This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 24 April 2009 (→Merge tag: punctuation typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:12, 24 April 2009 by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (→Merge tag: punctuation typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Years C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Mesoamerica (inactive) | |||
| ||||
 | Skepticism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
2012 in other calendars
2012 in the "Arvisura" (legend collection of the sumeer-scytha-hungarian ancient chronicles, "Arvisura" is cca "Truthful Speech") is 6053. "medvetoros év" ("year of bear's thorax"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.20.30 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotlight on the UK
Many of the 'Year Pages' on Misplaced Pages have an introduction, describing the main events, and also stating whether it is a common year and the day of the week the year begins. Therefore, please do NOT delete the factual information regarding the United Kingdom. Also, terms such as HRH and Her Majesty have been used in accordance with British Tradition with refering to the Monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvyvrmnt6789 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Eastern Orthodox Easter Date
I can't seem to figure out how to edit the page. Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar to calculate the date of Easter (Pascha) and it differs in 2012, being on April 15 rather than April 12. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second largest of all Christian churches and so this date should be added if we are also to include the date of the Western Easter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilion301 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
7 reasons the world will end in 2012
7 reasons the world will end in 2012, basically what they have is seven proven facts that the world might end in 2012, should these facts be noted in the article? Androo123 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hard to tell in this medium whether you're being serious, or sarcastic. Either way, the answer would be no. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Net neutrality (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I would say no, the website is a forum/blog, and does not cite sources and is not reliable. Besides, be might already have some of the information here and in seperate articles (eg. metaphysical predictions), but other than that it does not deserve any more than a brief mention. This is a significant claim, which means we will need a significant and reliable source other than this one for something like this. Thanks. ~AH1 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you search at amazon.com for books about 2012, you will find A LOT of books predicting an apocalypse in 2012, and VERY FEW of them are mentioned in the "metaphysical predictions" section. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=2012 --Zanthius (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. This page about "7 reasons the world will end" is awesome... but not encyclopedic at all, with no reference and making obviously unrelated claims (the world will end in a human-created black hole or because of a super-volcano?) By the way, the LHC won't create a black hole : it is weaker than the cosmic radiations hitting our planet every single day. Thanks anyway for the good laught.Kromsson (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Not that I don't believe you, but it says that it might be a possibility in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Large_Hadron_Collider#Micro_black_holes --Zanthius (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, intersting discussion... But still, the first experiments will begin sooner than 2012, so there is no link to the other doomsday prediction. (and I let you know about this, my country will be at the frontline in case of human-created black hole.) Kromsson (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course the Large Hadron Collider isn't what is going to cause the apocalypse. Computers connected on the Internet like neurons in a brain. The awakening of the global brain, that is what the new world of the Maya calendar is all about. --Zanthius (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, not all scientists are so sure that are black holes from LHC so harmless: http://www.scientificblogging.com/big_science_gambles/interview_professor_otto_rossler_takes_on_the_lhc --Popski (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
bewerken
Why do all the section edit links say "bewerken" instead of "edit"? — DeFender1031 08:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please check your language preferences.... Could be a subtle vandal at the system level, but I don't think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The end of the internet
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2640 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.132.199 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable? I think not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1 2 3, maybe? The first states confirmation. 69.182.132.199 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Alex Jones? Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. We don't want one of these on the article. Isn't there anything slightly more reliable? Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to be a super genius in order to understand that huge companies wants to make more money, and that they can gain more money in a controlled internet where their websites are cooperating to get all the visitors while shutting out the rest.
Not that I believe that stupidity and egoism will be victorious in 2012. I think there are stronger forces generating enlightenment.--Zanthius (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I found a website you might want to take a look at on this subject. http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.87.230 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
End of Internet in 2012? That...is...absolutely...NONSENSE! So are those darn sayings about the end of Earth! Neither Internet's end nor Earth's end will happen!Don-Don (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Anybody who can't see that our global society is within a macroshift now, is a complete idiot. Take a look at the emerging technologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_emerging_technologies , or this page about accelerating change: http://en.wikipedia.org/Accelerating_change --62.63.34.231 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Restored Mesoamerican LC calendar text
I restored the original text at the December 21 entry here (description of correlation of this date to the Mesoam/Maya Long Count calendar), which had recently been much abbreviated. Given the ever-increasing tide of apocalyptic, New Age and pop-culture mythology and flim-flammery building up around this correlation, I think it's relevant and useful to describe as precisely as possible the actual—as opposed to the invented—significance of the date in the Long Count calendar system. The LC is after all the ultimate inspiration for all of this breathless, popular yet misguided speculation. Also, since it relies upon a particular correlation (out of many that have been proffered in the past), we need to specify what that correlation is. Likewise, the particular Western calendar system being used needs to be noted, since you get quite a different outcome if the correlation is based on, say, the Julian calendar. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Patrik Geryl Suggestion
I suggest adding a note to this text:
# Patrik Geryl predicts a pole reversal. This has happened many times in the past. Geryl is predicting that the North Pole and South Pole will reverse and cause the Earth to start rotating in the opposite direction. He does not explain from where the required energy will come. The Earth functions as a gigantic gyroscope. The energy required to rotate the poles would be immense.
There is no scientific indication that physical rotation of Earth would be affected by a pole reversal. The earth would continue to rotate in the same direction, and would only "appear" to rotate in the opposite direction relative to the compass. The sun would still rise in the direction you are accustomed to, but we might start calling that direction "West" instead of "East". (or more likely just adjust our compasses) Gwiffon (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Solar Max
In 2012 is a solar maximum or solar max. During solar max sunspots appear. sunspotsare associated with solar flares and coronal mass ejection. which can disrupt radio communications, cause blackout or even worst, can lead to the demise of the ozone layer or even death from raditaion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.43.33 (talk • contribs) 00:42, August 26, 2008
Misspellings
Under Metaphysical predictions, "Several author have published" --Bhaelochon (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Now fixed, thanks.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The World Won't End in 2012
I found a great source of claims that deny the end of the world, transformation in 2012: Explained - Why It Shouldn't Be Feared, but since this is a blog, it isn't a great encyclopedic source. Similar to the page "7 reasons why the world will have to end in 2012" or whatever it was called. The only thing we would have to worry about in this blog's and my opinion would be a possible pole reversal. CMac11814 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Somehow it says "NOT FOUND" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMac11814 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Charles Manson Scheduled for Parole hearing in 2012
Charles Manson Denied Parole 11 Times
Tuesday May 29, 2007
For the 11th time since 1978 when he first became eligible, cult leader Charles Manson was denied parole by the California Board of Paroles. The board voted to deny Manson parole for five more years, making the convicted killer next eligible for release in 2012. Manson, now 72 years old, did not bother to attend the parole hearing. He has said in the past that he considers himself a "prisoner of the political system" who will never be released.
"He refused to cooperate, so the conclusion they drew from the reports is he still remains a danger to the public," said Patrick Sequeira, Los Angeles County deputy district attorney. "He was convicted of nine horrible murders. He has expressed no remorse or empathy for any of the victims."
Manson was originally given the death sentence, which was changed in 1977 to life in prison with the possibility of parole, after a 1972 ruling by the California Supreme Court that found the state's death penalty unconstitutional.
Manson was convicted for the August 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders in the Los Angeles area. Although Manson himself did not take part in the murders, he ordered his followers to carry them out to incite a race war that he believed was prophesied in the Beatles song "Helter Skelter."
Manson was also convicted of the murder of musician Gary Hinman and former stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea at the Spahn movie ranch in Chatsworth, where the Manson Family lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohare4271 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Spelling Error
2012 is claimed by some with New age beliefs to be a great year of spiritual transformation (or alternatively an apocalypse). There is disagreement among believers as to whether 2012 will see an end of civilization, or humanity will be elevated to a higher level.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredgman (talk • contribs) 15:14, September 17, 2008
- Done. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Track 9 "2012" at the Enigma Album from Ill Nino
shouldn't this be added ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.4.217.14 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
April 1st 2012
The page list that on "April 1 - The United States Census of 1940 data is released to the public." Am I incorrect in thinking we already have this information? It seems to be listed Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/United_States_Census,_1940
Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycospyder (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whether it's notable enough for this article is another question (my feeling is "yes", but others seem to differ), but everything in this article should be listed in another article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with it being listed here, but what exactly is being released that day? The link I posted above seems to be the information to be released. Hasn't this already happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycospyder (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought of that problem. The raw data from the census is released at that time. I have no idea if it's machine-readable, but the data from later censuses probably would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
New 2012 Movie
{{editsemiprotected}} New Film Seeking Closure is about 2012 and can be found on Imdb
(Beerguts (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- Once it's notable enough to have an article, feel free to re-submit. Skier Dude (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Religious Holidays - Hindu dates
30th Feb 2012 - Maha Shivaratri 15th March 2012 - Holi 6th May 2012 - Buddha Jayanti 9th Aug 2012 - Krishna Janmashtami 19th Sept 2012 - Ganesh Chathuri 5th Oct 2012 - Navratri (starts) 16th Oct 2012 - Navaratri (ends) 28th Oct - Diwali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-singularity (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Also please note that dates for Winter and Summer solstice are not the same in the Southern Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
London Olympics
isn't the 2012 olympics in london on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcradick0 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2008
- Indeed, and you will find it noted under "July" when it is scheduled to commence. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
come on people!
Why dont they just say every posible,horible,unimaginable,hideous thing that could ever happen happens in 2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.124.3 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- The metaphysical speculations section is actually fairly low on actual content. Given that 12/21/12 is the end of a baktun, let's then add some explanation about why this has become a significant reference in our culture. Who is making predictions? Who are the players? Let's add encyclopedic information to it. Can we find an expert or someone willing to research the topic? Antireconciler (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong place for this however. IF there isn't a suitable article, it may be possible to create one. dougweller (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Doug, a detailed examination of 2012 millenarianism would be off-topic for this article on the year itself. Same goes for articles like Maya calendar. However, having a separate article on it may not be a bad idea, if only to have somewhere to funnel the speculative edits and discussions that will surely increase as we draw closer to the date. To the best of my knowledge we have no dedicated article ATM.
- Perhaps someone like Hoopes (talk · contribs) could be prevailed upon to set the ball rolling; he's a KU anthropologist/archaeologist prof who's one of the few academics to have written on the phenomenon, and as a sometime contributor here he may be able to help out. Quite likely he's busy on other projects, tho. Might drop him a line and see if he's interested. As it happens, have just been listening to an interview with him at gnosticmedia podcast, recorded last month on the very topic of 2012 speculations. From that I gather he traces a lot of the popular interest in the 2012 end date back to Michael Coe's 1966 edition of The Maya, which seems to have been the source used by the first speculative writers for an apocalyptic or millenarian association with the Maya calendar.
- Problem is, while there are any number of trade paperbacks written on various speculations, few published materials or criticisms come from established academic sources, ie publs. that we might consider as WP:RS. But there might be enough now out there that could be used to base an article on. I understand Anthony Aveni has a book coming out on 2012 soon, for eg. Otherwise, we'd have to track down papers that go into some of the background to the development of the 2012 movement, by folks who are not themselves part-n-parcel of the popular writing movement. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- FYI: there is also Galactic Alignment, which should probably be merged into any new page that is created on the topic. --mikeu 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Probably not. Problem with merging a new "12/21/2012 mythology" article with Galactic Alignment is that the G-A is (or at least is supposed to be) an inevitable actual galactic astronomical and astrophysical phenomenon, and that its article (at least as of this writing) is devoid of any absurd pseudo-scientific speculation about the solar system or earth-moon system pulling itself apart or whatever as a result of interference with hypothetical intergalactic tidal forces or something. I also have serious doubts about a galactic event which takes tens of thousands of years to cycle through can be measured and defined as to where the "bulls eye" is, so precisely as to be defined as falling on a specific date and time, especially considering that today is tomorrow (or perhaps yesterday) on the other side of the date line - similar to the idea of when exactly did Y2k arrive. Now - I could see a decent independent article arising concerning the whole mythology of 12/21/2012, with good sourcing. The G-A article could perhaps safely mention or refer to that general date mythology, but it should not become permanently attached and contaminated with it. There should be no significant editing required, once "the date" comes and goes, with no measurable effects beyond perhaps a few news reports of crowds of folks on mountain tops being not rescued by UFOs or Jesus. Of course, if the galaxy does implode, or Jesus comes back, then it is probably all moot, more or less. Anyway a short "Speculation About..." section within the G-A article might make sense, again with suitable reliable sourcing (eg: perhaps History Channel summaries, mostly to assert that the speculation exists, notwithstanding the controversial and mythological status), but such speculation should not become the overriding tone, either at G-A or here. The reader could always click over to the hypothetical main article for 12/21 mythology if desired. --T-dot ( /contribs ) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's think this idiot who predicted it was a totally desperate. The Mayans didn't die out they left. Mayans left because they built their homes near the ocean and a drought hit. They had no fresh water source. Some priests even told people the religion was bogus. So hearing this people began to leave so they could get water and also avoid that stupid religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.4.103 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
music
metal band jakota rose have a song called twenty12
with lyrics "ill see you all in 2012, come one come all this world will fall" and "so grab your mates and hold them tight there will be fire in the sky tonight" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gapwing (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
WEB
{{editsemiprotected}}
A WEB section under FICTION would be instructive:
There is a new crop of humorous sites that are using parody as a way to discuss the event. Worth noting : http://www.geddongear.comTweak2020 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Not done: I would think that this statement would not be helpful in an excyclopedia. Leujohn 09:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
2012 predictions
The most advanced models presented at the 2007 meeting of the American Geophysical Union anticipated an ice-free Arctic in the summer as early as 2013 or even 2012 ??? = where will all of the melted ice go to ? = flooding ?? = new seaways open allowing access to North pole for countries to explore and to rape for minerals could cause a war ? Two large dams to be removed in 2012 in Upper USA = ? severe flooding ??
2012 Doomsday prediction
Just letting people know that this new article exists. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Religious holidays
Can we come up with a more neutral term than "Christianity" for holidays such as Christmas and Easter... as the list correctly notes, the Orthodox Churchs celebrate these holidays on other days of the year... and Orthodox Christians are no less a part of Christianity than the Roman Catholic or various Protestant denominations. Perhaps "Majority of Christian denominations"? Blueboar (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
2012 Movie Based Era
The movie "The Postman" with Kevin Costner is based in 2012. The world is unorganized and there has been plague in certain places. Morale is low, so is life in general. Everything seems to have gone the opposite direction in advancements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokmongo (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
ROC 100th anniversary
Arthur Rubin, why did you revert my edit? ROC was established on 1-1-1912 RayYung (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Answered on my talk page. Anniversaries are not included in (future) year articles unless there are present, notable, sourced, plans for commemmoration, and maybe not even then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Call of Duty 4
Should it be noted in gaming that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare took place in the year 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.154.144 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- If accurate, and if the game has an article which confirms that, it's appropriate for the "in fiction" or "in video games" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Whoops my bad, 2011 :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.154.144 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
View Source
LOL pseudoscience. I see all this troofing has led to enough vandalism to cause the 2012 article to be semi-protected. First of all: there is no Planet X. Second of all, Earth Changes relies in part on obsolete geology, which has been surpassed by the more accurate plate tectonics theory. How would Atlantis or Mu rise "again" if they were never there to begin with, and is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge really eruptive enough to create an "Atlantis"? (Well, it built Iceland, but that was hot spot volcanism, and I don't know of any other hot spots under the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.) As for Mu, there is an oceanic ridge at the boundaries of the Nazca Plate and Pacific Plate, but it's not likely to produce land. No land means no real displacement of water; no real displacement of water means no sea level rises swamping existing land. Finally, the idea of a rapid pole shift is also bunk. The Earth has a lot of inertia; how is it supposed to tilt without something big hitting it or affecting it somehow? Since there's apparently no planet X or anything similar in size, we might as well conclude the Earth will stay on roughly the same axis it has in the past. Now that this troofy stuff has been disproven, let's get on with the events that may realistically happen in 2012, and not worry about the troofy stuff. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
WTF (or: Doomsday-related material)
Can anyone reduce the drivel in "Geophysical and cosmological" to a paragraph? •Jim62sch• 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with this sentiment. AT the moment it basically says this, "Random crank with no evidence predicts cosmological event which will have implications to Earth (i.e. it ties in with the whole Mayan Calendar 2012 thing), but people who know what they are talking about (e.g. Nature) disagree." Why are we giving so much space to all this pseudoscience? This article is supposed to be what is expected to happen by reasonable people in 2012, not what crazy New Age people predict will happen. Did we accept the idea of some in the media that the LHC was going to destroy us all by creating a giant black hole? No. So why should we accept this crap as if its the equal to the work done by real astronomers? 86.155.7.136 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Been there, done that, got... roasted, probably! :( Do join in! --PL (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alas, the tripe met its own doomsday. Now, 2012 Doomsday prediction needs a lot of help. Go get 'em. :) •Jim62sch• 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Aw, I dunno. Doesn't the title say it all, without any help from me? OK, I've been through it with a fine-tooth comb (and not a fine tooth-comb!), but I'm not sure how much good it'll do. Ditto the article on the History Channel. Meanwhile, hardly a squeak from anybody here! The calm before the storm? --PL (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Quarantining all of the 2012 guff off into its own article is probably for the best. Easier to deal with spot fires when they are corralled in a central place, instead of smouldering across mutliple articles. This 2012 article will no doubt still require constant monitoring, tho... --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- You bet! --PL (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Moving fiction to the subarticle was a mistake. Even if most of the fiction relates to doomsday scenarios, I can point to a few which don't. I think I've reversed that properly, although it's difficult to determine. (Also, one of the subarticle edits added 2012 (film) a second time.) It would be tempting to add some of the doomsday stuff presented as fact to the fiction (literature) section, but that might be considered WP:BIASed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see any fiction that doesn't relate in some way to the doomsday scenario, which has no business here. Discuss which? In case of doubt, I suggest assuming the worst. --PL (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you guys talking about the references section? As they no longer reference anything, they have no purpose, and basically violate MoS by being there. In other words, they need to go. •Jim62sch• 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Arthur here, and have restored the fiction section to this article. For one thing, fiction sections are standard parts of Misplaced Pages year articles, whereas these sort of lists would be chaotic and non-WP:SS in a piece of regular prose such as 2012 Doomsday prediction. Additionally, the Doomsday article is not separated from this one due to any POV distinction between "fact" and "fiction"--the predictions about 2012 do not come from novels or anything else containing the plot and character required for fictional narrative; the only element of narrative that they consistently possess is setting--but rather because there is so much to say about the predictions that it cannot be fit neatly into the 2012 timeline. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only fiction that legitimately belongs in this article is fiction that (a) is about ordinary calendar events in the sense of the article and (b) definitely has nothing whatever to do with the 2012 Doomsday prediction myth, which has its own article. Having been carefully through the proposed fiction list, and found only half-a-dozen or so references that fulfil these two criteria, I have therefore let them stand (even though I'm not sure even about one or two of those), and quite properly deleted all the rest.--PL (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. Please get consensus before blanking the article again. And stop duplicating 2012 (film). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- As for the reference section; that should be moved to the subarticle. Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only fiction that legitimately belongs in this article is fiction that (a) is about ordinary calendar events in the sense of the article and (b) definitely has nothing whatever to do with the 2012 Doomsday prediction myth, which has its own article. Having been carefully through the proposed fiction list, and found only half-a-dozen or so references that fulfil these two criteria, I have therefore let them stand (even though I'm not sure even about one or two of those), and quite properly deleted all the rest.--PL (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody's blanking any articles -- merely arranging their content more logically. People looking for fiction based on the facts of 2012 don't want to have to wade through endless irrelevant titles devoted to the fantasies of 2012 Doomsday prediction -- especially as their inclusion gives the impression that these are relevant to the facts, which they're not. People, on the other hand, who are interested in the fantasies might well want to read fiction based on them. Far be it for me to stand in their way. Ergo, place the fact-based titles with the factual article, and the fantasy-based ones with the fantasy-based one, and provide an obvious link to both. That is what I did. As for repeating the duplicated film reference, apologies -- please correct as necessary if I inadvertently do it again (being basically filmspam, it should't really be there anyway).
- The factual reference list (or rather the source-list), meanwhile, needs to go with the factual article, not the fantasy one. Anything else would be ludicrous. So please, as you yourself insist, stop shifting unsuitable material to the subarticle.
- As for 'consensus', it looks as if the odds here are currently against you 3-2 on the proposal to keep the fact-based stuff and the fantasy-based stuff separate -- so please (since you once again insist) obtain consensus before you revert again. --PL (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I realise that most year articles, at least those related to the past century, have fiction sections, but that doesn't necessarily make the inclusion of such sections encyclopaedic. If the sections must exist, they should be as short as possible and not serve as adverts for the books or films. •Jim62sch• 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ahem. It's WP:BRD. You (PL)were bold in moving the fiction, and were reverted. Please don't do it again until you get consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're talking about. Fiction is still there. --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And you (PL) are the only one who has moved the fiction; I'd say it's 4 to 2 in favor of keeping it, but that's not a clear consensus, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- But it's still there! What on earth are you on about? --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no object to a separate article 2012 in fiction, but I do object to the fiction being embedded in the doomsday prediction article at this time. As for the references, almost all of them are about the truth of the Mayan calendar, which makes it relevant to the "Doomsday" article as refutation, not relevant to this article. If any of the references are not about the Mayan calendar, go ahead and restore them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've restored the references section. The entries in this biblio listing were directly paired with inline cites/notes that exist in this article. Without the references containing the works these inline cites refer to, the inline cites are not much use. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. You're right, of course. Please check that it's still OK following the latest edit. --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could someone please try to explain to Arthur that the Fiction section is still there, and that nobody is moving it anywhere? He seems to be living on another planet. Either that, or he is simply not reading the article and reverting blindly, which is not advised. See WP:BRD. --PL (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I still see it. Really -- it's still there. •Jim62sch• 14:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- And now it is out of control and overly large. 2012 Hoodoo already exists as an article and that's where the crap related specifically to said hoodoo should go. Arthur has mangled so much of the article that it isn't even funny. •Jim62sch• 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fiction should be in 2012#2012 in fiction or 2012 in fiction, not in 2012 doomsday prediction. So far, in these atricles, there's 3 to 2 in favor of keeping it here.
Y2K fiction isn't split off into the Y2K article, why should 2012 doomsday fiction.Apparently I was wrong, but there is no 2000#2000 in fiction, or 2001#2001 in fiction, although there is a 1999#Fictional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fiction should be in 2012#2012 in fiction or 2012 in fiction, not in 2012 doomsday prediction. So far, in these atricles, there's 3 to 2 in favor of keeping it here.
- If the fiction is related to the doomsday bullshit it belongs in that article. It's that simple. •Jim62sch• 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Even if we don't decide to put the pseudo-factual literature in that section (as tempting as it might be), there's dispute as to what belongs there. Do you want to include any disaster set in 2012? The Doctor Who and Futurama episodes there are not "Doomsday" scenarios (well, maybe Doctor Who, but almost all Doctor Who episodes involve a disaster), and Death Race seems inadequate, even if it were sourced. There's little dispute as to what year a film is set it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- If the fiction is related to the doomsday bullshit it belongs in that article. It's that simple. •Jim62sch• 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- If they are unrelated to the doomsday nonsense, they can stay -- exactly as PL had done! If one has never seen the film, I only have your word that it took place in 2012. Get it? •Jim62sch• 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to see you discussing the question rationally, Arthur, but there's no reason to insist that it has to be either/or when it can be both/and. As you may have noticed (if you bothered to look), the fiction list that I am appending to the 2012 Doomsday prediction article is fiction that is specifically devoted to that idea, whereas the fiction list that I am attaching to the 2012 article is not, but simply relates to the year 2012, however tangentially and inconsequentially in your view or mine. Consequently the two lists are quite different -- as they clearly should be. I welcome the fact that you seem to have noticed (at last!).
- As for the references/sources section, everywhere else in Misplaced Pages (as in academic works generally), the references are there to support the text, not to refute it -- just as, if you were going for a job, you wouldn't expect the referee to say how useless you were. Unless there has been a change of Wikipolicy, that is therefore how they should be used -- unless you want to create a new section entitled 'Anti-references', that is.
- We have the makings of two quite decent articles here, and it would be a pity to let personal bees in bonnets and unheard-of academic policies cloud the issues and make the 2012 article less reputable by fictional or referential association. --PL (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- See the split section below as to the problems I see with spliting the fiction sections. Or do you want to try for 3 lists; clearly not related to a Doomsday scenario; clearly related to a Doomsday scenario, and unclear? I would say only about 50% of the ones PL has moved to the subarticle are clear from information available on Misplaced Pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, no, just a single separate article '2012 in fiction', since fiction is just that -- fiction! Put whatever you like into it. Or else junk the lot. It's so interesting and relevant that I probably shan't even bother to look at it! ;) --PL (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Fiction split
The split of the fiction section between 2012 and 2012 Doomsday prediction is a matter of significant dispute. Even if we were not to include pseudo-factual material, there may be dispute as to whether a specific item of literature, even if it reflects a disaster, is really an example of the 2012 Doomsday prediction genre. I think they should be merged, possibly into a new article, but the split will reflect WP:OR in some instances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure if it would be OR, I'm just not sure. It could, I suppose -- unless we can verify that the item deals in some way with the Mayan calendar -- and most of them seem to. •Jim62sch• 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the idea of hiving off ALL fiction relating to 2012 into a separate section is just fine. Then we can finally leave 2012 Doomsday prediction and 2012 to do their separate jobs -- the one to tackle the fantasies surrounding the date, the other to display the facts in the light of the Mayan calendar. --PL (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- 2012 in fiction created from pre-split information. I don't think anything correct was added after that point, but I suggest that others check and complete copying new or modified information, and then merge properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge tag
Who in the world put that tag on? Anyway, the answer is no. Final answer. •Jim62sch• 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The section merge tag is based on (1) the status quo ante, and (2) the agreement of CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs) and myself. You are in no position to say "no", but ththe linked discussion section above suggests restoring the merged fiction section into a separate article, to which I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then by all means do it! --PL (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my good man, I can say no whenever I wish. No, really, I can. I didn't read the tag that way -- I must look again. •Jim62sch• 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see how "It has been suggested that 2012 Doomsday prediction#2012 doomsday in fiction be merged into this article or section." matches what you are saying. Try again, please. •Jim62sch• 18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree this page is receiving 286K hits per month. Compare this with 2011, 13.6k and 2013 15.4K. The reason for this interest is the amount of chatter going on about the so called changes / doomsday rightly or wrongly predicted for the year. The article needs to reflect this in some way rather than divert it all to other pages. Lumos3 (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's only the fiction that (despite the unhelpful language above) it is proposed to divert -- and that isn't going to tell them anything, is it? --PL (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- A link to the "fiction" article should be sufficient. None of this hype is based on reality, just fiction. btw, it's really 2029 we need to worry about -- *wink* •Jim62sch• 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Tags corrected, per my newly created 2012 in fiction from pre-fiction-section-split copy. If others care to verify that I haven't missed any correct updates, and complete the merge, it would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Predictions that the world's end or a major transition will come on or about 2012-DEC-21, Religioustolerance.org