| Revision as of 11:15, 4 August 2009 editJHunterJ (talk | contribs)Administrators105,776 editsm moved Talk:Nibiru/archive1 to Talk:Nibiru (hypothetical planet): move and merge with appropriate discussion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:56, 27 February 2012 edit undoSerendipodous (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,337 edits ←Redirected page to Talk:Zecharia Sitchin | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ==Dispute by Anti-Sitchin Researchers == | |||
| This article on Marduk (or Nibiru) places too much emphasis on the theories of Sitchin. Sitchin's theories aren't scientifically accepted, but this article is not about Sitchin. It is about Nibiru which is a topic of Chaldean cosmology, regardless of Sitchin's theories. I am adding the POV tag to the article.--] 23:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Sitchin may be the source of the idea of a ], but he is not the source of information on ]. Stone carvings are the only source for Nibiru. Sitchin should only be mentioned in this article as a researcher who came up with theories about Nibiru. I suggest a ] article be created. The section ] can be moved there.--] 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I went ahead and made this change and removed the POV tag. If anyone disagrees with what I did then replace the TAG and state why you think it is still POV. ] | |||
| :You rely too much on Sitchin's reading of the tablets, which are unorthodox. Please detail Sitchin's theories in this article: ]. When you present his ideas in this ] article, be careful how you present them. Sitchin's interpretations of the tablets are controversial. In many, many cases, they do not explicitly say what he claims they say. He is most often '''interpreting'''. | |||
| :I don't think it is disputed that ] is almost always referred to as the home of ], or as a celestial body of some type (so the category ] is accurate regardless), but it is very much disputed that ] referred to an unknown 12th planet. | |||
| :I'm not passing judgment on Sitchin's interpretations, but realize that they unorthodox and largely unaccepted, and cannot be presented as factual or accepted. | |||
| :If you feel that I'm wrong in erasing what I've erased from the article, discuss what you disagree with, and there may be compromise. ] 01:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reverted again== | |||
| Okay, you want to play it like that, then, and just revert? The bad news is that you lose, because in this case, most Sumerologists do not affirm that the Sumerians believed that ] was a 12th planet (and not some other celestial feature). Prove me wrong and show that many Sumerologists affirm this, or don't revert, because it will be considered vandalism unless you have credible references. ] 21:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 007 is entirely correct. Any credible source on Babylonian astronomy (and the name, ''pace'' Sitchin's devotees, is Babylonian) will tell you that Nibiru is A) Marduk's home, and B) almost always the planet Jupiter—except when it's the pole star. As the introduction to this article states. Sitchin's theories are, despite their popularity, so far outside the mainstream of ] that few have bothered to rebut them. —]] 16:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] created a near-duplicate of this article under the title ], so I moved the rest of the crackpot material there and cut this down to a stub about the genuine Nibiru. I am not sure if this qualifies as ]ing or not. —]] 17:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :If you are not sure, then why make the uncertain allegation? POV forking was not my intention. Anyway, what you did what I expected of the 2 articles. --] 6 July 2005 03:30 (UTC) | |||
| IMHO, ] should only contain information related to beliefs of the Sumerians. ] should contain all the theories, arguments, critic remarks, etc regarding Sitchin's and other's claims about "Nibiru." --] 6 July 2005 03:30 (UTC) | |||
| == how many articles does one crackpot need? == | |||
| There are now three articles devoted, in whole or in significant part, to discussing Sitchin's loopy theories of Mesopotamian cosmology: this article, ], and ]. There are references to them scattered, quite inappropriately in most cases, in several more: ], ], ], and ]. (Since I found these through ], it's quite likely that there are others infected with this BS, only without proper attribution.) I do not believe that this is good for Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topics; I consider it akin to mentioning creationism in random biology articles. | |||
| I propose cleaning the junk out of the real articles on ancient Near Eastern mythology and astronomy and piling it all in one place, perhaps Sitchin's own article, perhaps one devoted to his series of books ('']'' or '']''). Only the briefest mention and link should be left behind. Is this a good idea? —]] 07:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Most certainly. --] 11:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I regards to ], I compiled all the Sitchin stuff into one category, which was a bit of work. Before that the article made no differentiation between the "real" Enki and Sitchin's version. Hence, I made the Sitchin section to prevent further infection to the good info. --] 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| A text search found "Sitchin" in these articles: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]. ] 18:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == About Sedna's orbit in comparison to Nibiru's == | |||
| "His research proposes that since it possesses a highly elliptical, 3630-year orbit. Such a planet would be approximately in the same orbit as 90377 Sedna" | |||
| Firstly, he claims 3660 if I remember correctly.. And secondly, the part about having the same orbit of Sedna is completely unfounded. When Sedna was revealed as red in 2004 and then changed it's color to blue (different filters, duh) a bunch of the whackos in the Godlike Productions community decided it was a coverup and Sedna was Nibiru. By that point they had already made up the theories about Sedna being Nibiru, and the blue only seemed to confirm it for them. Thus the part in quotations is wrong, void, false, unfounded, and quite honestly stupid. | |||
Latest revision as of 15:56, 27 February 2012
Redirect to: