Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Timing of main page appearance

Congratulations to everyone who helped make this article an FA. I just have to point out that there could be no more appropriate day for this to appear as Today's Featured Article than December 21, 2012, even if that means it will have to wait a while. A. Parrot (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes the Main Page appearance was a heavy factor in getting this article promoted :) I've been wondering whether to have it on Dec 21 2012 or the day before... Serendi^podous 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking Jan 1, 2012 might work, but then we'd have to pick a different article for Dec 21. So, I'm leaning towards the latter. Shii (tock) 00:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of doing the article the day before. The article will likely need some significant changes on the day or directly following the day because of singificant news coverage surrounding the event, and who knows maybe we won't be able to prevent the vandals from taking over on the day, because it may be a day of catachlism :P Sadads (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern Maya

Contrary to the assertion in the third paragraph (which cites Anthony Aveni's book), there is an apocalyptic tradition among some groups of contemporary Maya linked to 2012 or thereabouts. I discovered this myself while interviewing Maya h'mens in Felipe Carrillo Puerto, and later confirmed it with at least one anthropologist, Paul Sullivan formerly of Yale, who had done extensive work in that region in the 1970s. Outside of Sullivan's work, I am unaware of any other anthropologist who has specifically researched the meaning of 2012 among modern Maya. Is anyone aware of any studies? I propose to write a new section to be added to this page devoted to beliefs of modern Maya referring to Sullivan's work, as well as reference the "end of the world" sections of the Chilam Balams. If this in inappropriate, let me know. But at the very least, blanket statements such as "The modern Maya do not consider the date significant" are factually incorrect. Thanks! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article also sites a number of Maya who argue that the Maya don't have an apocalyptic tradition. So there would need to be more than one anthropologist to argue against it. Serendi^podous 06:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you're talking about these references: "Mayan elder Apolinario Chile Pixtun and Mexican archaeologist Guillermo Bernal both note that 'apocalypse' is a Western concept that has little or nothing to do with Mayan beliefs. Bernal believes that such ideas have been foisted on the Maya by Westerners because their own myths are 'exhausted'.[25][27] Mayan archaeologist Jose Huchm has stated that 'If I went to some Mayan-speaking communities and asked people what is going to happen in 2012, they wouldn't have any idea. That the world is going to end? They wouldn't believe you. We have real concerns these days, like rain'.[25]" The endnotes point to non-peer-reviewed sources -- two newspaper articles and a blog post -- and none of the quotes are by anthropologists. In the Aveni book on the pages cited in the third paragraph, he quotes two Maya h'mens who, contrary to what is in the Wikipedia article, say they believe the date is significant. Aveni also quotes the apocalyptic passages of the Chilam Balam, but says he personally believes it metaphorical.

Editors of this article (and I think overall they have done a very good job) have required proper sourcing. You can't demand peer-reviewed sources from others, but then rely on non-peer reviewed sources or in the case of the Aveni source, claim it says something that it doesn't. I have one peer-reviewed source that says there is an apocalyptic tradition among modern Maya. This article cites none. At the very least, blanket statements such as "The modern Maya do not consider the date significant," should be tempered. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Chilam Balam was included in an earlier version of the article but it was removed because no direct connections between it and 2012 could be properly established. The main proponent,Maud Worcester Makemson, was trying to argue that the date for 2012 was out by 250 years. Serendi^podous 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Is part of the problem simply the use of the word 'note'? That needs changing I think. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: I'm not familiar with Makemson's work, but it's apples and oranges. This article errs in that it indicates there is no apocalyptic tradition among the Maya (see the Chilam Balam), that modern Maya give the 2012 date no significance (see Sullivan, Unfinished Conversations, and Aveni's book, the pages cited in the endnote). I see back in 9 March 2010 the user Shii attempted to fix this and you reverted some of those changes but left the Aveni endnote. Also, the passage has become less accurate over time as the qualifiers (some, I suppose, consider them "weasel words") have been removed. I'm happy to correct the errors, but I see you and others have a strong ownership stake and long history with this page. It is out of respect for your efforts that I am engaging in discussion here before I change anything. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't say that the Maya don't have an apocalyptic tradition; it quotes two Maya who say they don't. A western scholar, no matter how qualified, is going to come off rather badly if he tries to lecture the Maya on their own beliefs. Serendi^podous 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Doug: First, thanks for posting the AZTLAN post. That was what brought me to this page in the first place. My issue has nothing to do with use of the word "note," but that select quotes from newspapers and a blog (albeit one from the respected David Stuart) are a long way from authoritative sources. @Serendipodous: The very source cited in the lead quotes two Maya who believe 2012 is significant (and states the opposite of what appears in this Wikipedia article). Please read them yourself, as those pages are available on Google Books as part of the preview. Also, I don't know what you mean by "A western scholar, no matter how qualified, is going to come off rather badly if he tries to lecture the Maya on their own beliefs." What scholar is that? Best, CoyoteMan31 (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than rewrite or add, I've deleted the sections regarding modern Maya. I think these changes don't affect the overall focus of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteMan31 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Wrong wrong. First of all, that edit was borderline vandalism; you didn't bother to check if it affected the references. It did. Also, the idea of silencing the views of the modern Maya just because you happen to have read some dude who disagrees with them is stupid. It's a justification for expanding the section, not deleting it. If there are dissenting views among the Maya, then add them. Serendi^podous 18:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be constructive. If you want to reintroduce the Chilam Balam, do so under proper academic conditions. Provide not only a non-Mayan citation but also a Mayan who ties the Chilam Balam to B'ak'tun 13 (there's no overt mention of b'ak'tun 13 in the Chilam Balam). Serendi^podous 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, that was a really bad idea. At a time when the page is getting praise we should be enhancing it (see all the pretty new sources below?), not removing material. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you're killing me here. The page is inaccurate, and you're not addressing my concerns. Let's take it one step at a time then. The article says: "The modern Maya do not consider the date significant ..." The endnote says, "Aveni (2009) 32–33, 48–51." I just read those pages (again) and there is nothing in them that says that the modern Maya do not consider the date insignificant. Instead it includes quotes of two "elders" who believe there will be a change in 2012. Please read it and tell me how I'm wrong: http://bit DOT ly SLASH p0wVdM (apparently Wikipedia will not allow me to include the exact link). CoyoteMan31 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC I rewrote that statement based on what I read in Aveni's book, someone didn't like it, and it was changed to the inaccurate statement currently on the page without me really caring to raise a fight. Of course it should be updated to reflect what reliable sources really say about the modern Maya. Shii (tock) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't read the entire book preview. So if anyone could copy out the relevant information, I will try to incorporate it into the text. Serendi^podous 05:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Shii, for confirming what I saw. "Someone" was Serendipodous. Go back to March 9 of last year. Now that we've established that two good faith editors have had their efforts to make this page accurate and better quashed by one editor, what is to be done about it? Especially since, as user DougWeller has pointed out, this page is attracting some positive attention and yet is flat out wrong? Can someone please advise me of the process for putting a stop to this? CoyoteMan31 (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a "citation needed" in the third graph, and later today will once again delete the incorrect endnote to Aveni. However, as some consider that "borderline vandalism" I will let them do it. But if it's not done in a few hours, I will do it myself, because, as we have established, it is wrong.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted endnote. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to this page from the Aztlan mailing list

Just received an email from the list, part of which I copy below, some great downloads and kudos to this article:

Cambridge University Press is currently having a promotion offering free downloads of a number of their journals and publications, including IAU S278, so you may go to this web site and download all of the papers of interest to you, gratis.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=IAU

I don't know how long this will last, but if you are interested in our "2012 Phenomenon" session or any of the other papers in the volume, feel free to download them while the promotion lasts. Our session has eight papers, which I am listing in alphabetical order:

Callaway, C. (2011). "Cosmogony and Prophecy: Maya Era Day Cosmology in the Context of the 2012 Prophecy." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 192-202. Campion, N. (2011). "The 2012 Mayan Calendar Prophecies in the Context of the Western Millenarian Tradition." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 249-254.

Carlson, J. B. (2011). "Lord of the Maya Creations on His Jaguar Throne: The Eternal Return of Elder Brother God L to Preside Over the 21 December 2012 Transformation." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 203-213.

Carlson, J. B. and M. Van Stone (2011). "The 2012 Phenomenon: Maya Calendar, Astronomy, and Apocalypticism in the Worlds of Scholarship and Global Popular Culture." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 178-185.

Grofe, M. J. (2011). "Measuring Deep Time: The Sidereal Year and the Tropical Year in Maya Inscriptions." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 214-230.

Hoopes, J. W. (2011). "A Critical History of 2012 Mythology." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 240-248.

MacLeod, B. (2011). "The God's Grand Costume Ball: A Classic Maya Prophecy for the Close of the Thirteenth Bak'tun." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 231-239.

Van Stone, M. (2011). "It's Not the End of the World: Emic Evidence for Local Diversity in the Maya Long Count." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7(186-191). I want to be clear that I am NOT suggesting that a new discussion of topics related to the "2012 phenomenon" and related aspects of the Maya calendar and prophecy be opened up on AZTLAN. Our three excellent list managers wisely decided, some time back, that these topics inflame the passions of a few listeros and should best be conducted in some other forum. I am only offering the papers from our session and other studies of Archaeoastronmy in the Americas for your information through this access window of opportunity.

Let me also say that the Wikipedia entry on "2012 phenomenon" was also just updated (by John Hoopes) to include these references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon

This Wikipedia entry offers a good place to start in approaching the subject, particularly if you haven't looked into it before.

(end of quote} Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: 'Mayan references to b'ak'tun 13'

I have numerous issues with the first paragraph of this section, which is taken almost entirely from an Associated Press article that is, at best, simplistic, and, quite possibly, inaccurate. As a courtesy I will walk through my analysis of this section of the Wikipedia article and the changes I intend to make.

The opening statement:"The present-day Maya, as a whole, do not attach much significance to b'ak'tun 13." This statement is not supported by the article, nor by the facts. First, b'ak'tun 13 covers a period of 144,000 days. I assume the author/editor means "the end of Baktun 13." The AP article quotes at length Apolinario Chile Pixtun, who is described as a "Mayan elder." Last night I watched a few videos by don Apolinario. In the videos, don Apolinario does state that he does not believe in 2012, but only because he believes non-Maya have the date wrong. He predicts that when the calendar is exhausted, which he stated will occur "in 15 years," there will be great change. Furthermore, he believes every day of the Maya calendar is significant. CONCLUSION: The only person identified as a Maya in this article attaches great importance to the calendar. ACTION: This sentence should be deleted, but as some of the editors of this page don't like that, I will insert a "citation needed" and leave it up to them to delete the footnote later.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Next sentence: "Although the Calendar Round is still used by some Maya groups in the Guatemalan Highlands, the Long Count was employed exclusively by the classic Maya and was only rediscovered with the decipherment of the Mayan writing system in the 20th century." This sentence, a paraphrase attributed to the brilliant David Stuart, puts words in his mouth that are imprecise and grossly inaccurate. The source of this sentence comes from his blog, and as he is very well published on this subject (including a book), it is a disservice to his scholarship to draw from such an ephemeral source. The opening of the sentence says the Calendar Round "is still used," but that's not what the blog says. Even though written for a blog, Stuart is very precise in his language. He writes, "the ancient calendar system survived [note the past tense!] in a few areas of highland Guatemala." He never says it is still used. Also, he never says the Long Count was "exclusively" the classic Maya, especially since Stuart and other researchers believe it was used by the Olmec before the Maya adopted it. The next part of the sentence, that the Long Count "was only rediscovered with the decipherment of the Mayan writing system in the 20th century," does not appear in Stuart's article at all. CONCLUSION: The first part of the sentence is imprecise; the second half a fabrication that has nothing to do with Stuart's article. ACTION: I will add a "citation needed" tag, but the footnote should be deleted. Someone should research Stuart's excellent published writings, rather than pull the odd statement from his blog.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually only the Tzolk'n survived to this day, not the entire Calendar Round. The Tzolk'in is still used by the Kek'chi, Ixil and Quiche. You are correct that the Long Count was invented during the epi-Olmec period. The sentence attributing it to the Maya exclusively is poorly written. It WAS reconstructed by modern scholars. The Maya stopped using it at the end of the classic period. A version of it called the Short Count was in use at the time of the conquest. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Gracias, estimado Cuete, for that clarification. Do you have a source for that information? We can use it to lift the blame of inaccuracy that until today unfairly burdened Maestre David Stuart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteMan31 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm traveling so I don't have access to my library but I'm pretty sure that it was Dennis Tedlock that discovered that the Maya in the Guatemalan highlands were still keeping the Tzolk'in. Also a word of caution: Just because guys like Apolinario Chile Pixtun are Mayan, this doesn't make them unimpeachable sources. Guatemala is a poor country and many of these guys don't have a problem with making a few bucks off of gullible gringos. You quote him as saying that something big will happen in about 15 years. This would probably be the calendar round completion on 13.0.19.9.0 - 3/11/2032. This was a big deal to the people of Mesoamerica. Senor Cuete (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I looked it up: Barbara Tedlock "Time and the Highland Maya", Revised edition 1992, ISBN-13: 978-0-8263-1358-4 Page 1: "Scores of indigenous Guatemalan communities, principally those speaking the Mayan languages known as Ixil, Mam, Pokomchí, and Quiché, keep the 260-day cycle and (in many cases) the ancient solar cycle as well (chapter 4)." Senor Cuete (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Thank you for your research. I'm sure when the editors of this page return from the summer, they will include it should the fact that some Maya still use the 260-day calendar be relevant. Also, I agree with your earlier statement regarding Apolinario. I was making a point regarding using newspaper articles; USA Today quoted him as saying he didn't believe anything would happen in 2012, and while that was accurate, the newspaper reporter neglected to mention he didn't believe the Maya calendar ended in 2012, and that when it did end, bad stuff will happen. I believe it was a wise decision to delete any reference to him. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Mayan elder Apolinario Chile Pixtun and Mexican archaeologist Guillermo Bernal both note that 'apocalypse' is a Western concept that has little or nothing to do with Mayan beliefs. Bernal believes that such ideas have been foisted on the Maya by Westerners because their own myths are 'exhausted.'" I got a good chuckle from this one last night as I watched videos of don Apolinario. According to the AP article, from which this sentence is sourced, "Chile Pixtun, a Guatemalan, says the doomsday theories spring from Western, not Mayan ideas." It is important to note that this was not a direct quote from Chile Pixtun, but the reporter's paraphrasing. In the videos, Chile Pixtun describes how in the coming years we can expect floods, hurricanes, and other disasters as Mother Earth purifies itself. He went on at length about how governments (esp. the United States) will collapse. However, he says, the world will not end. You can see it all for yourself here (http://www.holisticchannel.org.uk/Mayan%20High%20Priest.wmv). As for Bernal, the AP article states, "Bernal suggests that apocalypse is 'a very Western, Christian' concept projected onto the Maya, perhaps because Western myths are 'exhausted.'" The AP writer was careful how he wrote this sentence. First, he says that Bernal "suggests," meaning it is a theory or hypothesis, and that "perhaps" Western myths are exhausted. The Wikipedia article makes it appear as if Bernal is stating a fact, doing a disservice to him. CONCLUSION: The AP article is a poor source from which this article should draw conclusions regarding the attitudes and beliefs of contemporary Maya about 2012. I would further argue that relying upon any newspaper article for generalizations about a people should immediately send up red flags to any Wikipedia editor. In this case, errors have been compounded by Wikipedia authors and editors who have taken liberties translating the source material into this article. ACTION: I'll rewrite the two sentences as follows: "As Mayan elder Apolinario Chile Pixtun reportedly told an Associated Press reporter, doomsday theories spring from Western, not Mayan ideas.[AP reference] Chile Pixtun believes that before the Long Count ends, there will be floods and hurricanes as Mother Earth purifies itself, and governments will collapse, but the world will not end.[video reference]. Mexican archaeologist Guillermo Bernal, in an interview with an AP reporter, suggested that the concept of an apocalypse is 'very Western, Christian,' and theorized that it has been projected on the Maya."[AP ref]" While I personally like the quote about Western myths being exhausted, I don't see the relevance here, so I will delete it. Also there is an additional endnote to a Guardian article that adds nothing and only quotes the AP article. It should be deleted.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence (at least as far my efforts are concerned):"Mayan archaeologist Jose Huchm has stated that 'If I went to some Mayan-speaking communities and asked people what is going to happen in 2012, they wouldn't have any idea. That the world is going to end? They wouldn't believe you. We have real concerns these days, like rain'." I assume it's a typo, but Sr. Huchim's name is misspelled. Also, the custom in Mexico is to use one's full name, which in his case is José Huchim Herrera. Once again, this is a direct quote from a newspaper article, and while appropriate for that medium, I believe is too general for this article (and, I suspect, Sr. Huchim Herrera might not be comfortable knowing that his words appear in an encyclopedia entry). CONCLUSION: This sentence is as accurate as the article is. ACTION: I personally believe anything drawn from the AP story should be deleted, but I'll leave that to those who have a bigger investment in this page. I will modify it slightly so that it is clear to the reader what the source is, viz: "Mayan archaeologist José Huchim Herrera told the Associated Press in 2009 that 'If I went to some Mayan-speaking communities and asked people what is going to happen in 2012, they wouldn't have any idea. That the world is going to end? They wouldn't believe you. We have real concerns these days, like rain'"

Sadly I have found the experience of working on this page has left a bad taste in my mouth, that instead of collaboration, I have found push back and, eventually, derision. When I first landed here, I was only too happy to work with the editors to correct errors and write a new section. Unfortunately, that task will have to go to someone else, as I don't have the stomach for it. But I won't be going away as I will be monitoring the changes I have made to the article and to this page. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the endnotes, making certain I didn't create any internal logic errors. I still think it would be better to delete these now unattributed sentences, but at least now writers and editors know what's missing and what's wrong. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

CoyoteMan31, I know this might be a kind of rude suggestion, but would you mind buying [http://www.amazon.com/2012-Countercultural-Apocalypse-Joseph-Gelfer/dp/1845536401/ this book] when it comes out this month? I am probably going to get a copy myself. I'm putting off editing this page until it is released because I know of no comparable work that will analyze the complete structure of the phenomenon and what the modern Maya say about it ([http://www.amazon.com/Living-Maya-Ancient-Wisdom-2012/dp/1556439393/ this book] might mention it but I'm not going to buy that one). Personally, I know how popular this article is, but I'm going to wait on this new source to give it a real update. I imagine in December 2011 international news media will probably give it a renewed and more consistent focus, and then I will keep a constant watch for unsourced or badly sourced statements. Shii (tock) 01:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Shii. You're on your own, pal. I don't go where I'm not wanted. And no offense to you, but when Serendipidous changed your corrections and made them wrong, you should have cried foul long and loud. I understand why you didn't after seeing how he treated me. In the future, refer people like that to the mantra at the top of this page where it says, "* Be polite * Assume good faith * Avoid personal attacks * Be welcoming." No doubt this page attracts a lot of people with "enthusiastic" viewpoints, shall we say, and maybe the editors put me into that camp and thought, "Oh, no, here comes another one." But that doesn't excuse what was posted about me, my knowledge, and my beliefs. Thing is, all one had to do was click on my past contributions and see I'm pretty sensible and reasonable.

So it'll be up to you to fix the incorrect sections. I'll have your back, provided you do your research. And someone should look at that entire third paragraph with fresh eyes. The editors can e-mail me via Wikipedia if they would like my input. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by Serendipidous of a previous edit of mine. His issue was that a blog is an appropriate source. I disagree, but that's not why I added a "citation needed" tag. The sentence is wrong. Here again is what I wrote above, but edited to make it crystal clear:

"Although the Calendar Round is still used by some Maya groups in the Guatemalan Highlands, the Long Count was employed exclusively by the classic Maya and was only rediscovered with the decipherment of the Mayan writing system in the 20th century." This sentence, a paraphrase attributed to the brilliant David Stuart, puts words in his mouth that are imprecise and grossly inaccurate ... The opening of the sentence says the Calendar Round "is still used," but that's not what the blog says. Even though written for a blog, Stuart is very precise in his language. He writes, "the ancient calendar system survived [note the past tense!] in a few areas of highland Guatemala." He never says it is still used. Also, he never says the Long Count was "exclusively" the classic Maya, especially since Stuart and other researchers believe it was used by the Olmec before the Maya adopted it. The next part of the sentence, that the Long Count "was only rediscovered with the decipherment of the Mayan writing system in the 20th century," does not appear in Stuart's article at all. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed all reference to the modern Maya. Until better sources can be located, it seems dangerous to include it. Serendi^podous 08:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As we discussed privately, I am completely in favor of this compromise. I believe Shii has offered to fix it pending getting sources, so it's better that it's not on the page and a distraction to readers.

As part of this new spirit of cooperation, I will take couple of hours today and rewrite the third paragraph, which has been bothering me. I won't be changing the content, but clarifying and inserting better sources. I'll publish the proposed changes here, so the editors can critique them. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Third Paragraph

The current paragraph has a lot of issues. "Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012." This says that scholars are predicting the future and that cataclysmic events will not occur. How would they know? But of course, scholars are not saying that. "Mainstream Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar 'ends' in 2012 misrepresents Maya history." The endnotes refer to a USA Today article, which I maintain is a bad idea when using them as a source to make sweeping statements. The other source is a paper written in 2007 that has one brief paragraph about 2012. "Astronomers and other scientists have rejected the apocalyptic forecasts as pseudoscience, stating that the anticipated events are contradicted by simple astronomical observations." Astronomical observations can tell us apocalyptic events won't happen? Again, silly. I suggest rewriting this paragraph as follows:

Mayanist scholars state that there is little, if any, evidence the ancient Maya predicted anything to happen in 2012, and of the thousands of Maya inscriptions that have survived into modern day, only one mentions events at the end of so-called Long Count. Furthermore there is no “end to the Maya calendar,” and there are Maya prophecies of events far beyond 2012. As two scholars put it, outside of a handful of scholarly books on the subject of 2012, the rest “range from speculative pseudo-scholarship and new-age fantasy to utter rubbish. Caveat emptor.”

For references I used the recently published articles mentioned in the section above, "Kudos." Here is a phrase-by-phrase breakdown of the above paragraph followed by the reference:

Mayanist scholars state that there is little, if any, evidence the ancient Maya predicted anything to happen in 2012, [Mark Van Stone, “It’s not the End of the World: emic evidence for local diversity in the Maya Long Count,” “Oxford IX” International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 278, 2011, Clive L. N. Ruggles, ed., International Astronomical Union 2011, doi:10.1017/S1743921311012610]

and of the thousands of Maya inscriptions that have survived into modern day, only one mentions events at the end of so-called Long Count. [Barbara MacLeod, “The God’s Grand Costume Ball: a Classic Maya prophecy for the close of the thirteenth Bak_tun,” “Oxford IX” International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 278, 2011, Clive L. N. Ruggles, ed., International Astronomical Union 2011, doi:10.1017/S1743921311012658]

Furthermore there is no “end to the Maya calendar,” and there are Maya prophecies of events far beyond 2012. [Mark Van Stone, “It’s not the End of the World: emic evidence for local diversity in the Maya Long Count,” “Oxford IX” International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 278, 2011, Clive L. N. Ruggles, ed., International Astronomical Union 2011, doi:10.1017/S1743921311012610]

As two Mayanist scholars put it, outside of a handful of scholarly books on the subject of 2012, the rest “range from speculative pseudo-scholarship and new-age fantasy to utter rubbish. Caveat emptor.” [John B. Carlson and Mark Van Stone, “The 2012 phenomenon: Maya calendar, astronomy, and apocalypticism in the worlds of scholarship and global popular culture,” “Oxford IX” International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy, Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 278, 2011, Clive L. N. Ruggles, ed., International Astronomical Union 2011, doi:10.1017/S1743921311012609]

I leave it to the others to fix the incorrect paragraph, if they choose. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the fact that basic astronomical observations can disprove an apocalypse is not silly. It's a fact. If someone were saying that the Earth were about to plunge into the Sun, all you'd have to do is look up at the sky to see if the Sun was getting bigger. Simple observation disproves the apocalypse. Ditto for Nibiru, pole shifts, galactic alignments or anything else that has been suggested. As to the rest of your additions, I don't have a problem with them, but they will require a lot of rewriting to fit Wikipedia style standards. Serendi^podous 19:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Arguelles Misquoted

Argüelles settled on the date of December 21 in his book The Mayan Factor: Path Beyond Technology,[42][43] in which he claimed on that date the Earth would pass through a great "beam" from the center of our galaxy, and that the Maya aligned their calendar in anticipation of that event.[44]

Actually he stated this is when we "leave the beam". Maybe someone can try actually looking at what he wrote rather than relying on "unreliable" sources.

@ Doug: So WHERE DO they belong?

Jimini Cricket 18:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

Looks like Hoopes fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, he hasn't and "Aveni has dismissed all of these ideas.[48]" Aveni doesn't understand any of their ideas. Neither does Hoopes. Hahhahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahaha. HAPPY EQUINOX y'all! MARDYKS 19:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mardyks

Please guys, just delete anything from him. He is blocked under various IP addresses including now these last two. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but he's so fun! On a more serious note, even though he has the personality of a spoiled toddler, he does raise an interesting point as regards Forstemann's apocalyptic reading of the Dresden Codex possibly influencing later scholars re: 2012. I live in hope that someday a reliable source can be found on the subject so that it can be included and Ray can finally take his lollipop and sit quietly in the corner. Serendi^podous 06:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content... DMacks (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Mardyks is right about Forstemann's apocalyptic reading, which in turn influenced Sylvanus Morley and Michael Coe. I hope my own recent article on this in the International Astronomy Union publications (see the bibliography) makes this clear (though Mardyks is steamed that I didn't credit him for pointing this out to me. Mardyks also published on the "galactic alignment" before Jenkins.Hoopes (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Mardyks published the galactic alignment before Jenkins. Wikipedia isn't a journal. We go by verifiability and notability. What this means in practice is we go by what has gained the most influence through the most coverage, and Mardyks certainly doesn't have that. If you feel Mardyks is right, why not say so yourself in print, and then use yourself as a source? Serendi^podous 20:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the "notability" part and also the "verifiability." The article by Mardyks IS obscure and uncited and extremely difficult to obtain. I understand that Wikipedia isn't a journal but I thought it sought to represent reality. I actually AM publishing on this. We'll just have to wait until March 2012 or so before there's something in print to cite. Ah, well. I'm no fan of Mardyks but I do think credit should go where credit is due. It will just have to wait. Hoopes (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia isn't interested in reality; it's interested in verifiability. It's a function of how Wikipedia works. Unlike a journal, it doesn't have the authority of expertise to back up its claims, so it borrows authority from reliable sources. The Mountain Astrologer is not a reliable source. Serendi^podous 06:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it not verifiable that Mardyks said what he actually said in his 1991 article about 2012 for The Mountain Astrologer, for which the Wikipedia entry reports, "It was the winner of the 1999 and 2000 Spica Awards for Best Astrology Publication and is widely acknowledged as the world's premiere astrology magazine."? People can check back copies of that publication just the way they could TIME or Newsweek or Playboy (albeit with a bit more effort since it's not online--but that's not a requirement of sources for Wikipedia articles.) I'm not clear on why The Mountain Astrologer, a publication written by and read by professional astrologers, would not be a reliable source on what professional astrologers think. What would be considered a reliable source on that? Hoopes (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Mardyks may have come up with the idea before Jenkins. But so might my upstairs neighbour, or a babbling hobo in Jersey. They may even have written their idea down and produced evidence of the date. Does that mean they should be added? What makes Mardyks's idea so important? How is he any kind of authority? How has he contributed to the evolution of the concept? Mardyks is neither an accredited Mayanist scholar nor a professor of astronomy. He has no academic credibility to back him up. Neither, for that matter, does Jenkins, but Jenkins has been quoted and referenced in wider media. Mardyks has not. It's that simple. I don't know why people are finding it so difficult to understand. Serendi^podous 05:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted by the comments below, it does not matter that Mardyks is not an accredited Mayanist scholar. His contribution bears upon the 2012 phenomeon as an event that is primarily concerned with astrology and its interpretation in contemporary culture, not with astronomy and not with the ancient Maya. I realize this perspective may be difficult for some to grasp, but it is a salient aspect of the issue. The very few books and articles published by academic Mayanists on the 2012 phenomenon provide some measure of its relative insignificance in Maya studies. At the same time, 1500+ books discuss 2012 in the context of New Age beliefs, astrology, counterculture, and contemporary eschatology. Your deletion of the reference to Mardyks' 1991 article in The Mountain Astrologer removes a source that--as discussed below--actually represents a significant influence on the thinking of foundational New Age 2012 writers such as José Argüelles and John Major Jenkins (who, like other 2012 writers, does cite and address Mardyks both in print and online publications). The 2012 phenomenon is one representing the creation of a body of contemporary mythology, most of which makes minimal use of academic Mayanist scholarship. It is a manifestation of Mayanism and as such the contributions of influential New Age astrologers such as Mardyks are directly relevant to that. His 1991 article in The Mountain Astrologer was read by a wide audience of professional astrologers. If articles in other popular magazines are cited in Wikipedia, why not this one? Because it's not available online? Hoopes (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Mardyks has already been cited by Professor Hoopes regarding his 1991 article initiating the "galactic alignment" discussion. It appears in 2012: Decoding the Counterculture Apocalypse. I do have to agree with Serendipodous on method, in part, but not necessarily on principle. Mr. Mardyks does not belong on this page because it is about the result of Michael Coe's putting a date to a mythic theme. Mr. Mardyks' work on 2012 is in an entirely different paradigm, being based on what the ancient Maya actually wrote in the Dresden codex and other sources. Those that understand that 2012 as the "end of the Maya calendar" is a little understood astrological forecast, also are aware that Mr. Mardyks is indeed the leading voice in understanding the authentic Maya calendar and the astrology that it is based on. Professor Hoopes has been published expressing a very similar view in the Santa Fe Reporter. Mr. Mardyks has also been quoted by the Wall Street Journal on a topic directly related to 2012. Regardless, Mr. Mardyks does not belong on this page. Jimini Cricket 18:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

Please note that the book 2012: Decoding the Counterculture Apocalypse, edited by Joseph Gelfer, has not yet been published. Hoopes (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article in the Santa Fe Reporter to which Jimini Cricket refers is My Oh Mayan! by Corey Pein. Hoopes (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, for the record, please note that I am arguing counter to Jimini Cricket. In my opinion, a citation to Mardyks' work does belong on this page. Hoopes (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Mr. Mardyks' views on 2012 have been included in nine 2012 related books from 1994 (Beyond Prophecies and Predictions by Moira Timms) to the present (Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock and 2012: Decoding the Counterculture Apocalypse). Jenkins makes reference to Mr. Mardyks (aka Ray Mardyks, Raymond Mardyks) as a pioneer of the "galactic alignment" in two of his 2012 books, Beyond 2012 by Geoff Stray contains 12 pages of Mr. Mardyks' work and Decoding 2012 by Melissa Rossi objectively and insightfully discusses Mr. Mardyks as one of Jenkin's sources. The book by Timms (1994) was Jenkin's first source for an accurate date for "galactic alignment". All of this and more is available to Mr. Mardyks' private students here in Santa Fe. Jimini Cricket 20:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For further discussion of Mardyks and this article, see the discussion under "Uh, Hoopes" on my talk page. Hoopes (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is in response to Mr. Mardyks being labeled a western and New Age astrologer here and on Professor Hoopes' talk page, based primarily on a twenty year old article. Those of us who have actually met him and studied his work for a period of time recognize him as a multicultural astrologer and someone who understands the principles underlying all approaches to astrology. He lived for 12 years in Polynesia studying first hand the ancient traditions of star navigation, for example. His posts at AZTLAN demonstrate that he has more expertise with the workings of the Mayan calendar, the Dresden Codex and Mayan astrology than anyone else. This esoteric field has been inaccessible to researchers untrained in astrology and astrologers untrained in Native American spirituality. In other words, he has no "peers" in his field. He is simply the very best. Jimini Cricket 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

This is your opinion, what we call original research and doesn't belong here. Please stop promoting him. And others on the Aztlan list don't share your opinion, but I'm sure you know that. And I agree with Hoopes about mentioning him here. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, he's not promoting him; he's Mardyks playing sockpuppet. Serendi^podous 20:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What I "am" sure of, is those individuals who are not trained in astrology and shamanism have no chance of understanding the Dresden Codex and what the "Maya" actually wrote about "2012". I have been personally studying the authentic Maya calendar for several years with Mr. Mardyks, who demonstrates a clear distinction with what "Mayanists" have come to "believe" is the Maya calendar based on academic studies for over a hundred years. He had demonstrated a working knowledge of the Eclipse Table and shows how it forecasts both solar eclipses in 2012 accurate to the day. This is far superior to an earlier attempt by the highly regarded acedemic "scholars" Victoria and Harvey Bicker, who only came within maybe two days of finding the July 11, 1991 solar eclipse in the Dresden. The Dresden Codex is an astrological treatise and I am not aware of anyone else who has the skills to make it come alive. Mr. Mardyks also presented to AZTLAN the first and only scientically verifiable astronomical basis for the so-called Long-Count with an accuracy that is precise for over 2000 years, covering the entire span of Mesoamerican civilization. It is obvious that there are many who have some bias against astrology and I am also sure that they will never find out the truth about the ancient Maya or 2012. If Mr. Mardyks is to be included in a Wikipedia entry, it should not be here at Michael D. Coe's party, but somewhere else, where there is a genuine interest in what the ancient Maya actually wrote in the surviving codices and their highly developed system of harmonizing with the forces of nature, both terrestrial and extraterrestial. Professor Hoopes' transparent and ill-willed attempt to blame this "phenomenon" on New Agers to distract from the irresponsible statements of one of his college professors should also be kept in check. Is he qualified to "read the minds" of Arguelles and McKenna? Is any of that verifiable, especially now that they both are dead? Jimini Cricket 01:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't claim to be able to read the minds of dead people. For that, you'd have to contact someone like John Edward. Hoopes (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Dougweller. If you want any further respect for what you write, I suggest you also follow the rules here:

   * Be polite
   * Assume good faith
   * Avoid personal attacks
   * Be welcoming

Jimini Cricket 01:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

Dancin' Till The World Ends

This needs correction: Van Stone, Mark (2011). "It's Not the End of the World: Emic Evidnce for Local Diversity in the Maya Long Count".

"Till the World Ends" by Britney Spears is approaching 70 million views on Youtube. It deserves mention here. It won Best 2011 Pop Video at the VMA's recently. You may also want to notice the similarily with an article by Mr. Mardyks called "Dancing Through The End of Time" that has been in publication and on the internet since the 1990s. It is a shorter, revised edition of his 1991 article referred to by Professor Hoopes: http://enlighteningtimes.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/57-ophiuchus

Jimini Cricket 19:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

New Age, New Myths

It reads like Professor Hoopes is making up a new 2012 "mythology". Stating that Arguelles and McKenna both first got the 12.21.2012 date from the same book is pure speculation. Arguelles writes that he was channelling "Arcturians" for his "Earth Ascending" maps prior to the "Mayan Factor" book. Mckenna also clearly writes and talked about how he was guided to the date by the mushroom "aliens". Ignoring the ET dimension of 2012 is very shortsighted indeed. Without the ETs, there would be no 2012 phenomenon. @Hoopes: Found a prominant New Ager for you: Hillary Clinton told the audience of world leaders, celebrities, business people, philanthropists and non-governmental organizations that "we really are in a new age, we're in the age of participation." ... "I want to see us moving toward a world where we do try to maximize the God-given potential of every person," Hillary Clinton said. Looks like she understands the new unfolding "galactic" paradigm. Jimini Cricket 18:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

Okay, enough with the trolling. Edit the page as you see fit. If the consensus it there, the changes will stick. Otherwise, just move on please... Sebastian Garth (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is "protected", Mr. Garth. Any helpful suggestions to get past that? JC 18:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

Register as a regular user, maybe? Or post the proposed changes here and perhaps someone else could make the revision(s)? Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn' that important but...

Shouldn't the P in phenomenon be capitalized because it is the title of the article? Betsi-HaP (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be true anywhere but Wikipedia. Here they use the unconventional convention of Capitalizing only the first word in a heading instead of using Title Case. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Christianity

Wasn't there a section on Christian views of the 2012 phenomenon? --Confession0791 ^talk 02:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure there needs to be one; this isn't a Christian phenomenon. Serendi^podous 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The mythic idea of the end of the world, which many cultures have, was first given a literal date from the so-called "Mayan calendar" by Michael D. Coe in 1966 and he used the expression, "Armageddon" which sources from the book of Revelations, which indeed is a "Christian" motif. This very significant fact is underplayed in this article, INHO. Jimini Cricket 69.247.77.234 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Long Count

I'm not sure where to put this, because it concerns both this article and Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. In the "Long Count periods" section of that article, it says, without a citation, that the Long Count had fallen out of use by the time the Spanish arrived. I have a book about the Maya that mentions Colonial-era "remnants" of the old calendar. That would seem to corroborate the idea that the Long Count as a whole had fallen out of use, but the book doesn't elaborate. Does anyone have a reference with more detail? For the purposes of this article, stating that the Long Count was not used in Colonial times would make it a little clearer why the Long Count and the Popol Vuh can't be synthesized to claim that the Maya expected the world to end in 2012. A. Parrot (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New info. on 2012/Mayan Calendar spreading on the web

Someone please keep this article up to speed with recent developments: http://spiritualharmonics.blogspot.com/2011/06/metatron-2012-mayan-calendar-time.html Jimini Cricket 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

I'm afraid that is nothing even close to a reliable source. "Greetings! I am Metatron, Lord of Light! I embrace each of you in light, in love. Dear Ones, I know each of you, far more than you may realize. And we savor these moments we share." It appears the blog is either a joke or the author is a few cans short of a six-pack. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that this specific message is being reproduced on MANY, MANY websites and GROWING in preparation for an unprecedented global gathering on 11:11:11. This article reveals more of what has been "planned" for 2012 than anything so far released. If 12.21.2012 is midnight on a cosmic clock, this signals 11:59. Jimini Cricket 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

Mysticism -> Astro-Mythology

"Astro-Mythology" describes that section much, much better. "Mysticism" doesn't work anymore! Jimini Cricket 69.247.77.234 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled Crystal Skull has a paragraph about 2012, including a mention of Atlantis. There should be a mention of the 13 crystal skull legend and a link in this article to there, at the very least. JC 69.247.77.234 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This article should be renamed

Resolved

 – Merge proposal rescinded by proponent.

"2012 phenomenon" doesn't describe the article topic very well. A better name would be "2012 end of world predictions". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all predictions regarding 2012 involve the end of the world. In fact I would argue most don't; it's just that the doomsday ones get the most press. BTW, if you go back through the archive you will see endless discussions on the title. I'm not fond of it either but right now it appears to be the one agreed on by consensus. Serendi^podous 18:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 Doomsday Hoax would be accurate. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

No it would not. Again, see aforementioned endless discussions. Serendi^podous 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Serendipodous. As much as I don't like the current name, it is probably the least bad of all that have been proposed in the past. --McSly (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that there had been so much debate. And it won't matter a year from now. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you guys are going for accuracy, then "2012 Stupidity" best describes what you have collected here. Jimini Cricket 69.247.77.234 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The article should be named 2012 apocalypticism, consistent with the category it is in. However, in the previous attempt, it was moved back to this vague title. So essentially we agree. Greg Bard (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Gregbard: Who was your comment addressed to? If it was to me, then yes, I like 2012 apocalypticism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with it is that "apocalypticism" doesn't really cover the New Age elements. Serendi^podous 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Does that matter? Can we just say explain that in the article (ex. "New Age believers don't view 2012 as apocalyptic. Instead, they believe..." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people are looking for "New Age elements" when they are looking up this topic. The concept here is the apocalypticism, and all the other side issues really are just side issues arising from this particular brand of apocalypticism. It's pretty clear to me what the title of this article should be. There is a "phenomena" category. If the current title is appropriate then why isn't it in that category? (Please don't put it there, it doesn't belong there is my point).Greg Bard (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That would beg the question as to why we are favouring apocalypticim over the New Age interpretation. Also, the currnet title has several citations to back it up. Any new title would have no cietations at all. Serendi^podous 00:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the objection I raised immediately above.Greg Bard (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, citation. "I don't think..." isn't really a firm basis for a change to a featured article. Serendi^podous 00:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a 'phenomenon'. It is a collection of predictions about 2012. Perhaps it could be called 2012 predictions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mitt Romney becoming President of the United States is a 2012 prediction, but doesn't have anything to do with this. Serendi^podous 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the article once was named "2012 millenarianism", which seems fine. (I admit I haven't searched all the archives for arguments against this lemma.) I recall having read "Maya prophecy movement" somewhere, perhaps in an interview with Hoopes? Hm, no, he talks of the 2012 movement. --Jonas kork (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the name isn't a very good descriptor. "2012 cultural phenomenon" might be a better descriptor. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

'Phenomenon' is an absurd title. Definition of phenomenon: A fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, esp. one whose cause is in question. A phenomenon, therefore, is something that is observed to exist, not proposed to exist. '2012 Mayan prophecy' or '2012 prophecies' would fit far better. I appreciate that this debate has already happened, however, obviously the previous debate did not provide a suitable title. Furthermore, I believe that this article should focus on the Mayan prediction (which is the focal point of December 21, 2012) and then provide subsections on alternative or subsequent theories, and agree what Quest stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanEdmonds (talk • contribs) 11:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the Mayans didn't make a prophecy about 2012. No descriptor suggested to date, including the current one, has been entirely adequate, but I don't think any could be. The best to date, in my book, is 2012 millenarianism, but even that is not quite correct, as the 13 b'ak'tun cycle lasts 5,125 years, not 1000 years. Serendi^podous 12:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The current title is fine. It's easy to find. It also IS a "phenomenon" that's been observed. Not the end of the world part, but discussion about it. As far as "hoax", etc., as per crystal ball rules here, it can't properly be called a hoax until it doesn't happen on the alleged date - which is a future date. And the problem with "prediction" is that it's not even clear that it acually was a prediction, or just someone's (mis-)interpretation of something. "Phenomenon" is a nice, low-key, neutral term for this thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This long-term slow-moving discussion won't get the situation changed (or the status quo better-endorsed in the face of the request). It's clear there are some concerns but nobody has stepped up to file WP:RM and get it resolved once and for all (and given the multiple opinions, any change would clearly not be non-controversial). DMacks (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it can be dragged out for another 11-12 months, the issue will become moot, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)