| Revision as of 21:16, 18 October 2006 edit82.197.204.56 (talk) →Why is the neutrality of this article disputed?← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:18, 18 October 2006 edit undo82.197.204.56 (talk) →How can this article be improved?Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *Adding outside links | *Adding outside links | ||
| *Adding books or other media in which this or a similar astronomical object appears. | *Adding books or other media in which this or a similar astronomical object appears. | ||
| *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 scientific community | |||
| *Explain more about the language itself, give sources to other translators and translations | |||
| These are just a few ideas. Can anyone think of more? ] 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | These are just a few ideas. Can anyone think of more? ] 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:18, 18 October 2006
How can this article be improved?
This is a growing article. There are many ways it could be improved. For example:
- Adding further detail through research
- Adding sources
- Adding outside links
- Adding books or other media in which this or a similar astronomical object appears.
- 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 scientific community
- Explain more about the language itself, give sources to other translators and translations
These are just a few ideas. Can anyone think of more? Mrwuggs 22:34, 27 September 2006 (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.
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.
Why is the neutrality of this article disputed?
What specifically can be changed to remedy this problem? Mrwuggs 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)