Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrwuggs (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 29 November 2006 (→How can this article be improved?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 western 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.

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.

It was corrected by removing the unnecessary end of line in the bullet list. 67.180.166.40 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Tiamat and the rest of the Hypothetical bodies of the Solar System category. We can use all the help we can get. Mrwuggs 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed?

What specifically can be changed to remedy this problem? Mrwuggs 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

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. 24.254.163.104 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Lucy

This is an excellent idea. I would whole-heartedly support anyone who felt that they could overhaul the article in this manner. Mrwuggs 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)