX Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, because this article is about the end of the world nonsense, not about Mesoamerican calendrics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The calendar plays a role in the madness, but the whole "phenomenon" came from apocalyptic writers, the Discovery Channel shows that promoted them and attention-grabbing tabloid headlines. If this article was about the calendar itself, it would be different. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)