Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Less than 8 months away

There should be something in the introduction that mentions there are less than 8 months until the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.102.140 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(1) There's no event; (2) The typical reader can figure out how long it is until December. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that the further we get into 2012, the less people seem interested in it (in fact the numbers remain on average, the same, over 9000 people per day, if I read the data correctly-user timothytrespas1) Serendi^podous 10:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

At this rate, it will be close to 0 by July. As with any other event, though, figure on a spike as it gets close, along with a significant percentage of vandalism. Then, when it doesn't happen, it will go back to near 0 quickly. (And if it does happen, it will be abolutely 0.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A few months before the event you'll have certain "prophets" saying they got the date wrong, and it's really 2015 or something. Anything to kick the ball down the road so they can keep selling merchandise, books, etc.JoelWhy (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has produced something like, "I went to the end of the world and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"It's interesting to see that the further we get into 2012, the less people seem interested in it": so and so. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In the past week it has exploded in popularity. For months it hovered around 10 000 to 20 000 views per day to now around 1 000 000 to 10 000 000 views per day and still going up. If people are getting ramped up this fast alread with 3 to 4 months left the internet may have major problems with 2 months left and inacessible at least the month until.--150.216.64.167 (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Less interested in the Wikipedia version, based in the Michael D. Coe prediction, would be more objective. That's because "it's" happening now and this article TOTALLY misses the point of what 2102 is about! Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.65 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do crystal ball stuff. There is no place in wikipedia for an alleged "countdown" to a non-event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But, if you are one of the people who realizes that the aliens are going to whisk the worthy people away in December, please feel free to give me all your expensive stuff before THE DAY comes.JoelWhy (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What about adding...

...When Prophecy Fails by Festinger in the "See Also" section? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be a violation of WP:SYN. Serendi^podous 18:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, you're right. Maybe after the date, not before. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure WP:SYN applies to that section? It's my understanding that we have some leeway to related similar topics there that may not meet the requirements for inclusion into the article's prose sections. __meco (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the nature of the topic, and the mental stability of those who believe in it, I'd prefer it if we kept the tone as neutral as possible until the date passes. Serendi^podous 07:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it's quite strange: "planet Clarion" instead of Planet X/Nibiru and "December 21, 1954" instead of 2012 (secondary source). --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

[user timothytrespas2] I would like to see mention of the holographic theory of the univers, the fact that we may create reality from our emotions and conscious mind. This may be a vastly important fact if you believe that the viewers using "looking glass" technology discovered, supposedly, that there was no visual information after dec.21st 2012. perhaps this means we have reached a zero point in the space/time wave and we will begin to create reality from our minds anew after this date. Thoughts?}

To give the article more balance, perhaps mention the idea the Maya could have predicted an event for 2012? Robert Bast suggests ancient cultures could have predicted (or attempted to predict) a major solar storm (from observing low latitude auroras) or the return of a long period comet. Detailed in Survive 2012, ISBN-10: 1475249756 Enginez (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Really. No I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. No. Not at all. Serendi^podous 06:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Add countdown

Please add the countdown for the 2012 phenomenon. The wikicode is {{#expr:{{Gregorian serial date|day=21|year=2012|month=12}}-{{Gregorian serial date}}}}. There are -4374 days left. 27.69.89.184 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No. That would violate the rule against wikipedia being a crystal ball. Besides which, the average reader can figure out how long it is until whichever alleged date they believe in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Also sensationalism has no place on an encyclopaedia. Strictly the facts and nothing more. SlightSmile 23:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I did a daily countdown on Facebook and Twitter for months, adding comments such as 'Time for a cup of coffee yet'. There was almost no interest. I expect interest to pick up in the fall, once the History Channel starts retransmitting its shock-horror spectaculars. Its 'Armageddon' slot is blank so far, but it is already starting to re-crank up its 'Nostradamus Effect' series. That might be the time to register the fact (but not a countdown) in the article. --PL (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates after 3500 discovered

[1] "Newly discovered wall writings found in Guatemala show the famed Maya culture's obsession with cycles of time. But they also show calendars that go well beyond 2012, the year when the vanished civilization, according to popular culture, expected the end of the world." Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I added that already :-) Serendi^podous 12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. Is it added to the other relevant articles? Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Which ones? Serendi^podous 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael D. Coe and 2012

Hello Dougweller. The association between the "end of the world" and 2012 was first made by an anthropologist, a "scholar", a Mayanist and also a CIA operative, namely Michael D. Coe in 1966. The Maya had nothing to do with it. Uh, the New Agers didn't start it either. Haven't you figured this out yet? Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.4 (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As I watch tumbleweeds blow across my screen, I await one reliable support that supports this amusing assertion. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's in an article by Hoopes, but I'd not swear on it. Amusing (or rather ironic) as it may be, I think the Coe connection is correct. He put the date in a table giving several examples for calendar conversion, as far as I remember the story. Obviously, Coe didn't believe in any 2012 cataclysms. --Jonas kork (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No indeed! '‘Thus our present universe will be annihilated when the Great Cycle of the Long Count reaches completion’' (Coe, M. D.,The Maya) –– which, alas, he erroneously dated to 24 December 2011!! --PL (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And this "erroneous date" was repeated in most all the TV shows and books (Mexico Mystique!) which discussed the "Mayans predict the end of the world" for nearly 20 years! To clarify: Mr. Coe wrote it in his book, called "The Maya" in 1966 as partially quoted above. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. No Maya, no New Agers ... nada. Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

From the front page here: In 1966, Michael D. Coe wrote in The Maya that "there is a suggestion ... that Armageddon would overtake the degenerate peoples of the world and all creation on the final day of the 13th [b'ak'tun]. Thus ... our present universe [would] be annihilated [in December 2012][Note d] when the Great Cycle of the Long Count reaches completion."[21] This was the very FIRST published connection made between an "end of the world" mythos and a "date for the end of the 13th baktun"! THIS STARTED THE 2012 PHENOMENON! Can we have a little "consciousness shift" here, please! Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

John Hoopes, a former student of professor Michel D. Coe, discusses it here, as found on the front page here: Hoopes, John W. (2011a). "A Critical History of 2012 Mythology". Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 7: 240–248. doi:10.1017/S174392131101266X. http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/79139/hoopes-2011-critical-history-2012-mythology.pdf. Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting with, "The origins of the phenomenon can be traced to comments made by respected academic Mayanists and its promotion has included speculative statements by scholars, some of whom have doctoral degrees." and continuing with, "Coe (1966) was the first to publish the correlation of a future Long Count date and associate it with ‘Armageddon’. He correlated 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 3 Kankin to December 24, 2011 and introduced the concept of a Maya-predicted doomsday in a statement that has been made repeatedly in his popular text The Maya, now in its 8th edition (Coe 2011)." Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good source for the claim. It should be included.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but why is this addressed to me? Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And isn't this already in the article? Serendi^podous 06:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller: Because you say ridiculously stupid things like, "But they also show calendars that go well beyond 2012, the year when the vanished civilization, according to popular culture, expected the end of the world" Because you have been long involved with this article which constitutes, currently, a major portion of the "2012 Phenomenon". An article which totally understates that this was started by a highly respected "scholar" in the Anthropological community, who's irresponsible comments are not the fault of New Agers, and other less informed people, who went along with what may be the biggest plunder in Anthropological history! Who is stupid enough or arrogant enough to put a date on a mythic idea and then blame it on an indigenous culture? This article continues with the gross irresponsibility by blaming everyone but the man who single-handedly started it, deflecting responsibility and praising Professor Coe's students, such as Hoopes and Van Stone as "credible". This should be stated in the first sentence as a run away meme started by a college professor who didn't care very much about the effects of his words. Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So because he said the ancient Maya thought B'ak'tun 13 would mark Armageddon, he should be blamed for all the people who decided that, because the ancient Maya said it, it must be true? Get real, Ray. Serendi^podous 21:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

People "believe" it because he, Michael D. Coe, said it in a book in 1966. Let's imagine he did not. There would be no 2012 phenomenon. No one else came anywhere close to putting a literal date on a mythic theme. His authoritative date, incorrectly calculated at first to Dec. 24, 2011, was repeated in the media, both televised and published for about 20 years before the date was corrected. He is responsible for starting this meme. When the date, correctly calculated for Dec. 21/23, 2012 appeared in the 1980s, the meme was alive and well and legally old enough to drink and smoke in some places. This is an attempt to help improve the 2012 aricle here at Wikipedia, nothing more and nothing less. No one is trying to blame anyone for anything. How about you get real? This is an encyclopedia, so try to think more objectively. For the more open-minded of you: Do you think it a coincidence that the three most popular movies (MIB3, Avengers and Battleship) out right now are ALL about "alien invasions"? Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Either produce reliable sources which support your claims so that we can edit the article, or don't. End of story. JoelWhy? talk 22:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to give you all a heads-up about two reliable sources currently in press. These articles, in peer-reviewed journals, should be available as appropriate publications to cite in this article by the end of June 2012:

Hoopes, John W. (2012) New Age Sympathies and Scholarly Complicities: The History and Promotion of 2012 Mythology. Archaeoastronomy:The Journal of Astronomy in Culture 24: 180-201.

Whitesides, Kevin & John W. Hoopes (2012) Seventies Dreams and 21st Century Realities: The Emergence of 2012 Mythology. Zeitschrift für Anomalistik (German journal).

Both of these refer to Coe's publication and detail even further (beyond what I have already published) the various ways the statement he made in it was appropriated and misinterpreted by authors of pseudoarchaeology and New Age mythology. Please note that they will be in special, 2012-themed issues of Archaeoastronomy and the Zeitschrift für Anomalistik, both of which will contain numerous articles on the 2012 phenomenon. Hoopes (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(David)Stuart was so puzzled by the doomsday chatter that he wrote an entire book on the subject, The Order of Days: The Maya World and the Truth About 2012. In that book, one possible source Stuart points to is a 1966 book by a leading Yale researcher, Michael Coe. Though Coe never suggested that the Maya believed the world would end in 2012, he did use the word “Armageddon” in a discussion of the 13th bak’tun—and some opportunistic types may have run with that. “Mike was writing for a popular audience, and he just wanted to jazz things up a little,” Stuart says. “And 2012 was very far away.” from http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/06/secrets-of-the-maya/ Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead and reversion of my edits

As it stands now and stood before my edits, the lead, with 3 paragraphs and 9 sentences, only had half a sentence (the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture) representing mainstream ideas on the 2012 date. This looked like a very bad balance to me, so I added a quote to give the lead better balance (although I still thought having it at the end rather than in the first paragraph a bad idea). This was moved out of the lead. Also deleted was the phrase "contradicting the belief that 2012 is the last Mayan date" on the basis that this was covered in the preceding paragraphs. The problem here is two-fold - neither of those paragraphs actually mention 2012 explicitly, and the section heading is "Dates beyond b'ak'tun 13" which is fine for Mayanists but for the layperson may not be clear - why doesn't it say "Dates beyond 2012" which after all is what the article is about. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem was that it violated a lead rule, which is that the lead should not introduce information that isn't covered in the article, and, while there was some suggestion of that information in the article, nothing quite like that quote existed in it. Perhaps it could be paraphrased into a shorter, more general sentence, and then added to the lead. Serendi^podous 08:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as "Dates beyond 2012", that was changed to "b'ak'tun 13" after a request from a Mayan visitor. It was decided that when speaking in a Mayan context, to use the Mayan date. Serendi^podous 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

13.0.0.0.0 found by Maya expert

David Stuart found the 13.0.0.0.0 date on a Mayan rock ~ time to update! And while you are at it, put Michael Coe in the lead paragraph! http://decipherment.wordpress.com/ Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

X-Files mention

I just noticed today that the December 21, 2012 date was mentioned, apparently prominently, in the X-Files series finale back in 2002. I wonder if this may have helped popularise the notion; in this case it would certainly seem to be worth mentioning in the "In media" section. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Would need a reliable citation connecting it to the phenomenon. I've looked but haven't found one. Same goes for whether or not Mulder's apartment no (42) is intended as the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. You'd think they'd have said something by now, but no. Serendi^podous 13:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not notable unless it is mentioned prominently in sources about the phenomenon.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2012

A suggested additional to the 'In Media' section of the article.

In the first part of the two part final episode ever of 'The X-Files' (production episode reference 9ABX19, which originally aired in the USA on 19th May 2002), the character Fox Mulder infultrates the Mount Weather military base and learns that the date set for alien colonization of Earth has been set for 21st December 2012.

Buckonz (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see that was discussed above, and as I said I haven't found a source connecting it with the 2012 phenomenon yet. If I find one I will include it. Serendi^podous 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2012

The information provided needs changes. I want to change them. I have even logged in the wikipedia accounts. please let me now if I can edit the article. My accounts username is Mr. Max Singh. I have been studying on the topic since 2007 and want to tell the world the truth about the 2012 prediction. Your requirements are not suitable that the person must login first. Please see to the Matter

msgh (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What changes do you want to make? What reliable reference(s) will you be using? -- Kheider (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You will be able to edit this page 4 days after the creation of your account if you have made at least 10 edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the "truth". We only write what is verfied by reliable sources. We also call fringe theories exactly what they are, and do not accept unreliable statements and personal opinions to make those fringe theories appear to be the truth. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? The article as it reads suggests to the uninformed that there is some basis for the concept. The reality that it is a recent invention of a New Age mystic, based on a long since debunked misinterpretation of a Mayan calendar, is obscured by all the details. I can't imagine the article on Flat Earth showing the same degree of respect for that idea - though that had far more support, and with more reason, than the "2012 phenomemon".203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the 2012 phenomenon is so protean and hydra-headed, it is impossible to criticise it all at once because there are too many different aspects to it. So criticism is mentioned in each subsection. Serendi^podous 22:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It was invented by a college professor and CIA operative named Michael D. Coe in 1966. And yes, that is not made clear in this article. The so-called New Age mystic wanted to promote an alternative interpretation of the Maya - at least ten years and much media hyping AFTER Mr. Coe's "Mayan" prophecy - rather than support Professor Coe's "Apocalyptic" forecast. Obviously this article is not doing its job. Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From the original author of this article...

I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's book, The Picture of Dorian Gray, whenever I look at the state of this article.

The original title, "2012 Doomsday Prediction", was long ago replaced with the current amorphous phrase that means nothing to anyone. Which gives me a clue about the agenda of the Wikipedia controllers, who rejected my request for protection. As I tried to follow the guidelines, a tag-team of so-called editors were allowed to virtually ignore the same, beginning with objectivity and maintaining a neutral voice The whole tone of the piece as it was daily dissected from the original entry sounded a lot like freerepublic.com and related conservative websites. What is up with that? Now the intent seemed to be not to provide informative facts, but to squash any possible curiosity in the reader through the use of obfuscation, sarcasm and the other usual ploys of propagandists.

The section, "Historical Context" was naturally the first to go. There was a lot of good background there to bring readers up to speed on how ancient cultures viewed the long-term story of this planet, to say nothing of their remarkable awareness and knowledge of past world destructions - hence the concept of a golden age, silver age, copper age and so on.

I would like to see this piece renovated to get it back in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Other editors with the energy to do this might take a look at the following article as an example of how the public might be better served: http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/2009/2012_Doomsday_Prediction.html. There are about 65 linked citations to work with there.

The current hodgepodge of categories is also a mess that should be sorted out by somebody. There is no serious framework here and no train of thought. Readers want to know about the various predictions and prophecies, the date 12/21/2012, any correlation with scientific forecasts for the coming years, the skepticism and counter claims (rather than the article writers simply providing their own opinions at every turn), and (as I mentioned) the evolution of this subject matter through the years.

Finally, since this situation is currently evolving, it's a shame that no one is keeping this piece uptodate with respect to the scientific correlations.

Seeing that little lock on the page - now that it has become about horrific as can be - says a lot about the parent company here. It's a real disservice to cyberspace... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRIN (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at your version of the article. Wow. You might succeed in publishing it over at The Mountain Astrologer, but not Wikipedia. I'd suggest the Fortean Times but in truth I don't think they'd accept it. Serendi^podous 20:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Incipit: why "eschatological beliefs"?

"The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs according to which cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on 21 December 2012": eschatological beliefs=? Eschatology is a part of [..] futurology concerned with what are believed to be the final events of history, the ultimate destiny of humanity—commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end time". So, not at all "range of beliefs" or "transformative events": the expectations of the New Age are prophecies with a much wider range respect to eschatology: new era>>end time. Besides, the socio-cultural phenomenon is just on 2012 "prophecies", a deep difference with "scientific forecasts" even if too many people seem interested to ignore such a distinction and instead talk about "predictions", so much ambiguous concept to add scientificity to the prophecies: more inconsistent power for both supporters and detractors. The "range of beliefs from cataclysmic events to transformative" is the scene studied by the catastrophe theory, with its critical points of discontinuity of any kind, positive or negative, constructive or destructive. None of this in the article. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing scientific about the 2012 phenomenon, so there are no reasons to include scientific rationales for the claims of its proponents. Serendi^podous 05:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A little bit POV, don't you agree?, if you don't argue at least as well as "the others". Moverover, and returning to the first point of my edit, why eschatology instead of prophecies? Newagers expectations and beliefs are not only of that kind, so the incipit is self-contradictory. Is it possibile to change this single word? But there is an entire vertical template which frames the topic under this point of view. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but there is something scientific about the 2012 phenomenon, if you allow to consider scientific disciplines such as sociology and phenomenology of religions. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to argue the fine points of lexicography, then prophecy is: "a process in which one or more messages that have been communicated to a prophet[1] are then communicated to others. Such messages typically involve divine inspiration, interpretation, or revelation of conditioned events to come (cf. divine knowledge) as well as testimonies or repeated revelations that the world is divine." Where does that apply to this? The only "prophet" by that definition that appears in this kerfuffle is Jose Aruelles. And he is far from the only proponent of the 2012 phenomenon. I agree that sociological commentaries on this phenomenon would be useful, but they have nothing to do with the claims put forward by the proponents themselves. Serendi^podous 06:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, indeed. I ask: how many astrologers, aquarians, channelers, newagers can be considered prophets? I don't know the answer: still too close to the phenomenon? But, again, why eschatology? Am I the only one who places this theological problem? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

None of us will fall for an argument from ignorance. You're making the assertion that it's scientific. You provide evidence for it in the form of reliable sources. Given the fact that we have sought out evidence and found none, we will remain skeptical until such time we see it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which scientific assertion I would have done, plz? Just the theological question about the eschatological setting of the whole article? I think this problem is very little epistemological. Googling: [2] vs. [3]. Google Books: 628 hits vs. nearly 100,000. Ok? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Expert-subject-multiple|Spirituality|Theology|reason=the eschatological setting of the whole article}}

I don't understand why you think this article needs an expert on theology. Theology has virtually nothing to do with this topic. It deals with New Age mysticism, pseudoscience and (to a certain extent) archaeology. There are no religions mentioned except that of the ancient Maya, and that only to show that the Maya didn't predict any special event for 2012. Serendi^podous 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, do you think you could find someone to speak on your behalf who better understands English? It is impossible to have a discussion on the fine semantic points of any language with someone with a limited grasp of the language being used. Serendi^podous 15:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Expert-subject|Theology|subject name here|reason=the eschatological setting of the whole article}}

Do you think it's better? Yes, "theology has virtually nothing to do with this topic. It deals with New Age" spirituality. Pity that instead eschatology deals with theology.

By the way, do you really believe that the concept of eschatology needs a fine skill level of semantics? So why don't you rollback my edits in aseity, process theology, causa sui? Too much fine? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eschatology has little to do with theology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ehy, "guys" (sic), but then why at the end of the article eschatology there is a horizontal template where is written theology? Quite funny, isn't it? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Because eschatology can be either religious or philosophical. It is not religious in this case. And please stop acting like a 7-year-old. Serendi^podous 17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Here the question is the eschatological setting of the whole article, in the theological or philosophical sense. Sorry: how old are you? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"It" has to do with Maya astrology, which is too fringe for anyone at Wikipedia to understand, since it involves Maya spirituality and astrology. Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

NOOOOOOO

it cant be???? But by the way, I have some sources of a new belief in New Gineau that was on CNN. --184.98.114.65 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

“ Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. We're here to discuss how to improve the article, not personal opinion about myths. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC) ”

--Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

it is possible in future 21 dec 2012. --122.161.226.70 (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding info about new Documentary with interviews

Hey all, I discovered this documentary on indiegogo and wanted to cite it in the article as it looks like it talks directly about the 2012 phenom. It has interviews with numerous personalities associated with the doomsday/phenom topic (which I know from watching the trailer in the video). I can't cite the trailer as I haven't found one. Another editor decided this doc can't be cited or is off topic, so I'd like input from the community on the appropriate way to incorporate this info. Thanks! LinkBender (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You can only cite the information within a documentary. You can't just add a line saying "Hey, this documentary is cool! Come have a look!" That's advertising. Serendi^podous 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your link is to a page trying to raise money to make the documentary- unless I'm misreading that page, the documentary doesn't appear to even exist yet. I'm unclear about how a documentary that hasn't yet been released - that is currently just raw footage in someone's computer - could possibly be used as a source of information. A documentary that hasn't been made yet can't be watched- by you, or anyone else - and so won't yield any interesting or useful information. There's not even any way to tell whether this is reliable or not... no one is going to review a movie before it is made. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the campaign I saw is the film is complete. I do not understand Serendipodous' attack language. Regardless, this is clearly a film that exists and I am asking for help on how to cite it, as it is part of what's out there on this subject. I read a long list on that page of 2012 "experts" in the film and saw them in his trailer. The "no" culture attack response isn't productive, you know? If you can't help, then why attack? Just mean? Having a bad day maybe? Thank you. LinkBender (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no attacks happening here, and it's important that you stop making personal attacks. You have misunderstood the word 'cite.' To 'cite a source' means to add information, and to identify the source of that information. You don't seem to want to add any information to the article, so the possible existence of this source is not significant at this time. If the documentary is released and distributed, fact-checked for accuracy by independent sources, and if you watch it and see some important information that is missing from the article... that would be the time to discuss whether that information should be included in the article. Right now, there's no information you want to add from the film, so there's nothing to 'cite' the film as the source for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I added this to the article: "A deeper analysis of the doomsday cycle, including interviews with key personalities, is presented in the documentary 2012: The End?." And that's then called "Hey, this documentary is cool! Come have a look!". And You're accusing me of attacking? Comments that are not constructive, but are rather belittling and dismissive, are hard to see as helpful. Why don't y'all give the rest of the community a chance to process and perhaps weigh in on how/if this source can/should be integrated? I'm not saying this source is the font of universal wisdom, I'm saying the content exists on this topic. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, right?

Right now, no one agrees with you that this would be useful. Thanks for not restoring it until you have consensus on this talk page to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your input. We shall now open the floor to the rest of the community and try to remember I'm asking for guidance on how to integrate information that is clearly on topic. LinkBender (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's on topic isn't the point. You haven't provided any information from the documentary, other than the fact that it exists. How does that improve the article? Many documentaries about the 2012 phenomenon exist. most of which are crap. Right now we only have your assurance that this documentary is good, and even if that were the case, that wouldn't be reason enough to mention it in the article. Serendi^podous 07:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rarely do Serendipodous and I agree, but he's spot on. The documentary does not exist, as the director is looking for money to finish it. How can you cite something that you haven't seen? From the trailer and the supporting materials, there doesn't appear to be anything new. I hope the fellow who's making it gets to finish it. He's running out of time, though. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Break

I answered here. Obviously no reply. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously"? This is an international encyclopedia and I do not edit 24h a day or necessarily on the same schedule you do. Your comment here is a borderline personal attack. I strongly recommend you take a step back and read the "Welcome" section on your talkpage and its links about how to participate constructively here, as you are engaging in several patterns of behavior that can lead to having your edit-privileges revoked. Other readers should note that the message to me was presumably in my warning to Mauro Lanari about edit-warring, which is forbidden on its face and unrelated to whatever content-issue led to it. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mauro, your complaint to DMacks has nothing to do with the current discussion. It has to do with your attempts to link to the 2012.com page, which is discussed above. Please hear me when I say: you do not understand English. You do not read it well, or write it well, and thus you are not following the conversation properly. Also, you cannot expect us to understand what you want if you cannot convey it with proper English grammar. Please find someone you know who speaks English better and can speak on your behalf. Until you do there is little that can be gained through argument. As far as your complaint to DMacks re:2012.com goes, just because other sources have cited it, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can. Wikipedia has very strict rules about what can and cannot be added to this site. Other publications are free to link to whatever they want. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia's stated position.

[Edit: As this is interfering with the actual discussion, I broke it and moved it down]. Serendi^podous 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading things like this or that, I do not believe that for you the main problem is to understand my English and my arguments on eschatology, external links and categories, but that you need twelve edits in an hour only to hide you are wasting my concepts. Best regards. --Mauro Lanari 95.240.8.144 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPG if we are going to discuss editor behavior we should probably go elsewhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, hide? Do you think I'm that stupid? How could I have "hidden" what I wrote? I rewrote the comment because it took me a very long time and several rereadings to understand what you had actually written. When I did, I rephrased the comment. Serendi^podous 18:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

End of Time

Maybe it just means the end of time for things as they are and the beginning of a real transition into a far better world. A world of peace and tranquility without war or violence of any kind.

DAB (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. We're here to discuss how to improve the article, not personal opinion about myths. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yours is a "personal opinion abouth myths", instead it's the edit above that seeks to discuss how to improve the article, once again criticizing his whole eschatological setting. Spare your irony and sarcasm POV. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV. When you're really up-to-date on Wikipedia guidelines, we may discuss how to add myth to this article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Eschatology /ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/ (from the Greek ἔσχατος/ἐσχάτη/ἔσχατον, eschatos/eschatē/eschaton meaning "last" and -logy meaning "the study of", first used in English around 1550) is a part of theology, philosophy, and futurology concerned with what are believed to be the final events of history, the ultimate destiny of humanity—commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end time".

When you're really up-to-date on the meaning of this concept, we may discuss as with the user DAB. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the page we read, "Others suggest that the 2012 date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe"

Why wouldn't my suggestion fit in to the article as well if not better; at least it is a positive point of view, isn't it? After all the Maya calendar ends on thet date which is the end of time as they saw it. Christians view the end of the world as a positive event. The phrase end of time is also used in the Bible. It is not just my own POV if you read the Bible. Maya Civilization developed over a period of almost 3000 years, from 2500BC to 300Ad. The Book of Mormon has much to say about that as in the Book of Ether.

DAB (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources that specifically discuss "Christian and Mormon postive beliefs about the end of the world" in 2012 without the ecessity of Wikipedia editors "connecting the dots" we really dont have anything more to "discuss". -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the Maya calendar ending on Dec. 21, 2012; I did not say Christians and Mormons believe that the world would end on that date. Thanks for asking but it seems to me you missed my point. I think my suggestion is a logical conclusion based on the Maya Calendar which is, as all calendars are, a measure of time. The reference to that in the Bible is in the Book of Revelation chapter 10 verse 6 (Rev. 10:6 - http://bible.cc/revelation/10-6.htm )

DAB (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is just your idea. Your ideas are not enough for inclusion. Find a notable scholar who agrees with you, and show that your opinion has some wider currency, and maybe it can go in. Serendi^podous 19:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you dont have sources, then you will need to go to some other place to discuss your ideas. This page is solely to discuss how to best present article content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Maya calendar does not end on December 21 of this year. It just starts a new cycle, baktun 14. -- Kheider (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Wikipaedia articles noted in previous post: The Book of Ether explaining origin of the Maya Civilization and the Book of Revelation Chapter 10 verse 6, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+10%3A6&version=KJV concerning the end of time. Many other sources include the Book of Isaiah chapter 11, verses 6-9 concerning the positive outcome, http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Isaiah&chapter=11&verse=6-21 and Acts 3:21, http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-3-21/ also concerning the end of time. As YHWH provides.

DAB (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're drawing personal conclusions from primary sources. That's essay writing. Fine for a blog, not for here. Serendi^podous 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

external links

"No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

Despite any self promotinal claims,

• "December 21 2012, The official Website for 122112 Information"

it is most emphatically not the "official site" for the phenomenon and would need to be justified under other criteria to be included in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Mauro Lanari, has removed the categories Category:Internet memes and Category:Urban legends. Given that there is no proof of the 2012 rumors that are spread via the internet, I think this article should include those cats. -- Kheider (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kheider, this is considered a "featured article", so I'm not just asking your personal opinion, but to treat these two topics extensively in it, where, instead, for now there is no trace. Examples:

1. http://books.google.it/books?hl=it&id=N-rVUCO4YyYC&hl=en&q=%22The+2012+meme%22#v=snippet&q=%22The%202012%20meme%22&f=false
2. http://books.google.it/books?id=O3gJ8ozxyfAC&pg=PA219&hl=en&dq=December+21+2012+%22infectious+meme%22#v=onepage&q=December%2021%202012%20%22infectious%20meme%22&f=false
3. http://books.google.it/books?id=ySNfuGKwfMcC&pg=PA96&hl=en&dq=December+21+2012+%22cultural+meme%22#v=onepage&q=December%2021%202012%20%22cultural%20meme%22&f=false
4. http://books.google.it/books?id=TRb8UlRIzh0C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=December+21+2012+meme&source=bl&ots=A8AQo8niqV&sig=wKdt5awRjfSTB9vZZZdifsXpLzo&hl=it&sa=X&ei=lUksUKrTE-bm4QSVloGwDQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=December%2021%202012%20meme&f=false

--Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

at least 2 of the above are from the self publisher Xlibris press, and while i didnt look deeper, at least two of the others appear questionable as well. {{Who were you?}}-- The Red Pen of Doom

The burden of finding reliable sources to support those categories should be of those who put them, not mine. However, an evaluation really good for a featured article. Just well done. Keep it up, please. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I should have looked closer at who was posting what; but yes, the cats should be supported by content in the article as a best practice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem odd that the article doesnt yet touch on the internet meme-iness of it all. That would seem to be basic component of how it has spread so much. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Doomsday Theories" section mentions the internet briefly, but covering it in detail is difficult, because of the paucity of reliable sources. Serendi^podous 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the 2012 rumors come from anonymous Youtube researchers, so obviously it does not spread via a reliable source. -- Kheider (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While the you-tub primary sources spreading nonsense are clearly not reliable sources, that in no way prevents reliable sources from having analytic coverage like "The 2012 Doomsday has caused a veritable sea of hoo-haw on teh interwebs with over a gajillion posts that have themselves spawend internet memes ranging from "2012 Zombie Apocalypse" to Cheeseburger Cats 'Can I haz Doomsday?' pictures." -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, finding decent sources on the topic on the internet is quite difficult, especially now, when "2012" is located somewhere on every single internet page. Serendi^podous 17:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

oooh- good point! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am restoring Category:Internet memes and Category:Urban legends based on a talk by Kristine Larsen. See also Cosmophobia and the End of the World -- Kheider (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this falls under internet memes, but I'd be hard pressed to describe this as an urban legend. Serendi^podous 17:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding Kheider's information to the article. Hopefully, the internet's influence has been made clearer. Serendi^podous 19:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

View Count

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

---

It received the most views yesterday on 21 August 2012 since 12 January 2012. It probably has to do with the 4 months anniversary prior.--150.216.63.19 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Breaking News: The record view count was recently 100 000 in a single day! It recieved the most views in a day ever on 29 August 2012. It probably has to do with increasing anticipation as less than 4 months until the event. The spike on 21 August 2012 previously mentioned was signifigant as well over 2 times the day before but pales in comparison from the more recent spike of over 8.27 times the day before. It is the record most views this article has been viewed in a day and probalbly one of the very most viewed articles of that day and the first time it recieved over 100 000 views. The most recent 3 days statistics are available are the day before on and after the spike which gives a good idea what it was like being in chronological order, 14261, 118032, 12390. It will be very exiting to see what happens later and may be a freightening sign that it is coming fast and furious. The site will probably even crash many times each day. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/2012_phenomenon --150.216.62.44 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Immediately a new category: en.Wp meme. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean this is now an internet meme? That would be so cool! Were you suggesting adding it to an wikipedia page category? I have a feeling this wikipeia article may be the MOST VIEWED WEBPAGE for a period of time somtime until about the 2012 phenomenon event. This is a reputable rediction too.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been an internet meme for a very long time; indeed parts of it date back to Usenet. Serendi^podous 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What is Usenet?--150.216.78.78 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Usenet very early internet based discussion board. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Usenet predates the Internet, although Al Gore may have invented it, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean predates the World Wide Web. Serendi^podous 20:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was on usenet and BBS's in the late 80's at 1200 baud. The internet was alive and well, but the World Wide Web was not around. RIP Electric Pub @ 415-236-4380. -- Kheider (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Like usenet I the 2012 phenomenon was alluded to in a book about useless facts a rather long time ago. About 6 years ago. Although it did not mention doomsday. It was more about the end of a cycle of more than 5000 years.

The record view count traffic set just 2 days ago will probably be broken again today. I was on it a lot today and had trouble acessing the page unlike all the other pages on Wikipedia. I suspect it is probably due to such high traffic it takes a while to get to any particular request. Another special thing on that record setting day I forgot to mention was that it was also one of the very few if not only (someone please check for me than answer in the reply) days that it got views views than seconds in a day. Also, as internet surfer try to access it and not successed the first time they refresh to try again which just adds to the traffic, which is not neccessarily a bad thing. The huge popularity of the 2012 phenomenon and so the 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article contributes greatly to the view count and the popularit itself seems to also be very well known, another example of high traffic causing high traffic as they want to read up and feel the traffic and even edit and such. Also, anyway, it is only less than 4 months away from the 2012 phenomenon event. Wikipedia volunteers probably get involved and monitor it too adding to the traffic. The combination of reasons for high traffic and high traffic inducing more traffic together make a very powerful feedback runaway situation of pop culture. Theoretically this article could only get so many times more popular due to bordom of popularity, however few days left to grow, people available, and technological limitations. AS easily understandable it will be very intriguing to see how this developing story unfolds, even after the 2012 phenomenon event. Also, by the way, about the minute I post this the data should be tallied and calculated and soon ready to be graphed on the main wikipedia traffic website, which can be found when viewing history of the article and clicking on page view statistics. Anyting else? I think there should at least be a level 2 or 1 section on the 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article, maybe even an article, but we should discuss this first. Ok, bye for now.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out the 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article view count record was broken and blown away again yesterday, only 2 days after the previous instance. I spiked from about 12 000 to about 675 000 views.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The next day, yesterday, the most recent for which statistics are available, it was at about 95 000, the 3rd most so far, although the day before had 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article hourly view count more about that many times, which is more than seconds in a whole day of 24 hours.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It was so signifigant at least a few websites are talking about it. The trend shows it will become even more signifigant. This is so exiting and crazy and should surley be mentioned on wikipedia, especially if it breaks the Michael Jackson Wikipedia article traffic record. For the link see here: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/search.php?q=2012+phenomenon --150.216.78.78 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Today is probably the day the 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article daily view count hits 1 000 000 for the first time, putting it in an elite few Wikiepdia articles that have recieved at least 1 000 000 views in a single day. I think there has been about a dozen that have accomplished this. Surley, if this happens it should be mentioned in the 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article and at last one photo representation added.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While I admit it is somewhat interesting to follow this article's view count, I don't really see how it affects editing. Since the article is already semi-protected, a rise in viewers isn't going to lead to a rise in vandalism, and since it is already featured there isn't much fear in spreading misinformation to the masses. We can't discuss this article in the article without secondary sources noting it. For the record though, there are 86,400 seconds in a day. Serendi^podous 23:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to be the party pooper but as Serendipodous hinted at: WP:NOTFORUM. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You can add this to "Cultural Influence" - 111 days before the event the traffic of this page increased from 10,000 to 675,000, showing a high anticipation for the event :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.36.42 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Already tried. Niet. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because a lot of people are looking at this article that doesn't mean it's having any effect. In the last 24 hours, the only outside media source to note the explosion in viewers is godlikeproductions, which, frankly, is somewhat ironic. Serendi^podous 07:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article view count could be added to the "Cultural influence" section, maybe intead of the propose "Wikipedia article" section or the 2012 phenomenon Wikipedia article article.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It is mere trivia and not important to the article. I suspect someone is just running a script to manipulate the wiki counter. Such as article would not be notable. -- Kheider (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It affects editing the most by users not being able to edit it because of and even that they cannot acess it or have trouble acessing it. They are other reasons you could probably think of.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Uh...

Similar event? Others suggest that the 2012 date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe. What could possibly be similar to the end but the end? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

the near end of the world. Or the end of civilisation. Or the end of humanity. Serendi^podous 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

although the current source was Adventures Unlimited Press, not a reliable source, so I have removed it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What, so we're not supposed to say that people believe the world will end in 2012 in the lead to an article about fears the world will end in 2012? Serendi^podous 20:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the similar to that throws me... In any case, it reads better now. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Some believe that there will be something akin to a social change or a change in consciousness and it is worth mentioning that there are a lot of prophecies about these and a lot of talk about how in the Old Testament, New Testament and the Qur'an. Not least Luke 8:17-18 and Mark 4:22-25 which both say that everything will be revealed, and if you pay attention to the sound of words. (For example, World also says Whirled.) There is also a heck of a lot of biblical talk about these things, and especially in the biblical book of Isaiah. I am making a list of them and hope to have the list on a website so anyone can view them before the end of December 2012. The problem is that there are so many references to them, once you know how the things are revealed. Put simply, words can say more than one thing, and this is why the biblical book of Job says God speaks not just once but twice and humankind does not perceive it and David said in Psalms that God spoke once but he heard it twice, and said what he heard. It speaks in all languages, a lot of people have seen some of it and it contains a simple peace plan. That would fit with the idea of becoming consciously aware of something and a social change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.123.2 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not an internet discussion forum. If you have an issue to raise with the article, fine, but suggest it as it relates to the article, not as it comes out of your head. 2. You do know that the Bible wasn't written in English, right? 3. Unless the Biblical prophecies mention the year 2012, or have been connected to 2012 by someone notable, they are of no interest. Serendi^podous 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not written in English? That throws my whole world a-kilter. Sigh.

Anyway, thanks for flagging the commentary. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was referring to the IP, not you :-) Serendi^podous 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Internet Popularity

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

---

So I guess the phenomenon started on the internet d is getting popular on the internet.--150.216.78.78 (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It started in 1975, and yes the Internet was technically around by then but I don't think it had a role in starting it. Serendi^podous 11:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

New article on David Morrison

Not much new to say, except a rather horrifying anecdote from a teacher that two sets of parents were contemplating murdering their entire families before 13 Baktun. I was thinking of including it in "Public reaction", but it is essentially hearsay. Serendi^podous 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2012

In the section titled "Other alignments", at the end of the paragraph is this statement: Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System; larger than all other planets combined. When Jupiter is near opposition, the Earth experiences less than 1% the gravitational force it feels daily from the Moon.[102] The last sentence should read: When Jupiter is near opposition, the Earth experiences less than 1% DIFFERENCE IN the gravitational force it feels daily from the Moon.[102] Otherwise, it sounds as though during opposition, I should weigh only about a pound and a half. Lee Maynor75.111.18.28 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

75.111.18.28 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Revised. Serendi^podous 07:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Already done by User:Serendipodous Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)