Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 11 June 2005

From Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion

• Nibiru -> Marduk (planet). A Google search for Nibiru garnered three times as many hits as one for +Marduk +planet. The redirection should go the other way around. In addition, Marduk is also an ancient Babylonian deity, and obviating the disambiguation would be beneficial for cosmetic reasons. --Smack 22:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Marduk (planet) is now at Nibiru, hopefully with the page histories of the two versions merged. Angela. 23:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I moved this here because it is irremediably confused. If anyone can make sense of it, maybe it can go back in. My notes are inline, in italics.

Pantheons

According to some

Sitchin, I assume

Nibiru is the supreme deity in the Sumerian

so he's being confused with other deities, then? Check out Sumerian mythology.

and Babylonian

Marduk was the supreme god; Nibiru is a celestial object associated with him. They're not the same.

pantheons. Though Nibiru is the god of 50 names and king of gods,

really? or is he being mixed with a different god again?

according to others he is not related to Marduk in Babylonian mythology

who are these idiots? The Babylonians /always/ associated Nibiru with Marduk. Or is this meant that the Sumerian god that some people call Nibiru, goodness knows why, is not related to Marduk? That would make a bit more sense.

(Marduk being the a god of Babylon, who was inserted into the old creation epic).

—E. Underwood 23:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

crackpot?

Noted crackpot Zecharia Sitchin That seems a bit subjective, don't you think? --Benji man 21:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:) I was wondering how long that would last before someone noticed it. Feel free to take it out or replace it with a more neutral phrasing. —E. Underwood 23:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He is now called an "ancient astronaut theorist", which means essentially the same thing ("crackpot") but shouldn't provoke objections. —E. Underwood 16:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The part that i would have a problem with is the next arrival of 2012. Sitchin i think makes note that Anu came to visit in about 4000 BC, and that the passing occured around 3600? This would then put the 12th planet as the biblical star, who would then of course arrive back around 3600 AD. No other has offered an explanation of how the summariens were more advanced the the ones comming after them? Or more important i think is Why no one asks how come one bloodline would become rulers versus another, and Why would man dig for gold when it had no use? Sitchin answers those questions. So call him what you want, just offer a better explanation!

Ephemeris

Is there anyone who can tell me the dates that Nibiru is supposed to have crosee through each sign of the zodiac. Anyone who can direct me to the correct place 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. Decius 01:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is disputed that Nibiru almost always referred to 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. Decius 01:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not passing judgment on Sitchin's interpretations, but realize that they unorthodox and largely unaccepted, and cannot be presented as factual or accepted. Decius 01:53, 10 Jun 2005 (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. Decius 01:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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. Decius 21:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius 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)