Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2012/March

Leap year
How does this calendar maneges leap years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.43.223 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

'Grand Long Count'
The article does not take into account the fact that the Long Count is an abbreviated notation of a more encompassing count that has been termed 'Grand Long Count' by David Stuart (Order of Days, pp. 229ff). Whether one uses this term or not, is immaterial; it is the wider perspective that is important, and that should be formulated by the article, whether as part of the Long Count section, or otherwise. Some of the information used in the 'Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar' (much less consulted than the present article!) should probably go into this article as well. Just giving the (contrived) names of four 'higher-order cycles' is clearly not enough; and just removing a sensible contribution without considering the issue at hand is unacceptable. 77.162.130.139 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * David Stuart has invented a new term for the Long Count that would not be recognized by anyone that has not read his book. Does the article need to adopt this? I think not, particularly in the light of his apparent blunder in understanding the greater cycles of the Long Count. The article does mention the named longer cycles of the Long Count by including the table. In my opinion, duplicating material in the Long Count article is a bad idea. Really the two articles should be combined in a single more concise one. The biggest problem with what David Stuart has written is that if what you wrote is correct, he believes that there are 13 lower cycles in all of the higher cycles of the Long Count. This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. If this was correct then the approaching completion of the 13th bak'tun would be followed by 1.0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. The table in this article is correctly based on the fact that there are 20 lower cycles in the higher orders. You can also see this in the text of the Piktuns and higher orders section of the Long Count article. All distance inscriptions and long reckonings are based on having 20 lower cycles make up the next highest cycle. If Mr. Stuart really says what you wrote in the article he has made a huge blunder. Remember that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and if you are correct then his book is not reliable. He's not the first epigrapher to fail when stepping outside of his field of expertise - he's following in the footsteps of Schele, Friedel and Lounsbury. It's always a good idea to discuss significant changes to an article on the talk pages before making them. Reverting dubious contributions and asking the author to discuss them on the talk pages is hardly unacceptable. You should register as a Wikipedia editor. This gives you additional anonymity and creates a talk page for other editors to discuss such things with you, etc. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Sandra Noble
The Sandra Noble quote makes this factual article part of a controversy from which it should stay away as far as possible. Moreover, one cannot see why Mrs. Noble should be mentioned at all.77.162.130.139 (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not, in any way, Wikipedia's job to shy away from controversy — simply to take a neutral point of view when documenting controversial topics. Moreover, Ms. Noble is a credentialed authority in a field covering the topic of the article, and has been quoted from published and documented third-party sources. So, I don't see how you could argue for the exclusion of a quote presenting her thoughts on exactly the subject of this article.
 * If you think her quote introduces bias into the article, or that the article fails to present an opposing viewpoint equally, then feel free to add content based on equivalent independent, published source material which rounds out the article's coverage. — FeRD_NYC (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2012 discussion is fully covered by a separate article. The quote should be removed for the following reasons: (1) It is redundant, since the preceding paragraph of the text already makes the point; (2) it gives unnecessary emphasis to the 2012 non-issue; (3) it gives undue focus to the person of Sandra Noble and the organization she represents.77.162.130.139 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you went ahead and removed the quote. Despite at least one objection. (Perhaps two, if you count Infrogmation's query, below, as a vote against there being any problem with its inclusion.) And despite the fact that no editor spoke up who concurred with your assessment, not following your original post nor after I disagreed. That doesn't strike me as a very strong consensus model. But I'm not going to edit-war to "defend" Ms. Noble's honor or something, since it appears there's some sort of very strong, unexplained issue with her / her organization lurking behind your IP address. I officially "whatever" out of the conversation.
 * (Note: Apologies to Infrogmation for continuing to insert new comments above yours; it doesn't feel quite natural to me, but I'm continuing the locally-established convention. Perhaps your bulleted question was intended to initiate a thread of conversation separate from my response. If not, feel free to re-work this section per WP:TPOC.) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What is supposedly "controversial" about the quote? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there is no controversy that the "Maya end of the world" is a fabrication as Sandra Noble stated. The paragraph should be in the text, but perhaps we may change it in the way it doesn't cite names in the main text. I suggest somethink like this:


 * Mayanists note that "for the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle", and the portrayal of December 2012 as a doomsday or cosmic-shift event to be "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."  Japf (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion, Japf, additional points of view are always helpful and welcome in attempting to build consensus.
 * Regarding the article copy you've proposed, though, I can't say I'm in favor of it — it seems to me even more problematic than the original quote. (Of course, I really don't see a problem with the original form, so that's not saying much.) Attributing a view to "Mayanists" feels weasel-wordsy, I'd be likely to toss in a tag myself if I was to come across that passage in an article.
 * And that's sort of exactly the point — taking a quote by one person (however qualified in the subject matter), expressing what's clearly her personal interpretation/analysis, and representing it as a common or widely-held view smacks of synthesis. It's better, by Wikipedia standards, that specific individuals' views be represented as their views, rather than being generalized. Combatting that generalization is pretty much the very reason the    family of tagging templates exist. FeRD_NYC (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think that the original text is better than the one proposed by be. I was trying to propose an alternative.Japf (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suport putting it back in since the IP editor that removed it didn't discuss the change, all the editors here support it and nobody has supported his edit here. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Senor cuete

(outdent) Well, alright. Now we've got a ball game. As I previously indicated, I wasn't willing to engage in a potential "duck season!" / "wabbit season!" back-and-forth with the mysterious 77.162.130.139, since at that point the issue here amounted to little more than a difference of opinion between the two of us, one on each side. But now, three different editors (myself included) have directly stated that they find the original text acceptable/preferable. Furthermore, as Senor Cuete most recently pointed out, not a single editor has spoken up to offer even weak agreement with 77.162.130.139's concerns, or to express support for the deletion of the Noble quote. Therefore, I'm willing to call consensus on this issue.

As I interpret our discussion here, meaningful consensus has emerged indicating: The other editors acknowledge 77.162.130.139's concerns, but for the most part do not share them. We find nothing in the contested copy that represents a significant policy concern, or would necessitate its expulsion from the Maya calendar article.

If any editor wishes to address specific points of policy regarding the current text, they are encouraged to be bold in improving it (preferably, with explanatory edit summary), and/or to explain the nature of their objection here and solicit input from other editors.

For the moment, however, I'm going to proceed in the manner Senor Cuete suggests, specifically by reversing (without prejudice) the good-faith edit by 77.162.130.139 which deleted Ms. Noble's quote. For the time being, the restored text will stand as-is (or as-was). Many thanks to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts here. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)