Talk:José Argüelles

Name orthography
At least in the book Surfers of the Zuvuya, the typography of this man's name is José Argüelles, which is consistent with a Spanish name (He's half Mexican).

One-sided article?
Although I don't subscribe to any of the teaching of Jose Arguelles in particular, I do ackowledge the 13 moon, natural time system. I feel this article unecessarilly bad-mouths Arguelles, and in doing so alludes to holes with natural time. The absence of a date for July 26th is called the Day Out of Time, a sort of New Year or day of recognition. Anyways, I think it should be noted that Arguelles' interpretations of natural time are not necessarilly the rules that apply to the 13 moon calendar.

What the heck are those "references"? I'm inclined to delete them. --Fluffbrain 06:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not with how Arguelles interprets the 13 moon calendar, but in how he interprets and is presenting Mayanism. That's what the controversy is over. Bennie Noakes 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what is used by his detractors to distract people away from his primary concept which is a new understanding of time. Articulated in numerous ways as the Law of Time. If you haven't read the Cosmic History Chronicles I advise you to do so. If you don't then you have no right to comment on what the man is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.93.238 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Of course he can comment on practically anything the man says without reading it. It's all, without exception, patent hokum. 67.62.75.193 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Now the article is lopsided in "favor" of JA: Some of the cotnent (e.g., about telepathy ) must be removed or softened. Kdammers 08:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Finley reference
I've restored the reference to Finley's site, that had been removed on the grounds it's a "self-published" work. While it's true enough that he's not a published scholar in the field, I believe that his info on Maya archaeoastronomy & calendrics is reliable and accords with what is published elsewhere by more established academics and Mayanists. I've also seen that practising Mesoamericanists regard his site favourably.

The removal of the reference also left the footnoted citation and quote hanging without anything to refer to.

I don't think that the particular piece of information the cite/ref was being used for is controversial or unrepresentative of the mainstream view...?

The problem with characters like Argüelles is that academic researchers rarely if ever bother to respond in print to his fanciful claims. While it would be unreasonable to dispute that the vast majority (I would say, all) of Mayanist research completely disagrees with the way Argüelles, Calleman, Gilbert, Hancock et al. (mis)represent the Maya calendar and belief system, explicit and citeable published rebuttals from the field are v. hard to come by.

Perhaps if we can find some published countering arguments then Finley's comments can be superseded, but I'd be reluctant to pull out without some replacement.

Would be happy to discuss the point, and I do see the rationale/policy alignment behind removing this as a ref &mdash; but I would argue that in this case the reference is representative of the mainstream view, and is not being used to give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority or original research-type position. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to give a link to his Planet Art Network? I know that Argüelles planned to develop a movement to support the Roerich Peace Pact, but (a number of years ago) when I looked for it I could not find anything. If there is no actual project, the stuff about the Peace Pact should not be in the article. In any case, it would be helpful to the article to find some additional sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess there's this, claiming to be the "PAN Global Hub", and the "Galactic Research Institute of the Law of Time" that he's supposedly the president of. But it's not clear that JA himself has any direct association with these sites, they barely mention him/Valum Votan explicitly and they don't advertise who is actually behind them ("&copy; 2 Wizard" is the only notice of ownership to both these sites). I suppose that PAN is more a concept than an actual organisation, it seems anyone can come along and set up a site to 'integrate' into the 'network', kind of like a webring. So dunno whether these are JA-endorsed, or fellow-travellers, or free-riders recycling his material.


 * Perhaps JA and followers just do what is claimed on the site, and are "[c]ooperating autonomously and telepathically linked in time through the 13 Moon Calendar", so no need for humble internet connectivity like the rest of us. But I don't think we could get away with   ;-) And yes, a few more, less ethereal, sources wld be nice. Cheers, --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess that is the site, but I do not see anything about the Roerich Peace Pact . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find any reference to it either, so perhaps that shld be removed or commented out, until some source is forthcoming. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

should we mention that he thinks he's dead?
and possessed by the soul of Pakal Votan?  Serendi pod ous  15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pacal Votan used to redirect to here, but got changed to point to K'inich Janaab' Pakal (which I'd still disagree with, Pacal Votan is entirely a figment of Arguelles & nothing to do with the historical Palenque ruler). There's a para there at the ruler's article on it, perhaps it would be best to copy that one here. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't having a separate criticism section considered biased? Teh Rote (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the correct title should be "Controversy". DJ Barney (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the correct title for the whole article should be "A Load of Old Bollocks." TTFN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.149.150 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation
The article says: "José Argüelles passed away on March 23, 2011, 6:10 a.m. (exactly the same time as his birth) and precisely 1,328 years after the passing of Pacal Votan (683)" Unfortunately the date given in the article for the date of the death of Pakal is 9.12.11.5.18 (Tiesler & Cucina 2004, p. 40). This is actually Wednesday August 26th, 683 using the GMT correlation, so this is wrong. Also the Pakal article specifically debunks "Pakal Votan" as a new age hoax invented by Arguelles. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So is he actually dead or not? Are there any reliable sources documenting his death? -- &oelig; &trade; 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the March 23, 2011 date was taken from a primary source http://www.lawoftime.org/jose-arguelles-valum-votan.html?content=249 -- &oelig; &trade; 23:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Argüelles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080722022722/http://www.tortuga.com/ to http://www.tortuga.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Argüelles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818152927/http://www.goingcoastalmagazine.com/articl20.htm to http://www.goingcoastalmagazine.com/articl20.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)