Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Current Event Tag

I've seen articles with the deaths of celebrities and other events that had this on the day of. Should we have one of those? --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 10:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not so sure. The usual intent in those situations is to convey the sense of "breaking news". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 10:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How much evidence is there that an actual "event" is occurring? Is this limited merely to the sight of those small groups who have come together to witness better the end of the world? Or perhaps the "event" also includes people editing Wikipedia article Talk Pages? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I say no, not at all. It isn't a current event. People are obsessed with the day, sure, but nothing's actually happening. The reason the current event tag is there is because information might change rapidly as news becomes available; but seeing as nothing is actually going to happen, there won't be any events that need to be added to the article. The article is about the phenomenon, not the end of the world itself (because... it's not happening). – Richard BB 12:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah-ha.... not yet! But we might be a little surprised if it did happen. Would there be time to add the tag, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, okay -- if the news reports that fire begins raining from the sky, I'll happily add the current event tag there myself! – Richard BB 12:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that even though the date is currently December 20, the article lacks a "current event" tag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the tag as there is very little likelihood of rapidly changing details. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

and if there is a rapid change, who will be around to care? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Only the survivors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

glaringly ignores contemporary Mayan perspectives

This article goes into great depth in exploring December 21, 2012 from the perspective of white people-- New Agers, doomsdayers, "professional Mayanists" and astronomers, but says absolutely nothing what living Mayan people-- who constitute 7 million people-- believe. Could you imagine seeing an article on the Rapture that talks only about what New Agers, doomsdayers, astronomers, and "professional Near East historians" and neglects to mention any contemporary Christian perspectives? This article is one of the most glaringly ethnocentric articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and it's embarrassing to see that it has been given the featured article label. Owen (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a small paragraph under "objections" dealing with contemporary Maya arguing against it; however, there is no such thing as "the contemporary Maya"; they are a diverse group of peoples with a large number of perspectives and so cannot be generalised. Serendi^podous 18:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there are many Mayan perspectives. That is part of my point. There are also many New Age perspectives, doomsday perspectives, professional Mayanist perspectives and these are well accounted for in the article. Two sentences describing what two Mayan individuals today think is far from sufficient. Owen (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Find sources then. It's not like we haven't looked. Serendi^podous 18:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Owen, if you dig through the archives of this talk page, you'll find a heated discussion on this subject. After the world doesn't end, I'll be adding a section to this article about Maya apocalyptic beliefs as they relate to 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteMan31 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Most viewed TFA?

Wow. 748,000 views in a single day? That looks like a new record to me, and it'll probably get even more views today. A hearty congratulations to all editors involved! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Since current events on Wikipedia update every second, thousands across the globe are probably tuning in to see any updates on the first reactions are the world begins to end in some places of the planet. --Usfirstgov (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait until midnight Central Mesoamerican Time? Unless the end was meant to be strictly sequential, across the globe, by time zone, of course? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that may be the case. I'm noticing a huge fireball rising from the East as I type. I think it might be Kinich Ahau. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think he has a Rolex? or a clever electronic calculator Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hard to be sure, for he hath sent a great blizzard before him. Woe unto our highways! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

La Corona

It says that in 635 AD, the end of a thirteen-year b'ak'tun cycle was "then-recent." However, this would mean that the end of the next cycle would be around 635 + 5125 = 5760 AD, which is completely in conflict with the usual assertion that one such cycle ends in 2012. I do believe that this requires explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.110.7 (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, shall we change all the verbs to past tense now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.181.96 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there seems to be disagreement about the actual date, wait until January 1. If some folks still think it could happen, at least it won't be the 2012 "phenomenon" anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

13 k'atun cycle was then recent, not 13 b'ak'tun. Serendi^podous 08:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

doomsday

Double posting from gangnam style article, but it also applies here: Should the article mention yet another internet meme this song has spawned i.e. that the world will end when it reaches 1 Gigaviews on youtube (Similar to hanging out in Bugarach and Şirince )? A lot of newspapers picked up on the story. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/december-21-mayan-end-world-gangnam-style-psy-nostradamus_n_2285027.html#s1872872&title=1806_
• http://www.focus.de/kultur/musik/weltunter-gangnam-style-wird-psys-erfolg-den-weltuntergang-ausloesen_aid_884195.html
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/414317/20121212/gangnam-style-apocalypse-psy-nostradamus-nine-circles.htm
• http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/409642/20121129/nostradamus-prediction-end-world-gangnam-style-doomsday.htm#.UNQQQ2_aVvA

Edit request in Public Reaction section

In the section Public reactions, the caption under the second picture says: " ... who say that it is close to an area where Christians believe the Virgin Mary ascended to heaven."

Please could you change this to say :" ... who say that it is close to an area where Roman Catholics believe the Virgin Mary ascended to heaven." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.64.14 (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2012

Just like to say, its 1:34 am EST and the world is still here...can someone edit this page to put the silliness to rest? 216.195.203.2 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's still the 21st. Also, can you prove that there was universal opinion that the 21st was supposed to be "THE day"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

11:09 Pacific Time. Still alive. Off to see what time zone Mayans used.07:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)72.130.182.138 (talk)

As the world was supposed to end at 11:11 UTC time, or 5:11 central US time,which has passed, I believe we all have survived the apocalypse! YAY HUMANITY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.249.165 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

a few sections above refer to sunrise in the Maya world, give or take an hour or two, where the Coast-to-Coast crowd was saying something like 9:21 PM. where does this come from?

if there's an alleged TIME associated with the end, it should be in the article. and quite PROMINENTLY so. as in, in the FIRST SENTENCE.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.80.194 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no supposed time; the Maya didn't have clocks. The alleged time has to do with the precise moment of the solstice, which is tied to the whole "galactic alignment" concept. Serendi^podous 11:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, the world didn't end on 21 Dec 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.55.249.27 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

When can this article be officially changed to "this was all a big bunch of rubbish based on a complete misunderstanding"? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Before making changes, we should at least wait until the Maya have their day, which won't be for another 2 hours or so. I don't know how the Maya counted days. Traditionally in our culture days are counted from sunset to sunset (hence Christmas Eve, New Years Eve etc); if the Maya did too, maybe 13.0.0.0.0 already started hours ago. Or maybe they counted from sunrise, in which case it hasn't started yet. There's the added wrinkle that, depending on how you read the numbers, 13.0.0.0.0 may actually fall on the 23rd. Serendi^podous 11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - at this point and time it is not yet suitable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

When the time becomes suitable, I suggest this quote (or part of it) be added somewhere: Alain Jany, 53, a retired soldier, grumbled: "I'm starting to wonder whether I'm the only sane person and everyone else is mad, or the reverse. It reminds me of a disaster movie. All you see in our village are journalists and gendarmes. Usually they come when there's something to cover, like a war, a murder. What are they all waiting for here? Nothing! I've been up that peak 50,000 times and have never seen a thing. It's rubbish." InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, we'll have a new item for the "Objections" section.Originalname37 (Talk?) 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We survived! YAY! :D This is going to be taught about in History lessons when we're all old and we can be like: "I was alive when this happenend, and, oh, look at that, I still am! IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!!" Hehe :D 11:11 is when you make a wish - not when the world ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.112.38 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

actually, it probably won't. this is only one of the dozens and dozens of "TEH WORLD IS GOING TO END ON X!!!1!!!11" that have occurred during my lifetime not to mention throughout history. It may be a little bigger blip than most of them, but its not going to be like "Where were you when [JFK was shot? / they landed on the moon? / 9/11?] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Time of the End of the World

There has been an ongoing discussion on the AZTLAN message board by Maya scholars about what time of day the calendar ends. Some believe sunrise ... others sunset. There was no consensus, so probably this page will not go into "past-tense" until Saturday sunrise, Maya world time. No one, incidentally, mentioned the time of the solstice. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

any particular reason my section with the exact same query was deleted? 67.150.81.197 (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually days weren't counted until they were completed. Another way to say this is that the first day of a cycle was zero. So 13.0.0.0.0 is the first day of the 14th bak'tun. If the world was going to end it would have to have happened yesterday - 12.19.19.17.19. The 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax is already past tense. The solstice has nothing to do with it and using the methods found in Astronomical algorithms by Jean Meeus one can calculate that it happened at 12/21/2012 11:12:55 UT or 5:12 AM in time zone -6 (the time zone of the Maya region). Since there is no way to measure the time of the solstice exactly and all methods use constants derived by interpolation, other sources will vary by some number of seconds. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

("Actually days weren't counted until they were completed.") According to the experts, that isn't true. Different Maya calendars had days ending at different times. None of the experts knew for a fact when the Long Count ended, but the two best guesses were at sunset (like the tzolkin) and sunrise (like the haab). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteMan31 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually they weren't counted until they were completed and that's why zero glyphs are usually translated as "completed". My statement and yours are not mutually exclusive. You are asking what time the completion occurred. In this field "according to the experts" is dubious because the self-proclaimed experts are interested in epigraphy and a lot of other things other than the calendar and have a trivial understanding of it. This is why your big dogs of Mayanism write so badly about the calendar. For example Schele and Freidel. It's ironic that this is the case since this was all worked out by Thompson and his colleagues in the early 20th century and can be understood by reading Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing which was published in about 1950. For example modern "experts" are still talking about the correlation question which should have been dead and buried in 1950 and if there was any doubt the nails were put in it's coffin by Susanna Miles in 1952 and Barbara Tedlock in 1992 when they discovered that numerous modern communities in Mexico and Guatemala were using a calendar round consistent with the GMT correlation. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Most Mesoamerican peoples counted the day from noon to noon.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cultural influence

too trivial? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Doodles will commemorate anything, so yes I'd say it's too trivial. Serendi^podous 13:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Proof that it is false

Should we say that now that it is Dec. 22, 2012, we have proof that the doomsday rumors were false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? That's like saying we have proof the sky is blue. Serendi^podous 14:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that there was some disagreement about the alleged date, I'm not so sure "proof" is the right term. However, since most of the conversation was about the 21st, it's reasonably safe to put the article verbiage in the past tense. If the end of the world turns out to be, say, the 23rd, the article can be corrected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess you haven't heard. The Earth hasn't started tilting back yet since yesterday's solstice. It's still tilting towards Antarctica. Nothing to worry about I'm sure. SlightSmile 16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Gutted

Ah well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.37.109 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How it Ended

I noticed that the 2012 phenomenon was true and the world ended. We should add a section about how it ended. We should also add a section about what is next. And are so many editors acting stupid pn this talk page saying the world did not end, haha, jokesters.--75.139.106.179 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"The world ended today! More on this tomorrow!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's still a bit of time left in some time zones. ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's December 22, and I'm still alive. Maybe the Mayans were wrong? Wait, why would anyone ever believe some Mayan myth that the world would end on December 21 2012? I didn't. McBenjamin (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

23 dec 2012

now that 21 dec passed without incident, shouldnt the intro say 21 dec or 23 dec? 86.52.42.163 (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Only a very small minority even know about the 23rd alternate date. 21st was the overwhelming choice, and the core of the phenomenon. Serendi^podous 12:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it said dec 21 or dec 23 once at the beginning, then i asked for it to be changed to 21, maybe we should change it back? 13:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter at this point. History will simply remember this as the failed 21 Dec 2012 doomsday prediction. -- Kheider (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think plenty of people will remember the more reasonable interpretation of the date as a major shift in an ancient calendar, and also as a cultural signifier associated with New Agey Mayanism, and the felt need for social transformation. Although the "doomsday" scenario was popular in the media, it seemed (to me) to be uncommon in the street. groupuscule (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On Dec 20th and 21st the doomsday prediction was all over American TV and the Mayan calendar was simply the date of the prediction. -- Kheider (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Apocalypse's collateral damage

It didnt even do no harm - Needs to be noted - Yes? No? Mayan temple damaged by end-of-world tourists" - 60.240.144.112 (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note on the Tikal Temple II article, although it should probably be updated once we get the actual damage report. FallingGravity (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a mention; it is notable. Serendi^podous 19:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD

So where's the discussion about the proposal to delete this article? I'd be surprised of many Featured Articles get deleted. Any? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. Or was anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

GM advert info too detailed

The details of the GM car advert states "(When the whereabouts of one of their friends is queried, it is revealed that he died because he drove a Ford.)". I propose that I remove this info as it has no bearing on the topic. Lopifalko (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not directly, it's just a funny advertisement. Don't worry, once 2013 rolls around, a lot of this junk can be pared down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep of the text about the advertisement - Because it is a pop cultural reference to a pop culture event staged by people, i.e. shape shifting reptiles, to confuse puny monkey people born on the planet named after dirt. It is very important that people, i.e. shape shifting reptiles, in the extremely far future, i.e. January 1, 2013, to understand the confusion caused by December 21 or 23, 2012. After all, people, i.e. shape shifting reptiles, need something to laugh about while drinking human blood.Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

CSD in regards to Nibiru predictions

Even though Planet X doesn't exist, wayward claims about Planet X or Nibiru are an internet hoax (see this page: [1]). Now that all claims about Planet X are hoaxes, I would be guessing that anyone who creates these pages should qualify as speedy deletion criterion G3, so it is now a blatant hoax. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 23:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

blatant hoaxes that receive widespread coverage are notable for their own standalone article as a hoax.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

World ends at 10... film at 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.13.120 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a difference between an atticle perpetuating a hoax and an article reporting on one.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, all Planet X articles should be kept and merged to have a record of the person(s)who falsely claimed evidence or knowledge of Planet X/ Nibiru. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is larger what Nibiru cataclysm is all about. -- Kheider (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing comma

"The 2012 phenomenon was a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or transformative events would occur around 21 December 2012."

The sentence is missing a comma. It should be: "[...] around 21 December, 2012."

88.115.210.195 (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just edit it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.73.46 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, you can't edit it. Place the {{editsemiprotected}} template following a reason why you want to have the edit requested. An autoconfirmed user will review to see if it is necessary. If it is necessary, the edit will be made for you. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 09:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't necessary in this case. The date is in British format, which means you don't need a comma to separate a word from a number (21 December 2012). If it was in American format, you'd need a comma to separate a number from another number (December 21, 2012). - Coldwind139 (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone used {{editsemiprotected}} to submit an edit request, I would review it and I would say 'Not done'. Thank you for that Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

LOLs?

The article should mention Internet (and not only) jokes making fun of this concept both before and after. I think it was a notable Internet meme. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I liked the December 20 Tonight Show with Jay Leno. If only we can find a newspaper that mentioned it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The End of The World IS TOTALY FICTION

The end of the world is so fiction it says in the bible that no man will know the hour, day, mounth or year. So it is all made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mine craft zombie!? (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't say no Mayan will know. Wait till a week from now, and we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article already contains a lot of criticisms of the prediction. I know the whole thing BS, but it's still a notable topic and deserves coverage. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the Bible only says we won't know the day or hour. It doesn't include month and year. (This has been used in the past to falsely predict the end of the world.)--¿3family6 _contribs 02:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"It says in the bible", lol. Why do you think the bible is any less fictional? If you believe in that crap, you are no wiser than any other doomsday sayer.

Be nice and respect other people's religions you jerk! While Wikipedia doesn't support the view that Christianity is real, I don't think it supports the view that you should call every religious person a total moron! Get a life and learn to respect religion. Although generally not accepted in science, it is a very important part of culture. McBenjamin (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

But the user is not respecting our religious, or irreligious, views because he is spouting religious views in public. If a religious person declares there religious views in public, their views are open to ridicule. Same goes for political or any other views. Don't want your views ridiculed: keep them to yourself. Religion has no special place in society and gets no special treatment from rational people. 24.144.38.101 (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A talk page is not a forum, and none of the above appears to be relevant to improving this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FisherQueen's comment is not related to improving the article and should be deleted. 24.144.38.101 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rtanj Mountain?

Why are the references to the Rtanj mountain as the purported place of salvation from the world end: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246305/Doomsday-fanatics-flock-Mount-Rtanj-believers-say-houses-alien-pyramid-magic-powers.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/413585/20121211/doomsday-2012-mayan-france-serbia-cult-armageddon.htm

missing from the text about Europe and why is it not possible to edit the text without logging in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.33.247.4 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Serendi^podous 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

first point: nobody knew about it. second point: because this page gets vandalised ALOT, for obvious reasons. Serendi^podous 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, an example of WP:Weight is shown. If no one knew about it, it does not have WP:notability.Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that many more will show up, so I'm not too concerned with overloading the article. Serendi^podous 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I say add the holy mountain(s) to the article and any other holy mountains on the relevant day(s) because it shows the extent of the 2012 phenomenon. Also, the number of people attending is important to this article. My earlier comment was not about the inclusion or exclusion of holy mountains but the issues of creating a walled garden on Wikipedia that is self-selective or self-congratulatory. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Beyond 2012

Given the poorly informed and short-sighted recommendation of this article for deletion, it is essential to note that just as the Comet Kohoutek of 1973, the Harmonic Convergence of August 1987, and the Year 2000 problem had significant and long-lasting cultural effects, the 2012 phenomenon will also remain a major milestone in pop culture and world counterculture. It is essential that this article be supported and improved as the effects of this event persist in various ways long after December 21, 2012. The "doomsday" prediction was only one part of the phenomenon. The New Age aspects--although considered spurious by some--were nonetheless momentous from a cultural point of view and will continue to have global consequences. Hoopes (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep - because inquiring minds need to know when and how the world ended on December 21, 2012. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the third-party NPOV belief that life on Earth did not end in a section called Resolution to crisis. If you disagree with the belief that life did not end on Earth, please discuss your edit here before you make changes to the main article. Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Maunus,

I noticed that you deleted my section Resolution to crisis without a discussion on the talk page. Please tell me your reason. If you consider the references were not NPOV or on point with the text, I will be happy to find better references. If you disagree that the continued existence of Planet Earth is not Wikipedia notable, i.e. similar to Pokémon, or not encyclopedic, i.e. similar to the existence of dwarf planets, then let us discuss your edit before your edit is made. But, I consider there is WP:weight of NPOV sources that nothing happened on December 21 or 23, 2012 and that, based on third-party claims the Planet Earth still exists. If you disagree that Planet Earth exists, please tell me your reason because that is the only reason I can think of for you to not believe the Resolution to crisis section. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather: Let's discuss your edit before it is made again. I don't think your sources were reliable regarding the continued existence of the earth. It would obviously be in NASAS's interest to hide the fact of the earth's destruction in order to continue to receive tax-payer funding. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern that the shape shifting reptiles at NASA and in the British monarchy are tricking us puny Earthlings into believing Planet Earth still exists to get taxpayer funding but instead of deleting the NASA photos proving that Planet Earth exists, please just use the dubious source tag on the reference. Are you looking out of your window to confirm that Planet Earth still exists? Because, as you are a respected and long time Wikipedia editor, you know original research is frowned upon.

However, as serious as I can be on this subject, I do think a Resolution to crisis or Costs of crisis section would improve the article and serve a purpose to future researchers and readers, when the next eschatological crisis is claimed. My proposal is similar the to the Costs subsection of the Year 2000 problem article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The photos prove nothing they are clearly photoshopped. I do not take lihtly to your accusing me of OR - I would of course do no such thing, no matter how easy it might seemingly be for me to confirm the existence of the planet through original research, I am fully aware of the fact that I don't personally have the required expertise, being neither a professional astronomer nor a geologist. I urge you to apologize for suggesting otherwise, and besmudging my ethics as a wikipedian . I think your final suggestion of an "aftermath" type section is reasonable, but it should clearly be based on reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the shape-shifting reptiles at NASA did Photoshop the picture of Planet Earth still existing, therefore all Earth-based sources are suspect since it is not based on a neutral points of view because those sources each have a stake in preserving the fiction that Planet Earth still exists. After all, Wikipedia is based on NPOV third party sources.

I and all of the other monkey people from planet dirt rue the day when I thought you would look out your window and do original research to confirm that the Planet Earth still exists.

Maybe, we could get the Grays or Blues to confirm the existence of Planet Earth. Would you agree they could supply a reliable source? Geraldshields11 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

New Age momentous global cultural consequences statement

Dear Hoopes (talk), What New Age aspects, although considered spurious by some, were nonetheless momentous from a cultural point of view and will continue to have global consequences? I do not see WP:Weight to support momentous global cultural consequences statement. Geraldshields11 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that well over 2000 books were published discussing aspects of the "prophecies" for 21 December 2012 while only one was published concerning the 1987 Harmonic Convergence is a fairly good indication of how momentous this event was compared to earlier counterculture and New Age ones. The term "New Age" itself refers to an anticipated metaphysical shift of the kind associated with concepts such as both the Age of Aquarius and the 2012 phenomenon. It is not uncommon today to encounter people who remember the Harmonic Convergence and identify it as a significant milestone or turning point in their lives. I recommend looking at online publications such as Reality Sandwich and following the work of 2012-themed writers such as John Major Jenkins to get a sense of how stories about 21 December 2012 are playing in New Age and alternative discourse. Along with publications about 2012 from publishers such as Inner Traditions, Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc. and North Atlantic Books there was a tremendous boom in publications on astrology, alchemy, shamanism, alternative medicine, Western esotericism and the like. It has yet to be documented in a coherent fashion, but just as the Year 2000 problem helped underwrite the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, the 2012 phenomenon helped underwrite a "metaphysical bubble" in early New Age publications, goods, and services in the first twelve years of the 21st century. Hoopes (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. This reminds me of Shadowrun. That role playing game predicted a return of magic along side of futuristic technology with weak central governments and powerful corporations. By the way, that prediction was incredibly ahead of its time and wrong. Guess what the date of the return of magic was in the role playing game.

For what it's worth, Shadowrun did feature 21 December 2012 as a significant date when such transformations would take place. I think that's worth mention. That game also had a direct influence on José Argüelles and his invention of the esoteric Dreamspell calendar. Hoopes (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This "metaphysical bubble" is a cost to the community. Those 2000 books "on astrology, alchemy, shamanism, alternative medicine, Western esotericism and the like" could have been written on art, culture, the human condition, or Pokemon. Your comment illustrates the need for a Resolution to crisis or Cost of crisis section in the main article.Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Hoopes: The association of 2012 with being the "end" of anything at all was started, as you well know, by Michael D. Coe in 1966. The "fact" that the so-called popular "New Agers" like Argueless, Jenkins, ad nauseum were influenced by Waters, who was in turn influenced by Coe (its in the bibliographies!), still makes "Mayanist anthropology and archaeology" the source and most seminal influence of this phenomenon. The New Age flipping of the Coe inspired 2012 apocalypse to something "positive" and spiritual" is still a result of Coe's associating the end of the theoretical Mayanist reconstructed "long-count" with an apocalypse, total destruction, etc. A more informed and responsible discussion of the "New Age" would define it as the new astrological age associated with the alignment in December 1942 of the December solstice with the first star in Ophiuchus, the 13th constellation behind the zodiac and the one that does not have a "sign". Call it the atomic age, space age, information age or whatever suits your point of view. The fact that the crossing of the Milky Way and the Galactic Center are both in this archetype's celestial space brings in the "galactic" dimensions to this particular approach to the New Age and hence the teachings from India (Yoga), indigenous cultures and of the Maya, since "western" culture is still rather short of a conscious and positive understanding of the archetype of the Serpent, the same archetype venerated as Kundalini, Quetzalcoatle and Kukulcan. Also the basic Maya codes are 20 and 13, so yes, this year, much more so than 2012, should be highly significant. Jimini Cricket (inspired by the galactic astrological work of Ray Mardyks) 72.253.70.250 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm saying this Ray, but:

1. Coe did not "start" the 2012 phenomenon. All he did was suggest that the ancient Maya believed that 13 baktun was apocalyptic. That's it. As you yourself pointed out, he was hardly the first person to believe the ancient Maya had apocalyptic beliefs.

2. There is a HUGE difference (as I'm sure you know) between believing someone else believed something and believing something yourself. Just because Coe ascribed such beliefs to the ancient Maya, that does not mean he held them himself. Serendi^podous 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OMG, YES HE DID! Coe put a LITERAL DATE on it in 1966. This is where it started. No published literal date = no 2012 phenomenon. This is the kind of action Wikipedia deems credible (published dates by respected authorities), yes? Believe what you wish. Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Coe was preceded by Vassar astronomer Maud Worcester Makemson, who in 1951 put a "literal date" of 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in on a supposed end-of-the world prophecy in the Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin. Her correlation with the Gregorian calendar happened to be about 260 years earlier than Coe's, but he was not the first to assign a prophecy of cataclysm to this date.

Professor Hoopes. JMJ doesn't understand the significance of the Harmonic Convergence, the authentic Maya calendar or 2012/2013 and is a terrible source for genuine New Age cosmology and understanding. He is an obvious self-promoting charlatan and so please tell us, why are you also promoting him here? Jimini Cricket 21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.70.250 (talk)

What are the standards by which you identify an "obvious self-promoting charlatan"? There have been quite a few involved with the 2012 phenomenon. If one were to remove references to Jenkins, I think one would also have to remove references to many others. Who gets to decide which ones are charlatans? Hoopes (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we officially say at this point that it didn't happen?

After all, it's 2013 by now. 173.48.25.34 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

the article is about the phenomenon of the mass propagation of fringe theories and panic of misinformed middle schoolers, which did in fact happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

See the subsection Beyond 2012 for a discussion of Cost of crisis or Resolution of crisis subsection that I propose. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point I think we can add a footnote to the article stating the obvious: "As we all know, the world DID NOT end on 12/21/12" A Wiggin13 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Any statement to that effect would have to be qualified as "the world did not physically end." In fact, the world actually DID change between 20 December 20 and 22 December, as it has every day. The concept of "end" can be either literal or metaphorical. December 21 was a day filled with semiotic fertility and metaphorical potential. Hoopes (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind, not every theory was about the world ending. Those were just the "sexier" angles. Plenty was said of enlightenment and transformation of consciousness, and this is in the article. It would be hard to prove or disprove something like that happened. I'm not even sure what it was supposed to feel like. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. While most of the mass media hype was about a catastrophic, physical "end of the world," a huge amount of discourse about 2012 was related to New Age assertions that 2012 would bring about a "new age" of consciousness. Some predictions made long ago, such as ones regarding a change in attitudes about the legality of cannabis, actually DID happen as reflected in successful repeals of laws concerning recreational use of cannabis in Colorado and Washington. It seems likely that predictions regarding spiritual enlightenment and a "transformation of consciousness" will be regarded as vindicated by some, even though these things are difficult to gauge. I think we'll require more that a few weeks (probably more like a few years) to evaluate whether metaphysical claims about 2012 become widely accepted or not. It is difficult to say whether or not the Idle No More protests can be linked to the other indigenous protests, such as those of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation that occurred at both Palenque and San Cristóbal de las Casas on 21 December (the latter claimed to have had 40,000 participants), but these may yet become linked as the movement unfolds. There was widespread discourse linking December 21 to indigenous concepts regarding Mother Earth and/or (one manifestation of which is Pachamama) in the context of environmentalism that may be identified as having played a key role in a "transformation of consciousness" about global ecology. Note, for example that Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, hosted a major ceremony on the Isla del Sol in Lake Titicaca on 21 December 2012 for the purpose of renewing commitments to indigenous activism and especially environmentalism. I personally witnessed a large, pre-dawn ceremony for over a hundred people led by Hunbatz Men at the Cenote Ik'kil on the morning of that day, which was followed by another at Chichen Itza that had the participation of various groups. Neither of those mentioned a physical end of the world, but referred instead to awareness of a "new age." It is unclear whether acts of hactivism planned by individuals who claimed to be members of Anonymous for 21 December 2012 under names such as "Project Mayhem" or "Tyler" were successful. These will also require more time to evaluate. I think it's essential to be alert to examples of what may have been self-fulfilling prophecy on or around the key date. It is incorrect to claim "it didn't happen" without specifying exactly what didn't happen. As this article explains, the 2012 phenomenon was about much more than the idea of a physical global cataclysm. In fact, that was a fairly minor part of the whole spectrum of beliefs about the date. Hoopes (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We can say no notable catastrophes occurred around 21 December 2012. -- Kheider (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Kheider because we can only say there were no notable physical catastrophes. After all, some wounds suffer in the soul. This might be a chance for humanity to realize that prophets are after profit to fill their purses and sell their books and book travels to Chichen Itza and then turn away from pseudosciences of astrology, horoscopes, and reruns of Snookie, since the notable prophesy did not come true.

Or, it could be a whole hearted "new age" of bad consciousness and we'll require more than a few bad weeks (probably more like a few bad years) to evaluate whether the bad metaphysical claims about 2012 become widely accepted or not.

Based on WP:Weight, there was no noticeable change in the human spirit. The Alwaites and the Sunnis are still shedding blood in Syria, Dems and Reps went over the fiscal cliff hand in hand in the US, Scotland wants to succeed from the UK, and those guys on the other side of the hill want to kill those other guys on the other side of the hill. The physical catastrophes were the news makers and are weighty. Even if someone personally saw hundreds of people "led by Hunbatz Men at the Cenote Ik'kil on the morning of December 21, which was followed by another at Chichen Itza that had the participation of various groups", that event is less notable than Pokemon because the two demonstrations of kindred spirits were drowned out by the drum beat of doom in the daily diatribe of deadly destruction. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why should it have happened? It wasn't the end of the Mayan calendar, and there was no particularly unusual galactic alignment (which were supposed to be the 'markers' for whatever it was). On top of that, there was never any reason to believe (as I had long been pointing out at http://2012inteotw.blogspot.co.uk/ ) that the date was so significant in the history of Planet Earth as to mark the return of Quetzalcoatl, the Pahana, the Imam Mahdi, Krishna, the Buddha Maitreya, the Christ or any other saviour figure; no objective indication that it would suddenly produce a new, golden age of love, peace and cosmic consciousness; no evidence whatever that the earth would be struck on that date by a rogue planet, irradiated by some kind of photon belt, transformed as a result of a process of exponential cosmic change, mortally wounded by a mega-volcano, turned topsy-turvy by a polar shift, frazzled by the sun or drowned by global warming, as numerous popular publications would have had us believe. Granted, we were by then experiencing more dramatic extremes of climate (as also of financial weather, at least in the West) than we had been used to. We were also, of course, experiencing all the usual range of natural and man-made disasters. But there was no reason to suppose that those disasters would suddenly become either more frequent or more severe in December 2012, let alone so frequent and so severe as to betoken Armageddon, Doomsday or the end of the world – or, for that matter, that either Nostradamus or Mother Shipton ever predicted that they would...

So perhaps the question that should be asked is: 'Can we officially say at this point that what didn't happen?' --PL (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with PL but the list of things that did not happen could get long. Let's just focus on the objective and NPOV costs or things that did happen that have a national or international effect and are affected by the date, such as people in China stocking up on canned goods, the printing of 2,000 books about the up-coming non-event, legality of cannabis, humans who personally witnessed travel to holy mountains for salvation or protection, indigenous protests, such as those of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, the need for NASA to create a website to say Planet Earth will not be destroyed, school shootings, or the reaction of a WP:notable astrophysicist on a late night talk show to the 2012 phenomenon.

I am not saying that that all of these events are connected to a certain date but it would be encyclopedic to gather the facts and put them in some semblance of a list for the next time someone writes a book about this prophesy. See my proposal, which was deleted, in the history of this article and the proposal discussed in that talk page of this article about an Aftermath subsection. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, well, there is that!... But virtually all of these events (I exclude the school shootings, which were clearly unconnected even remotely in scale, and the repeals of laws concerning recreational use of cannabis in Colorado and Washington, which was so localised as to be ludicrous -- how many people ever heard of them in China or India or Arabia?) were the result of the conviction that something was supposed to happen on 21 December. My point is that none of the things that were supposed to happen did happen, and that the pinpointing of 21 December was based on two alleged occurrences that didn't happen either (and were never going to). Thus, what happened was purely the result of people thinking that something would happen. What happens next (such as any subsequent Aftermath section) will thus be the result of people thinking that what happened was (or was not) the result of people thinking that something would happen. And so it could go on ad infinitum. It won't just be the aftermath of this non-event: next it'll be the aftermath of the aftermath, then the aftermath of the aftermath of the aftermath... It's a bit like people thinking that cancer is caused by X, then by thinking that cancer is caused by people thinking that cancer is caused by X, then that... (I could go on, but won't!). It's a pointless, because self-fulfilling, exercise. --PL (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear PL, I believe you and I are closer together on this point than you or I believe but we are limited to the talk page of this article to test our theory. I understand causality. (This talk page seems to be larger than the article, which is sad.)

My modest proposal is (and once again, I am not saying this list happened or was caused by a specific date but just examples):

Aftermath of 2012 phenomena

• X number of people booked trips to X holy mountains for sanctuary or salvation due to prophesy.
• The X, Y, and Z cities in China suffered hoarding of canned goods due to prophesy.
• NASA had to create a website, due to prophesies, to explain why to keep calm and carry on that was viewed X times since its creation.
• X number of blast/survival shelters built to hold X number of people due to prophesy.
• X number of people were killed in mass shootings inspired by bad consciences or due to prophesy.
• X number of super volcanoes erupted.
• X number of Planet Xs crashed into Planet Earth.
• X number of books written on prophesies at a printing cost of X.
• X number discredited prophets, who prophesized the physical destruction of Planet Earth.
• X number of astrophysicists freaked out on late night television in the United States.
• X number of educators swore to improve the US education system after seeing the results of too little science education due to prophesy.
• X number of psychiatrists swore to admit discredited prophets who prophesized the physical destruction of Planet Earth.

If someone did something, even cowered in a blast shelter, then that can be measured by the number of people and length of time and has an opportunity cost in lost productive labor. Once consensus is achieved on this proposed list, finding third party NPOV sources will be hard because who would want to admit to being taken in to read one of 2,000 books or building a survival shelter due to prophesies that did not pan out. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that this entire "aftermath" list is based on physical rather than metaphysical claims. I think it's absurd to insist on standards that require material as opposed to spiritual confirmation. Will those standards also apply to knowledge claims about other religious/spiritual phenomena such as Marian apparitions or crop circles? As with these other phenomena, what "did" or "didn't" happen on December 21, 2012 is bound to be highly subjective, even to the extent of a Rashomon effect. Hoopes (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You can count the number of people who claim to see the Marian apparitions or count the number of crop circles. Also, a list of the physcial prophecies, such as a Earth changes, are WP:notable and seem to have WP:Weight. What ever the non-physical prophecies are, they seem not to be WP:notable, such as 2,000 books, because those 2,000 books are not known to the general community. After all, no one made a movie based on the 2,000 books but the fear of Earth changes. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Hoopes , Please ceate a top 10 list of the non-physical changes based on the 2,000 books. It would be a great help. You can get on of your anthroplogy students to do the footwork. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The facebook game Armageddon Slots https://apps.facebook.com/armageddonslots had a Mayan Calendar Event where players locked in their prediction to: "Will the Earth experience major natural disasters on Dec. 21, 2012?" 85% of the players responded NO, where 15% responded YES. The 85% who responded NO were rewarded with 4 times the bonus as those who responded YES on the 22nd.

Was there a Facebook game about a spirtual awakening or non-physical changes to Earth happening in 2012? Also, please sign your comments. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

a day filled with semiotic fertility and metaphorical potential

What does "a day filled with semiotic fertility and metaphorical potential" mean? I am trying to find NPOV books or articles about this subject but I keep running into a WP:walled garden. Help. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the article? That phrase isn't in the article. Serendi^podous 20:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What I meant by that expression was that 21 December 2012--the subject of speculation in over 2000 published books as well as many articles, websites, blogs, videos, etc.--was the focus of a great deal of imaginative speculation that was focused on what it represented, was believed to represent, or could yet represent. From the article on semiotics: "Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication." From the article on metaphor: "Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile." Something that has "semiotic fertility" is rich in signs and their meanings. Something that has "metaphorical potential" lends itself well to analogies. I think the outpouring of speculation about the date is ample evidence that this phrase helps to describe its significance relative to, say, 18 October 1956 or 25 January 2003. Hoopes (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is part of the Costs, Aftermath, or Resolution discussion I am trying to get consensus on. See the above talk subsection. If the prophesied non-physical effects of the event can be pinpointed then NPOV third party articles can be found to say if the prophesed non-physical events happened or not. If editors do not achieve consensus about what was supposed to have happened on a certain date, then no one will achieve consensus on if something happened or not.Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been 25 years since the Harmonic Convergence and you'll never get anyone to say they know whether it "worked" or not. A UFO cult in the 60s claimed that by standing on tops of mountains and humming, they had averted natural disasters and world conflicts. How could you say they were wrong? As for "semiotic fertility and metaphorical potential", that just means that the day has a lot of meaning and resonance to us, whether it happened or not. Serendi^podous 20:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Geraldshields11 you summed it up when you wrote, "no one will achieve consensus on if something happened or not". -- Kheider (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Kheider for the compliment. Just go back to the one book Hoopes said was written about the Harmonic Convergence and look up Results if you people listen to me in the index and find out if the results happened. Ok, if Hoopes can give us Wikipedia editors, who were not in Cenote Ik'kil on December 21, 2012, a list of the top 10 prophesies (based on the 2,000 books) then it would be a start. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do they need to be Wikipedia editors? You can find a summary of many of the ideas and prophecies found in those books in this article: Whitesides, Kevin (2011) "2,012 by 2,012? The 'Impending Apparent End' of the '2012' Publishing Phenomenon. Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture 24: 206-221. It speaks directly to issues of "costs, aftermath, and resolution" as well as the notion of "semiotic fertility." Whitesides' scholarship (as with much of my own) has yet to be incorporated into this article. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that there's a significant lag between scholarly publication and updating of Wikipedia articles. Nothing new about that. Hoopes (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the term "semiotic fertility" comes from Philip Jenkins, author of Dream Catchers: How Mainstream America Discovered Native Spirituality (Oxford University Press, 2004). Hoopes (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As for reaching consensus, I think it unlikely there is any more hope for achieving any more consensus on what did or didn't happen on December 21, 2012 than there is at reaching consensus on the events of the life of Jesus, or whether the claims by either Joseph Smith, Jr. or L. Ron Hubbard are correct. When it comes to issues in religion and spirituality, consensus is elusive. Why is any consensus necessary? Hoopes (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If the idea of something "GALACTIC" came into your consciousness in association with 2012, even though not consciously understood or accepted, you are a witness to the fact that it most definately "WORKED". 100% success! Ray Mardyks 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.70.250 (talk)

I'm not clear on this. Was there a goal of getting the word "galactic" into the general vocabulary of New Age consciousness? If so, I think credit must be given to astrologer Dane Rudhyar, who published The Sun is Also a Star: The Galactic Dimension of Astrology (1975) and was a mentor to José Argüelles, a major figure in promoting the Harmonic Convergence and 2012-related astrology. Hoopes (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to make this a little easier to understand. If your consciousness was "aligned" with the idea of "galactic" in any way, associated with 2012, our intentions since Harmonic Convergence were fulfilled. Look at it as a game, with one side wanting humans to think "2012 apocalypse" and the other team pushing for "2012 galactic (alignment)". Considering NASA put up a web page about the Galactic Alignment and the fact that it was used in the 2012 major motion picture suggests that the "galactic" team scored high, very high! There was more money to be made playing with the "fear" team, but hey, there are richer and higher rewards than fame and fortune. Ray Mardyks 72.253.70.250 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've already been given credit for one flavor of the "galactic alignment" concept, Ray. However, it seems clear that the way that most people interpreted this term was influenced more by John Major Jenkins than by you, José Argüelles, NASA, or anyone else. I'm skeptical that anyone will win any battles about who got the "galactic alignment" thing "right," especially since there is no consensus on what it was supposed to be and there many authoritative sources that consider the concept to be totally spurious. Hoopes (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Hoopes , Please ceate a top 10 list of the non-physical changes based on the 2,000 books. It would be a great help. You can get one of your anthroplogy students to do the footwork. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Geraldshields11, what you are requesting is original research. As you know, Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy. I think something along the lines of what you suggest would make a great project. However, I hope you appreciate it would represent a substantial amount of work. The most intriguing changes I've seen mentioned concern the creation of a noosphere. These were elaborated in a posthumous book by Maya calendar and 2012 phenomenon booster José Argüelles entitled Manifesto for the Noosphere: The Next Stage in the Evolution of Human Consciousness (North Atlantic Books, 2011).

Sorry, you are mistaken Professor Hoopes. I am acknowledged here for being a predecessor to a misguided understanding and version of the "galactic alignment". Neither you, NASA nor JMJ understand the original "galactic alignment" and so all your interpretations are more your misunderstandings rather than the original idea. This and earlier posts are in response as to whether anything "happened" or not in 2012. As one of the first to discuss 2012, I am contributing that something did indeed happen and that it remains "unconscious" for the majority of humanity, including those of you writing this article. If one considers Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and the archetypes that compose this, then one is looking in the right direction. The archetypal "shift" that occurred in "2012" took place deep within the collective unconscious and UNCONSCIOUS it will remain. Try reading "Aion" by Jung as an introduction to this type of analysis. The contributions of people like Michael D. Coe, John Major Jenkins and yourself will give people a "story" to fill in what they don't know and are unable to understand. You know, like a bedtime story to put children asleep. I coined the phrase "galactic alignment" in relationship to 2012 and the Maya and was the first to be published in that regard. You would think that I'd receive more respect. The reason I don't is another story entirely. Ray Mardyks 72.253.70.250 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, a comprehensible explication of what Ray Mardyks considers to have been the "galactic alignment" and what "did indeed happen" with regard to an "archetypal 'shift'" that occurred in 2012 has yet to be published. Nor has there been any meaningful scholarship about it published. Until that happens, other narratives--including those of John Major Jenkins--will continue to be cited as having been more significant. Hoopes (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The "2012 Phenomenon" beyond 2012

The following statement (from a discussion group on Facebook) is an example of the kinds of predictions that are being made now that December 21, 2012 is past:

From 22 December through the end of the 7 Storm year, Day Out of Time 2013, there are exactly 216 days… The next day, 26 July 2013, Kin 164 is known as Galactic Synchronization, the launching of the Timeship 2013… This is the perfect moment also for the Galactic Mayan return – the intervention to oversee the peaceful transition from the old order to the new. New Sirius Cycle 26.1.1, Kin 164, Yellow Galactic Seed, Galactic Synchronization, 26-year Cycle of Harmonic Convergence complete, Launching of Timeship Earth 2013. New 104.000-tun galactic spiral density wave pulsation commences. Noosphere Era dawns on Earth; threshold to cosmic consciousness successfully crossed. Rainbow vision of circumpolar rings is fully realized....

Claims such as this are likely to be repeated in books and other publications. Should this article to be updated with information about ongoing discussions that follow from the 2012 phenomenon? These seem inevitable. Hoopes (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion groups are non-notable. -- Kheider (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely something to look out for if it ever enters mainstream, but I'd have to agree that the discussion doesn't warrant inclusion as it currently stands. FallingGravity (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Facebook discussions are about as good a source as Wikipedia talk page discussions. If we let this in, we'd have to let in my opinion that "rainbow vision" causes cancer. But if mainstream coverage is inevitable, it's all good. We'll just wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I did NOT mean to imply that non-notable discussions would be appropriate sources. By "discussions" I meant ongoing discussions in notable sources. I haven't seen any yet, I'm just anticipating that they may yet appear and that the 2012 phenomenon may well extend beyond 2012. Hoopes (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Naturally! :( --PL (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Is Anyone Even Taking Time To Argue With Hoopes??

The guy is a happy clappy moron who, based on his nuts belief system doesn't want to let go of a non-event for which he probably contributed a lot to the article becaue it makes him feel important.

2000 books published on this (lack of) event doesn't make it notable, it means a whole bunch of cynically smart people cashed in on whole bunch of stupid peoples belief that the cynically smart people engineered in the first place. It doesn't matter that someone "predicted" (read as made up) the end of the world back in 1943, because someone was stupid 70 years ago doesn't give this historical significance.

There was no cultural significance, it was forgotten about as soon as it didn't happen.

Why is this article even here other than to briefly summarize what a vast minority of seriously deluded people managed to kick up enough fuss about that it became news worthy in a vaguely condescending, amused, "check these nutters out" kind of fashion.

The actions of people who were educationally deficient do not count. do not use what a bunch of high school kids (american and otherwise)said on facebook as evidence of significance.

Nothing was ever going to happen, it was the Mayans equivalent of a Millenium. it's an arbitrary date based on when someone a long long time ago decided to start keeping track of how many days passed between when it got warm then cold then warm again.

The "The Harmonic Convergence", the comet beginning with k, and some other thing were cultural events were they? I'd never heard of them until now, and while "Me not hearing about them" is not widely accepted criteria for something being culturally significant, i do consider myself reasonably aware and well read.

The only reason i even know about the year 2000 lunacy was because i was around to see the news readers trying not snigger as they read out the stories on it..

How about this, an article is created for all these non events, with a brief outline of what was supposed to, but didn't happen, the general perception of the "event" at the time and the outcome (nothing happened). Then we can put to bed all these stupid articles on subjects that really don't warrent them. Wikipedia is awesome, but one of it main problems appears to be that people with serious psychological problems can create articles on anything.

Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt spent fortune ahead of Mayan apocalypse prophecy

Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt spent fortune ahead of Mayan apocalypse prophecy (Wow!) -- Kheider (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If we can find more examples from the US, we might be able to construct a "North America" section. Serendi^podous 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

here's one. Serendi^podous 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

first paragraph should state that the main thrust did not happen

it might be "obvious" but to properly contextualize, I propose that the first paragraph should state that no such apocalypse occurred in 2012. If you think about it, I believe you will see that this is worth including, thank you. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look above you will note that, while the world didn't physically end, most of the discussions of what would happen in 2012 were metaphysical and unfalsifiable, and there is no way to show that they did not happen. Serendi^podous 15:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as someone who actually lived through 20010-2012, that is not what a lot of the discussion actually was. A lot of people actually said the world would end, which it didn't. You can rewrite history as though these people didn't think and say that, thereby depriving anyone who doesn't have memory of this of learning what some people actually said, and indeed this is what you're doing. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Most people who believed this may (or may not) have believed that the world would end, but the vast majority of the IDEAS about 2012 involved New Agey, global enlightenment kinds of things. The New Age ideas also predate the apocalyptic claims by 30 years. Serendi^podous 18:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that many thousands (millions, if you count non-humans) did die that day. Granted, probably about the same number died the day before and after (and today). We can't say their deaths were caused by the date, but we also can't say their worlds didn't end that day. It should be very obvious to readers that they are not dead, and the lack of any mention of the Earth's complete destruction should be an adequately huge hint that it's still here. Nothing wrong with noting specific predictions didn't come true, in the body, but not appropriate for the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

'Dates beyond b'ak'tun 13' question

The date is purely notional - given the end of the Earth in several billion years, and the general adoption of space-going sentients of 'Milky Way(-Andromeda) Standard Galactic Time' (plus whatever local calendars suit them).

What will 'the universe' look like at the time, based on current forecasts? [[2]] refers. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Can the article be unlocked now? (And it should be solar flares 'peaked' rather than 'will peak' in May 2013). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that no apocalypse happened

The article seems to mostly be written from the perspective of pre-late-2012; given that time has passed, I think it probably needs to be fixed up a bit. And it really should note that no major apocalyptic event happened in December of 2012. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

1. How do we source that? 2. How do we define "apocalyptic event"? 3. How do we source the definition? Serendi^podous 06:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It is the same question I ask myself, Serendi^pod How about we look for a NASA report debunking any big bad events on a planet-wide scale, other than human caused global warming. 2. We could define it against the number of millions dead and reported by NPOV as an apocalyptic event or Internet search of apocalyptic events reported in 2012. 3. We would use a cite tag after the words "non-apoclyptic event" like so to explain what is meant. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

1. How do you prove a negative? Just because NASA says that nothing happened in late 2012, that doesn't mean nothing did. I mean hell, Typhoon Bopha killing 1600 people probably counts as an apocalyptic event, does it not? 2. How would searching the internet for apocalyptic events in 2012 show that none occurred? 3. a cite tag for what? Cited by whom? Serendi^podous 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 13, I proposed to list the costs or the aftermath of the 2012 (apoclyptic) non-event. Brave editors have explored my idea with boldness in the Public Reaction section of the article. I propose to change the title of the section to Costs of Phenomenon and Public Reaction. Please discuss. Thank you in advance for the spirited discussion that I know will follow. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that's necessary. This wasn't a hurricane or an earthquake. Yes it's sad that one girl killed herself and that Chinese guy attempted a school massacre (which from the looks of things he was going to do, 2012 or not) but other than that, what happened? A few raves were broken up, some villages didn't get what they hoped for, a few kids got to leave school early, and some idiots spent all their money while other idiots loved historic monument to death. Not really worth calling Unicef over. Serendi^podous 22:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Around December 21 2012".

Should be removed, because it wasn't to happen around 21 December 2012, but ON 21 December 2012. All the sources, websites, and people say that. 78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, some sources say 23rd. Some say 22nd, and some even say 2011. Serendi^podous 21:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And no matter which one a particular psychentist picked, time zone changes would make it another date for someone. Unless the meteor/Cthulhu/enlightenment cleanly obliterated the "yesterday" or "tomorrow" sections of the globe. And, according to the section above, it didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think "Meteor Cthulhu Enlightenment" would be a cool Wikipedia user name. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

it didn't happen! yay! --24.89.95.149 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A YEAR AGO. --24.89.95.149 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thta - edit war

User:Dogface - You have now edited the article three times to include the word "thta". This is edit warring. After you have been reverted three times and it has been pointed out that this is because you keep adding the non-existent word "thta", why don't you try editing the article with a real English language word instead? Do you really think it's appropriate to keep adding a typo? Senor Cuete (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested addition: "Siginificant events that actually occurred in 2012" (or some version of it)

Probable discovery of the Higgs boson (sometimes called "God Particle") at CERN

Main article: Higgs boson

Some theorists (e.g. those of ancient astronauts theories) suggest that there is a link between the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012, and the probable discovery of the Higgs boson by CERN in the same year. Their hypothesis is that the Mayan calendar's end was actually foretold (by time travelers or aliens who visited Earth in ancient times, and had knowledge of the future) as a future event of great importance (e.g. discovery of the Higgs boson).

CERN LHC Tunnel1

The Higgs boson or "Higgs particle" is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of Particle physics. Its main relevance is that it is the smallest possible excitation of the Higgs field – a field that unlike the more familiar electromagnetic field cannot be "turned off", but instead takes a constant value almost everywhere. The presence of this field explains why some fundamental particles have mass while the symmetries controlling their interactions should require them to be massless, and why the weak force has a much shorter range than the electromagnetic force.

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, because it is extremely hard to create excitations (i.e. Higgs particles). The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, CERN's Large Hadron Collider, able to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c² was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson. By March 2013, the particle had been proven to behave, interact and decay in many of the ways predicted by the Standard Model, and was also tentatively confirmed to have positive parity and zero spin, two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This appears to be the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature. More data is needed to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic; the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, who regard it as inappropriate sensationalism. On December 10, 2013 two of the original researchers, Peter Higgs and François Englert, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work and prediction. Englert's co-researcher Robert Brout had died in 2011 and the Nobel Prize is not given posthumously except in unusual circumstances.

Discussion

The only part of this addition that is relevant to the article is the first two lines, and they are not referenced. Serendi^podous 07:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

My laptop's battery charge got depleted before I could add a reference. I have added one now. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't verify the information in that video, since it is region-blocked. Also, I'm not sure if "Ancient Aliens" qualifies as a reliable source, but I'll leave that to consensus. Serendi^podous 08:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Brief description of episode 17 given at Ancient Aliens#Season 6 (2013-14). --EngineeringGuy (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)