Comments for page "Why 2012?"

Re: A better Bibliography

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:08:05 +0000

Kim Miller said

Trust me on this, wikipedia is NOT yet a reputable source!

I think we can safely say that wikipedia never will be, because of its policies regarding printed versus online sources. I've now had two bad experiences with wikipedia because of this.

In the second experience, I tried to put material about Jenkins' drug use in the the "John Major Jenkins" article, quoting from his book The 2012 Story. I was told that I couldn't cite it unless I found something in addition, that would be "verifiable" (which appears to mean available online, free of charge).

In the first experience, the wikipedia article "2012 Phenomenon" had cited an on-line article that misquoted John Major Jenkins in a way prejudicial to him. I tried to have Wikipedia include the correct quote, from Jenkins' Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, but was cited Wikipedia policies to support the editors' decision that because the (inaccurate) online article was "verifiable", the misquote would stand. It was still there last time I checked, about 2 weeks ago.

As long as Wikipedia favors "verifiable" on-line second-hand sources (even if inaccurate) over original printed sources, Wikipedia will never be truly reliable.

Re: A better Bibliography

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:19:55 +0000

Hi Kim;

We're working on it. Would you like to help?

By the way, how are your 8th graders reacting to the "2012 doomsday" hoax?

Re: A better Bibliography

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:24:55 +0000

Please, update your references to include only peer-reviewed published journal articles, valid encyclopedia sources, or books by professional academics. Trust me on this, wikipedia is NOT yet a reputable source! (It's often fine for a quick unofficial math or science overview, but otherwise, use with caution.) If we're trying to teach students to avoid irrational hype, we need to demonstrate proper use of valid, careful research. Just because it's quick and easy doesn't make it accurate.
Please understand, I really very much appreciate all the work you've done on these pages. The site promises to be of great service to inquiring people all over the world in the next two years, especially when the references are improved.
Thanks so much,
Kim Miller,
8th grade science teacher
Santa Barbara, CA

Re: Footnote inaccuracies

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:39:34 +0000

Hi Dom,
Thanks for your comments. It is very encouraging when we hear from those of you who realize that the 2012 hysteria is, as you said, fear mongering for profit.

Footnote inaccuracies

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:12:00 +0000

I am writing to clear up a blatantly misleading comment, quoted below (emphasis mine):

"The calendar actually doesn't end on 12/21/2012 any more than the gregorian calendar ended on 12/31/1999, or when that tin of Tuna expired"

As was explained to me by Bumble Bee Tuna: The product, having being cooked in water or oil after being sealed within the can, is completely sterile. It never truly expires and will keep for our life time unless the can is dented or breached. Any date that some canneries put on tune cans indicates when the meat will begin to take on a strong metallic taste and be much less appealing, despite being edible for many more years (ignoring possible mercury content, of course).

;)

All joking aside, thanks for fighting the good fight versus ignorance, fear mongering, and those looking to profit from that.

Re: Clarification

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:01:17 +0000

Hi Yehasher;

That is correct… that statement was meant as sarcasm. Maybe I'll add a footnote.

Clarification

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:18:39 +0000

Just to clarify, I'm all with you on the "this is the stupidest thing I've heard" stuff when it comes to the 2012 "prophecies".

However, it's not the fault of the Maya, it's the fault of the media outlets, and improper interpretations by people who are not qualified, and wanting to make a profit off of this because they're not smart enough to figure out any other way.

It doesn't end, it simply goes to 13.0.0.0.1

Re: A better Bibliography

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:57:26 +0000

Hi Matthew;

Yes, I agree. Would you like to help us upgrade our references? :-D

A better Bibliography

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:51:11 +0000

Although it is easy to quote and use Wikipedia as a source, a much better reference would be peer reviewed and/or academic articles. Here is an excellent paper done by a Dartmouth professor about the Mayan calendar:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~izapa/M-32.pdf

Re: Mayan Calendar

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:06:57 +0000

Re: Mayan Calendar

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:02:53 +0000

That is true of the "calendar round", which proceeds on a cycle that repeats every 52 years. However, the Long Count calendar is not cyclical, but is rather a numeric count from a given starting point, similar in concept to our gregorian (AD) calendar.

Having said that, the "Long Count" calendar is open ended. The highest order date counts are billions of years long.

Schele and Freidel (1990) contend that the current calendar does not 'end' until the day 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 ( counting from the theoretical end of the previous world in 3114 BC ). Each column is equal to twenty times its predecessor, so that date lies some 41,341,049,999,999,999,999,999,994,879 years in the future!

See Mayan Prediction

Mayan Calendar

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:28:47 +0000

The Mayan calender is round, it starts on 16 January 2013 and never ends. If the world ends some day the Mayan calender will still keep going.