| Revision as of 17:28, 11 July 2007 editMainstream astronomy (talk | contribs)77 edits →Why is the neutrality of this article disputed?← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:36, 7 April 2008 edit undo69.110.42.15 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| nibiru is said to come within spiting distence of our solar system every 3630 years, and that , suposedly, is going to be 2012. also said, during 12, it will cuase grate erthquakes and title wave. | |||
| ==How can this article be improved?== | |||
| This is a growing article. There are many ways it could be improved. For example: | |||
| would be of a great help. | |||
| *Adding further detail through research | |||
| --] 09:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Adding sources | |||
| *Adding outside links | |||
| *Adding books or other media in which this or a similar astronomical object appears. | |||
| == Dispute == | |||
| These are just a few ideas. Can anyone think of more? ] 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Adding more sources sharing knowledge that is contradicting some of Sitchin's theories | |||
| *Make sure people know that Sitchin's theories are NOT accepted as proper science by the scientific community in the west (this has nothing to do with my own opinion) | |||
| *Explain some of the differences between the theories of Sitchin and the western scientific community | |||
| *Explain more about the language itself, give sources to other translators and translations | |||
| 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 am not quite sure how this messaging system works. We'll see. I am Dutch by the way, I will try my very best to use all of my English language skills. | |||
| 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. ] | |||
| Well, Mrwuggs, I have a few more suggestions. I think it is a good thing the author seems careful about not presenting Sitchin's theories as facts. On the other hand, the author seems very biased as well, presenting almost nothing but Sitchin's theories. I do not have a problem with having an opinion, I give Sitchin credit and believe most of his theories myself. But an author trying to share true information should also shred enough light on the disputable credentials of Sitchin and on the differences between the translations from different sources (researchers, translators and scientists). Writing an article here requires responsibility, as many thousands of people worldwide will get their information from this site. That's why I have not yet written anything here, it would require many hours of research and work and even then my article would still be influenced by my own opinion in the end, biased, in other words. So, the suggestions are added to the ones above. | |||
| :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 am sorry that this messaging system shows one line of text in such an unusual way, I have tried to correct it over and over but nothing seems to do the trick. I have done nothing out of the ordinary, I just typed it like I typed everything else. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :: It was corrected by removing the unnecessary end of line in the bullet list. ] 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| I would like to see that research added to this article. And I don't think you have to be so afraid to contribute - if your opinion shines through too much, someone will call you on it and make an improvement. The important thing is that people are willing to spend time working on the article. If you are interested in the subject, be my guest. While you are at it, check out ] and the rest of the ] category. We can use all the help we can get. ] 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ==Why is the neutrality of this article disputed?== | |||
| What specifically can be changed to remedy this problem? ] 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reverted again== | |||
| :Well, specifically, the line about the evolutionary missing linke definitely shows a lack of neutrality. I already removed that line (and changed nothing else) as it was extremely argumentative toward mainstream science. Not saying that anything anti-mainstream science is argumentative, but merely that it worded in a biased fashion and has absolutely no value except for opinionated bias. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Inorder to further improve the neutrality, I would suggest presenting both the mathematical evidence for Nibiru (the previously observed eccentricities in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune) and the corrected orbital calculations once the Voyager (or was it Pioneer?) probes took new measurements of the masses, thus eliminating the observed discrepencies. Anyway, it's a line of research that probably should be conducted for the article. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :I would also seperate the arguments for and against into seperate sections. Such as leave the theory section mostly as it is and then move the critical statements into a "Criticism" section. Then both sections can be expounded upon without making the article seem to be hardly more than sentences of batting pros and cons back and forth. ] 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Lucy | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This is an excellent idea. I would whole-heartedly support the efforts of anyone who felt that they could overhaul the article in this manner. ] 17:22, 29 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ==Redirected this article== | |||
| :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) | |||
| Following the rationale outlined at the discussion at ], this article has been redirected to the article ]. --] 17:28, 11 July 2007 (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. | |||
Revision as of 17:36, 7 April 2008
nibiru is said to come within spiting distence of our solar system every 3630 years, and that , suposedly, is going to be 2012. also said, during 12, it will cuase grate erthquakes and title wave.
would be of a great help. --TracyRenee 09:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dispute
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.--AI 23:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sitchin may be the source of the idea of a 12th Planet, but he is not the source of information on Nibiru. 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 12th Planet article be created. The section 12th planet theories can be moved there.--AI 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. User:AI
- You rely too much on Sitchin's reading of the tablets, which are unorthodox. Please detail Sitchin's theories in this article: Zecharia Sitchin. When you present his ideas in this Nibiru 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 Nibiru is almost always referred to as the home of Marduk, or as a celestial body of some type (so the category Ancient astronomy is accurate regardless), but it is very much disputed that Nibiru 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. Alexander 007 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 Nibiru 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. Alexander 007 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 Assyriology that few have bothered to rebut them. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
12th Planet
User:AI created a near-duplicate of this article under the title 12th Planet, 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 POV forking or not. —Charles P. (Mirv) 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. --AI 6 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)
IMHO, Nibiru should only contain information related to beliefs of the Sumerians. 12th Planet should contain all the theories, arguments, critic remarks, etc regarding Sitchin's and other's claims about "Nibiru." --AI 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, Nibiru (myth), and 12th Planet. There are references to them scattered, quite inappropriately in most cases, in several more: Anunnaki, Anu, Tenth planet, and Enki. (Since I found these through Special:Whatlinkshere/Zecharia Sitchin, 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 (Earth Chronicles or The Earth Chronicles). Only the briefest mention and link should be left behind. Is this a good idea? —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Most certainly. --Wetman 11:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- I regards to Enki, 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. --Tydaj 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
A text search found "Sitchin" in these articles: 12th Planet; Ancient astronaut theory; Ancient Egypt; Anu; Anunnaki; Conan the Adventurer; David Icke; Enki; List of unsolved problems in Egyptology; Matest M. Agrest; Nephilim (disambiguation); Nibiru; Nibiru (myth); Nuwaubianism; Planet X; Pseudoarchaeology; Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures; Reptilian humanoid; Robert Sutton Harrington; Rogue planet; Tiamat (disambiguation); Unsolved problems in Egyptology; Zecharia Sitchin. Anthony Appleyard 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.