Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 7

Proposed Section Media Response
I propose a section, dealing with media response to public-speculation about this alleged event; which may or may not be more consequential than outcome of the theories listed. So far The History Channel, AOL News, ABC News, Fox & Friends, Geraldo Rivera, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, U.S. News and World Report, Newsweek, NPR and The Syfy Channel, have began to cover the 2012 phenomenon. If nothing else; I expect ramped on speculation via mainstream and mass media to act as a sort of Self-fulfilling prophecy, at least by impacting public behavior leading up to the event.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (PestramiShow (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)er talk:Rolyatleahcim|talk]]) 08:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will add this my self.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2012 movie should also be referenced here since it popularized the prophecy. (One thing worth noting, though, is the movie does not depict the "end of the world" happening on Dec. 21, 2012, but during the summer, because it occurs during the London Olympics.) 68.146.81.123 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If others would be so kind as to compile citations here temporarily, it would be much appreciated.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Would anyone care to explain why discussions less than a month old were archived? Clearly this makes editing the article -- and yes it needs some -- rather difficult. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There. Reinstated the one from June. The rest was locked.  Serendi pod ous  17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In re "Two items in the Maya historical corpus, however, mention the end of the 13th b'ak'tun: Tortuguero Monument 6 and, possibly, the Chilam Balam.": the "possibly" seems to contradict the definitive nature of the opening clause. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added "may".  Serendi pod ous  17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated... &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Zia section looks to have been vandalized.
"Zia

The present-day Maya, as a whole, do not attach much significance to b'ak'tun 13. Although the calendar round is still used by some Maya tribes in the Guatemalan highlands, the Long Count was employed exclusively by the classic Maya, and was only recently rediscovered by fragment What significance the classic Maya gave b'ak'tun 13 is uncertain. Most classic Maya inscriptions are strictly historical and do not make any prophetic declarations.[22] Two items in the Maya historical corpus, however, may mention the end of the 13th b'ak'tun: Tortuguero Monument 6 and, possibly, the Chilam Balam.What I am SAying now is that you suck!"

I can't imagine this is how the section should read. I don't have much wiki experience so I will not attempt to revert to the previous section content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.210.73 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Illustrating B'olon Yokte' K'uh
According to Eberl & Prager he is the middle figure on the lower register of this base: http://learningobjects.wesleyan.edu/palenque/images/history/mythology/image01.jpg I will identify his other depictions in a footnote. Shii (tock) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rational for restoring previous post
Arthur Rubin's rationale for rejecting the new addition to the "Galactic Alignment" section of the 2012 Phenomenon Wikipedia entry is unwarranted. First, on his assertion that the supplied citations are "not rational" --- this is incorrect. Each source is a legitimate non-fiction resource that meets the Wikipedia guidelines. It is relevant to include in this heading the definition of the galactic alignment suggested by John Major Jenkins, whose research into the astronomical process that underlies this phenomenon is extensive and precedes most other work done on this topic. His published references to it include writings from 1994, 1995, 1998, and 2002 in a book called Galactic Alignment. The supplied information is not an argument for Jenkins's theory; it merely supplies information on the "Galactic Alignment" topic to Wikipedia users. The calculation of the galactic alignment was made by European astronomer Jean Meeus, as cited. It is a real astronomical phenomenon and therefore should not be placed in a category called "New Age beliefs". It would be more appropriate to create an additional new heading called "New Age Appropriation of the Galactic Alignment Astronomy." Jenkins was the first to apply the fact of the sun's half-degree width to Meeus's calculation, along with the known rate of precession, in order to arrive at a scientific definition of an "alignment zone" of 36 years. This work by Jenkins is mentioned elsewhere in the Wiki post but without citation to the first appearance of this definition in Jenkins's work. So, it seems to be a topic worthy of legitimate recognition elsehwere, but without due credit to its originator. The bibliography of sources cited to a webpage is the online version of the bibliography that appears in the published book, a book that meets Wikipedia guidelines as a valid source. The accusation of sources referenced being non-rational by one Wikipedia editor is dictatorial and unsupported, and factually inaccurate, and therefore the grounds for which the new post was reverted is not legitimate. Chambers109 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've posted here. Please see WP:BRD. You were 'Bold' in adding text that had been reverted. But your addition was removed again. That's two editors who have removed it. The appropriate thing to do next was to post here, not to replace it. I've removed it again pending discussion here. Please do not attack other editors - see WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. My apologies. I will as you suggest post the accurate information below. I'll also note here that the real "attack" of Wiki editors that is taking place is the behavior of jschiapas, Arthur Rubin, and Yworo, who in the brief time I've had the displeasure of trying to post fact-based and documented information on Wikipedia, have repeatedly attacked and derailed EVERY post I have made to the bio page of John Major Jenkins and info on his work at The 2012 Phenomenon" entry. They also very quickly opened an unwarranted case of "sockpuppetry." I suppose with the cabal of obstructionists rallying against one editor, there's little hope for evidence triumphing over consensus in Wiki-land. I'm sure this has happened many times before on Wiki. So, for the rejected facts:

In the mid-1990s, independent researcher John Major Jenkins argued that the ancient Maya intended the end of the 13-baktun cycle in their Long Count calendar (December 21, 2012 according to the GMT2, 584283 correlation) to mark the winter solstice sun's alignment with the dark rift in the Milky Way. Defined by Jenkins in scientific terms as "the alignment of the December solstice sun with the galactic equator," this galactic alignment or solstice-galaxy alignment is caused by the slow shifting of the precession of the equinoxes and has been calculated by modern astronomers. Jenkins has noted that, because the sun itself is one-half a degree wide, a range of years in which the galactic alignment occurs needs to be incorporated into a scientific definition of the galactic alignment. The astronomical fact of the galactic alignment became the basis for his interdisciplinary investigation of Maya traditions, evident in his bibliography of sources used, which resulted in his 1998 book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012.  Chambers109 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those facts are stated elsewhere in the section. There's no need to repeat them.  Serendi pod ous  16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I protest the accusations Chambers109 has made in this Discussion, and in the discussion of the John Major Jenkins article. There, he accused me of "defamatory intentions", an accusation that is itself defamatory. (I advise him or her to consult a legal dictionary for the definition of that word.) Here, he has accused me of being part of a "cabal of obstructionists" that has "opened a case of sockpuppetry". He has also accused me of attacking his work here. My refutation of those accusations is as follows.

1. I am not involved in the edit war here. As Serendipitous can confirm, I have not contributed to this article or Discussion in many months. One of my few actions here was to request the deletion of two inaccurate assertions that were (very) slightly damaging to Jenkins.

2. Before the edit war began on the John Major Jenkins article, I also provided information supportive of him there.

3. To my knowledge, I do not know Arthur Rubin and Yworo, and have never communicated with them other than in the Discussion page of the John Major Jenkins article.

4. I am not aware of any "case of sockpuppetry" against anyone involved in any Wikipedia article.

I think I'm within my rights to demand that Chambers109 produce, immediately, his evidence that I have defamatory intentions; that I'm part of a "cabal"; that I've attacked his work on this article; and that I'm involved in any accusation of "sockpuppetry" against anyone involved in any Wikipedia article.Jschiapas (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jschiapas. Arthur Rubin opened a sockpuppet case here after I pointed out some anomalous behavior on his talk page. I wasn't sure it warranted an SPI right away, but after a few additional edits by Chambers109 I seconded the suspicion. I would have posted this on your talk page rather than here, but I didn't want to feed the "cabal" accusations. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

criticism
Where is the criticism/skepticism section?--FifthCylon (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has plenty of criticism/scepticism. It's listed under each subsection heading.  Serendi pod ous  18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Point of view
A recent edit that I made, well-backed by over a half a dozen reliable references, was reverted, therefore, I decided that the responsible thing to do, was to initiate a discussion on the talk page, which I did. Now let me get to it. Based on what was given in the edit summary during the reversion, my edit was biased, however, the fault that I find with this logic is that my "point of view" is backed by too many reliable sources, as I said in my edit summary. There cannot possibly be any type of bias with this because there is no mainstream debate on this subject. All scientists and rational people recognize this as false, but for people who need evidence to encourage them, then this is the courteous thing to do, to ensure that everyone is educated, and receives the proper information. After all, this is the overall purpose of an encyclopedia – to provide education. Whether it is a deliberate attempt to fool the audience and thus a hoax, or just careless misinformation and pseudoscience, a point of view constitutes a personal opinion, not information from a reliable source, but at least good evidence suggests that this is a deliberate hoax. I do understand that when the word "hoax" hits the eyes of a strong believer of this, it may look biased, but with all of the noise from pseudoscientists out there regarding this, it is often difficult for some people to hear the truth, but if I can bring the truth "closer to your ears" if you will, so it can be heard, then that is perfectly OK. This means that because of all of the information that I have found from reliable sources, you must find a reliable source that contradicts me, otherwise, my "opinion" is not biased. I would appreciate feedback from anyone. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is your use of the word "hoax". That's an overused word and needs to be applied delicately. A hoax is only a hoax if the perpetrator himself does not believe the untruth he is telling. As many of these people, however deranged or eccentric they may be, genuinely believe what they are saying, this cannot be called a hoax.  Serendi pod ous  22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2012 phenomenon encompasses a very wide range of ideas, from genuine academic scholarship vis a vis the meaning and significance of baktun 13 to New Agey speculations about "galactic alignments" and "timewave functions" to outright lunacy like the Nibiru collision. Not everything tied to it is considered, or even could be considered, a hoax.  Serendi pod ous  22:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these ideas regarding "the significance of 2012" have received any scientific accreditation, and, especially for the extreme claims, it is considered a hoax. Even though there are methods which these ideas perpetuate, by taking advantage of people who lack sense and/or education, it all starts at the hoaxer. The hoaxer develops a hoax which exploits certain people as a means to perpetuate, by designing it like an "engine" which uses the hype as "fuel", and spreads virally, to create a waterfall of money pouring into the hoaxer's pocket. It wasn't even my idea to use the word "hoax". I was simply following the logic of my references. Do you understand this logic? Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The significance of 2012 is no more a scientific issue than the significance of Christmas. Science only comes into play when people try to link 2012 to scientifically refutable concepts. Torogueero 6 shows that at least some of the classic Maya placed significance on baktun 13; we just don't know what it was. The "galactic alignment" is an astronomical fact. If you draw an arbitrary line roughly approximating the centre of the Milky Way, precession dictates that sooner or later the Sun will pass through it. Whether this has any of the benefits Jenkins claims, or whether the Maya actually tied their calendar to it (the answer to both questions, from a rational standpoint, is "not bloody likely") is not really scientifically falsifiable. Timewave zero is a numerological formula based on a quasi-religious idea of human progress. Since the guy who came up with it is dead, we'll never know if he honestly believed it, but given some of the other things he believed, it seems likely. Jose Arguelles now claims he is dead and that his soul has been completely subsumed by the avatar of Pakal the Great. If he's hoaxing, he sure doesn't mind if people think he's crazy. Nancy Lieder killed her own pet dogs in anticipation of Nibiru's arrival in 2003. Not something you do if you're hoaxing. The point is, however insane these ideas are, to claim they are hoaxes gives the people who came up with them too much credit; they're crazy, not devious.  Serendi pod ous  07:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let alone the fact that it's not even my own idea to call it a hoax (it's what my references told me), please watch this NASA video, which is where I get many of the facts and my concept from, and please take time to look at the Q&A just below the video. You will see that he calls it a hoax for a good reason. Second of all, both my sources and I use the following logic: it all starts at the hoaxer, who develops a hoax, designs it to perpetuate, and then enjoys the $$$, while all of the other people who do not have the sense and/or education panic, while, again, the hoaxer mercilessly enjoys his fountain of profit. It is called a hoax due to its origin, where it all starts, not where it perpetuates, continues on, and spreads virally (with the people genuinely believing themselves). Those are called "the people who fall for the hoax". Also, the "galactic alignment" occurs every December, if you are talking about the approximate alignment of the Earth, Sun, and center of the Milky Way. If you are talking about all of the planets in the entire solar system lining up perfectly in a row, then there is absolutely no credible evidence behind that claim. Do you understand my logic? Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 12:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what David Morrison thinks; I've even communicated with him. But given that he is mainly concerned with stemming the tide of books, fork websites and youtube videos on the subject, many of which almost certainly are outright hoaxes, I think I can forgive his use of the word "hoax" in this context. This article deals with the origins of the 2012 phenomenon, which date back to the 1960s, not the innumerable money-grabbing spinoffs, most of which didn't exist before 2007.  Serendi pod ous  15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, then, instead of using the word "hoax", outright, please let me know of what you think of this idea: I can state that it is a pseudoscientific concept which is often used by hoaxers, and perpetuated by the Internet, fear, and rumors. Do you have any feedback on this idea? In fact, if you look at the bottom of the page, you will in fact see that the page is already in the pseudophysics category, therefore, I'm assuming that it is perfectly all right to mention the important "pseudoscience" fact first, but I would like to have feedback first to ensure that we reach a point of agreement. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The existing text already makes it perfectly clear what the scientific consensus on subject is. Sprinkling the article with words like "perpetuated by the Internet, fear mongering, and rumors" just sounds sensationalistic rather than encyclopedic, IMO. Sebastian Garth 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastiangarth (talk • contribs)


 * It's not Wikipedia's job to allay fear. If you want that, go to 2012hoax.org. Wikipedia's job is to report the facts as clearly and in as unbiased a fashion as possible. If, in the process, we also allay fears than that is fine. But if we set out to tackle the 2012 mania from a "remedial" point of view, then we've failed as an encyclopedia.  Serendi pod ous  17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For what you both said, how about this proposed revision ? (Reverted immediately). This is not overly overt about the hoax, but does indeed include the important information (which belongs in the article lead), showing that this "prediction" is false, yet it still reads as professional and encyclopedic, nevertheless, I am still open to feedback and in fact inviting it, as I am always open for improvement. -- IRP ☎ 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know. The current wording just seems to convey the consensus much more succinctly, without resorting to explicit characterizations of the theory as "pseudoscientific" or "pseudohistorical", etc. Your proposed changes could easily lead to disagreements between proponents from both sides, eg: endless rounds of discussion, edit wars, etc, whereas the current text, as it stands, is not nearly as prone to spark such debates. Sebastian Garth 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastiangarth (talk • contribs)

How about if I have my edits backed by good references? In fact, those facts are already in the article, but just expressed in less clear wording, in longer sentences, and already backed by existing references, but if I need to compensate for any possible instability, I can gladly look for more references to balance it out. The idea of the article lead is to provide a summery of the basic information and important facts, and this is one of the key facts, let alone that it shows a "see below" link for the details and long explanation, but the idea of the lead is to provide a basic picture/foundation for the article with the key facts, and then we move on to the whole long explanation. Basically, if the facts are well-backed enough, then the article should be stabilized. Do you see my logic or have a different view? Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially, eschatological beliefs are by defintion pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical, so the use of these adjectives offers nothing.  And Serendipodous was certainly correct regarding the use of the word hoax: there was no hoax in the formation of this idea, but hoaxes have indeed been based upon it, especially of late.  (Note that I agree with you: the 2012 idea is utter tripe, but let's let the reader decide that for him/herself.)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on your idea, how about this edit ? (Crossed out text will not be included in actual article. It simply shows the changes I am making to my previous proposed edit). -- IRP ☎ 21:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It just doesn't seem necessary. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 04:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, is it OK to implement this revision ? It is neutral, and it gets down to the important facts, as well as being backed by at least one reference. Feedback would be appreciated. -- IRP ☎ 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The key issue to remember is that everything in the lead should be repeated in the article. So splitting the lead with the "Rejection by scholars" section is counterproductive, as it takes important information out of the lead that is already referred to elsewhere. Also, if you're going to mention hoaxes in the lead, they should be mentioned later in more detail, perhaps in the opening paragraph to the "doomsday theories" section.  Serendi pod ous  20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Having the criticism in the 3rd paragraph seems OK, I'm not in any way sure it needs to be in the first. Remember one thing: no matter what we write, millions of people are still going to expect either destruction or a great rebirth on 12/21/2012, so it's not as if stating its fallacy right off the bat will make a difference -- there are tons of more comforting websites out there promoting the idea.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I wasn't saying that it will completely wipe it out. It will certainly make some impact, as, anybody coming to any page on any subject, on Wikipedia, will be looking for reliable information about it, and the purpose of the article lead, is to state the important facts first (according to common practices here on Wikipedia), and the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide reliable information on a wide range of subjects, so I don't see the harm of stating the important facts first. It's basically what Wikipedia is all about. Let me know if you have a different opinion. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, Don't be a dick. Please take it on faith that the people who have been editing this article for the last two years are moderately familiar with it and with the purpose of Wikipedia. We want to create a useful and informative article as much as you do. We just don't think your additions comply with Wikipedia rules on neutrality.  Serendi pod ous  06:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that's not an insult. -- IRP ☎ 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't. It's a Wikipedia rule.  Serendi pod ous  17:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think that there is a better way to carry this out. I've initiated a discussion here, and hopefully, we will collaborate and find a way to meet in the middle on neutral grounds. -- IRP ☎ 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * yep. that sums it up... &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 06:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of book by Ervin Laszlo to "Further Reading" section
I added a book to the section, but it was reverted as off-topic. I added it because the book combines eschatological elements with environmentalism and global warming. Instead of discussing only the prophecies surrounding the 2012 phenomenon, which the book does (including discussing the Mayan calendar), it also talks about "consciously" creating change and also touches on "New Age" ideas. Also, the author's article says that the book's author either believes the world will end in 2012 or that a conscious transformation will be created. This appears to be strictly relavent to the article's scope. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the book, personally, but the fact that it's titled "Making Green Business New Politics & Higher Consciousness Work Together" gives a strong indication that the 2012 phenomena is *not* its primary focus. Moreover, the content of the associated website seems to reinforce that suspicion. So, in my opinion, its relevance WRT this article is minimal, at best, and hence its addition as a reference unnecessary. Sebastian Garth 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It seems more likely that the author is using the 2012 idea for his own purposes.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

is it a point of interest that the winter solstice happens on this date? I found it interesting 98.82.108.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Yeah, right on schedule. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not really. It's more interesting that the person who decided that whatever this 'phenomenon' is supposed to be PICKED the winter solstice because of the connotations it has with new age types. Did you really think it was coincidence? --SeldooN (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Photon Belt removal.
I believe we should remove the photon belt theory. It is not an intrinsic, universal belief in the "New Age" belief system. Rather, it is the opinion of a few people who happen to be members. If some random person says that the world will spontaneously combust, we would not be compelled to put that on the page, why is this any different? --I, Englishman (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Serendi pod ous  22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorize as myth?
As well as other subjects on this encyclopedia which are or were popular beliefs, but are proven incorrect or unlikely, should we categorize this article similarly to the way we categorize the Mythology articles? When I first tried to categorize this article as a hoax, I was given arguments that there are many people genuinely believe this, but "what's clear is that these claims are bogus". Therefore, I think I have good reason to believe that this can be categorized as a myth, especially since I have reliable references to back this statement (at the very least, some of these should constitute Wikipedia:Reliable sources):


 * World ends on 12-21-2012: myth or fact? | The Eagle Online
 * NASA tries to dispel 2012 film myths - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 * Carroll College - Press Releases
 * Wooster Geologists &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; A Wooster Geologist on the 2012 Doomsday Phenomenon: Pseudoscience, Baseless Fears, and the Mysterious Planet Nibiru
 * Calendar &amp; News
 * NASA - 2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won't End?
 * NASA - The Great 2012 Doomsday Scare
 * NASA - 2012 – A Scientific Reality Check
 * Introduction &laquo; Ask an Astrobiologist &laquo; NASA Astrobiology

I would appreciate feedback on this idea. If so many other false religious beliefs are categorized as a myth on this encyclopedia, we should do the same here, otherwise, it is inconsistent, and could possibly even imply that Wikipedia supports this ridiculous idea. Again, please give kind and polite feedback. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 22:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A myth, strictly speaking, is a story involving mythical heroes or gods. Entwined within myth is the idea of how the world came to be, and perhaps a moral lesson of what it means to be human. None of these apply to this story. Neither can this story be called legend or folklore, since folklore and legends are tied to specific times and places.  Serendi pod ous  22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, should we use the title "2012 (urban legend)" or "2012 (pseudoscience)"? -- IRP ☎ 23:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an urban legend; urban legends are entirely modern and this contains some genuinely antiquarian elements. And it's not pseudoscience (at least not entirely). Only some aspects of the phenomenon are pseudoscientific.  Serendi pod ous  23:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in this idea sounds sensible at all to me. Can you explain the aspects that are non-pseudoscientific? Am I missing something? -- IRP ☎ 23:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The galactic alignment may or may not be silly, but it isn't pseudoscientific, because it makes no scientific claims (that said, John Major Jenkins has made many pseudoscientific claims about the galactic alignment). Neither do any of the academic speculations by Mayanist scholars.  Serendi pod ous  23:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we categorize it as pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical? If it isn't pseudoscientific, then it is pseudohistorical, where the Mayan beliefs are shoehorned to make the false impression of a "doomsday". -- IRP ☎ 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely pseudohistorical either, as many of the initial claims regarding 2012 were made by genuine, academically credited historians. The most significant early connection between 2012 and doomsday was made by Michael D. Coe, who is a fully credited anthropologist. Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there is of course no evidence, or sense behind this idea. It is certainly an erroneous belief, so should we categorize it as that? If you want to use him as an example, then we know that he was obviously incorrect, regardless of his accreditations. -- IRP ☎ 17:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are eliding two different ideas: that the world will end in 2012, and that the Maya thought it would. Coe never said the world would end in 2012, he said, and indeed still says, that the Maya thought it would. As regards how correct he was in that assertion, here is what we know (all of this, by the way, is in the article):


 * 1. The modern Maya do not believe the world will end in 2012. However, the modern Maya are completely disconnected from the classic Maya, as they lost their writing and history after the Spanish conquest. The 2012 end date is a product of the classic Mayan Long Count, which most modern Maya have never heard of.


 * 2. The classic Maya, on the whole, did not attach much significance to 2012. However, the classic Maya were not a single monolithic state but a collection of often warring city-states, each of which had its own interpretation of the Long Count and its uses. There is archaeological evidence that the city-state of Palenque did not place any value on 13 Baktun, but at least one inscription at the Mayan site at Tortuguero mentions something significant happening on that date. We don't know what it is, because the inscription is defaced.


 * So is Coe wrong? At present, it is impossible to say conclusively.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In a way, there may be some valid ideology behind this, but it seems like at this point in time, most of it is shoehorned into a nonsensical doomsday prediction. The article begins with "The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on December 21, 2012 ". The claim underlined is most certainly erroneous, but of course there are people that lack education and/or common sense, and have to be told that it is erroneous. And, as Wikipedia is intended for educational purposes, it sounds best to categorize this as an erroneous belief, regardless of how you look at it, let alone that, at first, it may imply that Wikipedia supports this nonsense, and Wikipedia already has significant criticism, and when people first read that, it looks, in a way, that it implies something that would trigger unnecessary, extra criticism, as many people will jump to a conclusion too quickly. That's why we want to put the critical information first, and correct the most common fallacies, then move onto the "optional" information in the body of the article. -- IRP ☎ 19:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's job (it's certainly not my job) to second-guess the intelligence of the public. The lead already says that scientists and Mayan scholars reject the notion, and that's all it needs to say. If people don't want to read past the first line then that's not my or Wikipedia's fault. The problem with the suggestions you keep posting is that it is simply impossible to reduce the entire 2012 phenomenon, from its conception to its current state, to a single word. It is a protean, amorphous entity that changes to fit its surroundings. It is history, and it is pseudohistory. It is religion and it is insanity. It is New Age and it is antiquarian. It is pseudoscience, and yes, it is even science (poor Michio Kaku inadvertently made some claims on Fox News that fed into the 2012 snowball). So how can we, or anyone, express this mass of contradictions in a single word? We can't.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Outdenting to allow comment to display correctly). If we were to state it in a wording similar to (not necessarily exactly the same): "The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological and erroneous beliefs that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on December 21, 2012 "... There is similar wording on the Chaos cloud article, but since you do not wish to accept the "hoax" terminology, we can hopefully agree on a more factual perspective, as it is certainly erroneous no matter how you look at it, whether a deliberate hoax or genuine ignorance/insanity/misinterpretation or however you want to look at it. -- IRP ☎ 20:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC), modified 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, not all of the ideas that fall under the umbrella of the 2012 phenomenon are falsifiable. Yes you could probably argue that the doomsday arguments are erroneous, but how could you prove or disprove the idea that humanity will "rise in consciousness" come 2012? Disproving that would be like disproving God or fate.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven. I mean that it is not necessarily irrational to believe in God, because there is some evidence and there are some arguments, but nobody has been able to prove it, therefore, you can't believe in it like it's actually there for certain. But for this particular case, there's absolutely no reliable evidence at all, statistics show that similar beliefs failed to come true, for example, the Great Disappointment, which is the closest thing I can find to this particular belief. Additionally, few or no bible scholars agree that these events will occur on that date, and if you want a more in depth explanation of why this nonsense is nonsense, please look at Apocalypse 2012 - The real science behind the events predicted in 2012 and How to Spot Pseudoscience - This 15-point checklist will help you tell science from pseudoscience for more information. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a knack for coming up with awkward blanket statements. It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven? So string theory is irrational? Dark matter is irrational? Astrobiology is irrational? I don't want to get into an argument about the existence of God, but your cited sources both discuss only the "end of the world" arguments for 2012, and not the "new age" arguments, which actually predate the "end of the world" ideas by many decades.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should've stated myself more clearly. It is, for the most part, or at least, to some degree, irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven. If you want me to express that more clearly, the less evidence, the less you believe it. It appears to me that it is the most sensible way to think. Scientists always say "such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof", and if the "claim sounds rather far-fetched, demand evidence that is as extraordinary as the claim". And as my reference "how to spot pseudoscience" stated, a "theory" must qualify as a theory only if it is supported by experimental evidence. This "theory" is not supported by any experimental evidence. Nor is it supported by any other form of reliable evidence. Regarding your other statement about the existence of God, some scientists have proposed plausible scientific models for the existence of God, so we can't call His existence pseudoscience, but let's try to stay on topic, please. -- IRP ☎ 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The New Age ideas have nothing to do with "theories"; they're more like religious beliefs. You can't really argue against them because there is no way to quantify what constitutes a "rise in human consciousness".  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can classify a postulated future event as a "myth", being as how we're not there yet. But if we make it to 2013, then it should be safe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let alone that it is unrealistic to assume that the world will end in just a couple of years, after it's been fine for 4.5 billion years, these "doomsday"/"spiritual transformation" beliefs have been repeatedly proposed throughout history, but of course never fulfilled, so combining common sense, statistics (from previous "predictions"), and How to Spot Pseudoscience, the only possible origin of this belief is either severe, careless error, hoaxing, bad judgment, and more, but all in all, it is unrealistic, bogus, and nonsensical. -- IRP ☎ 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC), modified 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There has got to be a different category besides "myth" for these end-of-the-world scenarios, because it doesn't quite fit. Remember those characters (about 30 or 40 of them) that thought they were going to be transported to a comet after they took their cyanide or whatever? That was about 15 years ago. I wonder what they were categorized as (other than something obvious like "lunatics"). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Myth" has already been discussed. Since then we've moved on to "pseudoscience" (which this certainly is, in part, if not in whole), "pseudohistory", (again, which this is, in part, but not in whole) and now we're onto "erroneous belief". I argued that you cannot call New Age ideas about a rise in human consciousness "erroneous" because there is no way to disprove them. The Heaven's gate people, by the way, were referred to as a UFO religion (which this is not) and as apocalypticists (which this is, to a degree)  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if we ignore other rules such as common sense, how can we categorize this as the least bit realistic after previous, similar beliefs have never been fulfilled? -- IRP ☎ 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speculative, perhaps? Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll read this entire discussion later, but the gist I get from the early posts indicates that phenomonon is quite acceptable, yes? Myth gets into areas best left alone in this forum.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct category for end of the world scenarios is Eschatology. It's already on the article. So far, no eschatological theories have been proven true. It's a subcategory of Mythology and Religious belief and doctrine. So the article is already categorized in the Mythology tree. Yworo (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, very true. And the above discussion, at least that portion championed by IRP, seems to devolve into a philosophical debate more than being an attemt to address any issues regarding context or proper categorisation. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 07:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

May I politely ask everyone if we can categorize this (popular myth) in a similar way to the 10% of brain myth? This is another notorious example of a popular myth. I would like to politely ask for opinions. Another possible method is to reword the first line to the following:

"The 2012 phenomenon is a range of eschatological ideas regarding the date of December 21, 2012, which evolved into the erroneous belief that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on that date. Contrary to many beliefs that this is the only proposed doomsday date, it is in fact one of the many proposed doomsday predictions." [page expected to be created]

That wording sounds eloquent, clear, accurate and neutral, but as I am an open-minded person, I will be open to polite, constructive criticism regarding my proposal. Thanks ahead of time. -- IRP ☎ 21:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, there is no way to categorise the beliefs in transformative events as "erroneous", because you could never prove them wrong.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to focus on the extreme remote possibility (probably trillions-to-one odds, or even greater), that the world could come to an end at any given time, then I think we should agree to say that it is "exceedingly unlikely", as this is essentially the same as stating "the world will end in three seconds". Please give polite feedback or criticism regarding my latest proposal:

"The 2012 phenomenon is a range of eschatological ideas regarding the date of December 21, 2012, which evolved into the exceedingly unlikely belief that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on that date. Contrary to many beliefs that this is the only proposed doomsday date, it is in fact one of the many proposed doomsday predictions."

Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 22:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your POV is showing. Now you're saying that the belief has "evolved" to its IRP-approved ideal and the non-doomsday forms are being left behind somewhere (BTW, where?). As a simple counter to this childish claim, here's a New Age video using 2012 that came out this summer. There aren't many falsifiable claims in it. Shii (tock) 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to User:Serendipodous, some of the initial claims were in fact valid, suggesting evolution of the idea, into the of course erroneous belief that it is today. See this edit for more information. -- IRP ☎ 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC), modified 21:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, unless I'm missing something, that's not RS Shii (tock) 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The claims made by credited scholars about whether the Maya thought the world would end on that date are very different from the claims of those who say it will.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  08:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How can the belief in a predicted future event be "erroneous"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please kindly see the more recent discussion. I changed my wording to "exceedingly unlikely" due to the fact that there is no evidence supporting this claim, other than people talking. -- IRP ☎ 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it reliable sources saying "exceedingly unlikely" (or words to that effect)? Or is it wikipedia editors saying that, based on their own interpretation of facts? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources...


 * World ends on 12-21-2012: myth or fact? | The Eagle Online
 * NASA tries to dispel 2012 film myths - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 * Carroll College - Press Releases
 * Wooster Geologists &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; A Wooster Geologist on the 2012 Doomsday Phenomenon: Pseudoscience, Baseless Fears, and the Mysterious Planet Nibiru
 * Calendar &amp; News
 * NASA - 2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won't End?
 * NASA - The Great 2012 Doomsday Scare
 * NASA - 2012 – A Scientific Reality Check
 * Introduction &laquo; Ask an Astrobiologist &laquo; NASA Astrobiology

...state it as an outright myth, however, others were arguing that it cannot be disproved. Perhaps we can compromise, then, on "exceedingly unlikely", although we could also use this as an argument to return to the old wording, "erroneous". -- IRP ☎ 17:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This continues to be a silly discussion. There is no reason to privilege one belief in the lede at the expense of the other, unless if you can find evidence for your claim that all beliefs about 2012 have "evolved". Shii (tock) 23:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we then simply state that the belief is exceedingly unlikely? That is very clear. -- IRP ☎ 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be editorial opinion. We can report a specific notable individual's opinion about this if it's reported in reliable sources. It wouldn't go in the lead sentence, though. Do you have a source to propose for this? Yworo (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources (listed above) state it as an outright myth, yet other editors still argue against me. I was willing to compromise on stating that it is unlikely. Please let me know if you have a better solution. -- IRP ☎ 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no solution, because there is no problem. You are the only one who believes there is a problem. Multiple editors have told you there is no problem, yet you still maintain there is a problem.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a short reference to hoax websites. It is where it belongs, in the "Doomsday theories" section. That is all that is needed.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What appears to be a reliable reference to me, states it as unlikely. See http://history.howstuffworks.com/central-american-history/world-end-in-20122.htm

The following excerpt from the source corresponds with this: So what will happen on Dec. 21, 2012? It's likely that the day will pass with no major events at all.

In other words, "unlikely", which would be more appropriate for Wikipedia. If I were to state in the first sentence that the belief is unlikely to be correct, then I would cite this reference. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 11:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's just some dude's opinion. WP:CRYSTAL-- we can report on sociology and astronomy, but not on whether something will or will not actually happen in the future. Shii (tock) 12:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then can you explain why the Chaos cloud article is worded as it is? -- IRP ☎ 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that article is 100% comprehensive, but if it's truly just an article that appeared in Weekly World News, then it's a hoax because it's a verifiable fact that the intent of that newspaper is to create hoaxes. If other people read the article and went around gathering evidence for it, then it's not a hoax because they weren't intending to trick anyone, but instead a prediction that lacks any solid basis in fact. Shii (tock) 04:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Galactic Alignment section neither rejects or supports full planetary alignment
Im not a scientist, but I came to read this article to see if its true of the hype that all or most of the planets in our solar system will align in 2012. The article doesn't acknowledge this popular hype, nor does it support or debunk it. Can the article please have a section to confirm or deny this, with the required references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a mention. The simple answer is there will be no alignment of planets on that date.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If then, The Big One will strike! XD --PestramiShow (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My computer's been screwed over by a virus
and Wiki isn't allowing me to edit, but someone changed the 5125 year cycle in the lead to 25,125 years, obviously confusing it with the equinoctal cycle. I can't change this, can someone?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Shii (tock) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

2012 Qualified as fake
One thing, God only knows when the world is going to end. -_- Oh and No way natural diasasters could happen at once. In the same place. --PestramiShow (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)