This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia'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)
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)
Is there mention in this article about how the tenth planet ties in with an evolutionary theory? My history teacher told us about this theory that an alien race lives on the tenth planet and that every 10,000 years, the planet comes within a few hundred miles of Earth. When that happens, the aliens come to Earth and help mankind in some way. As far as I know, it's not a scientology idea. This seems possible as every 10,000 years, there is a sudden spike in human development.- JustPhil 11:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears that your teacher has been reading way too many science fiction stories. Even if it were true, the civilizations that benefitted from such exchanges have since disappeared such as the race before the Ancient Egyptians, the civilization of Atlantis (hypothesized), and other ushc civilizations yet to be uncovered. That planet could be Nibiru, a planet seen by the Sumerians thousands of years ago. It could not be Thea because Thea is now part of the Earth....the reason why the inner and outer core of the Earth has a much divergent composition than the rest of the Earth (only a theory still). These are all theories, however, as we did not live during those times or have any recordings of the period between the late stone age and the early bronze age.
"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.
On the section Planet X in Myth: This does not belong here. There is a page called 12th Planet which contains some of this material and where the rest belongs.
I am working on correcting this page in my user space. This stuff on Nibiru is going to go in almost its entirety. A reference of some sort will replace it, but that is all that I will tolerate in this page. This should be primarily about the search for trans-Neptunian objects, not this odd piece of pseudoscience. (This is not to say that the material does not belong in Wikipedia. I am just saying that the details do not belong here. I gather that this is part of human knowledge in one way or another.) -- EMS | Talk 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
A Zachariah Sitchin has repeated referred to this rock many times. Martial Law 10:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a growing article. There are many ways it could be improved. For example:
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.
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)
What specifically can be changed to remedy this problem? Mrwuggs 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
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. Mrwuggs 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Following the rationale outlined at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiamat (hypothetical planet), this article has been redirected to the article Hypothetical planet (non-scientific). -- Mainstream astronomy 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not support this page as it is exposed. But I admit that the state of the art of our scientific knowledge states: - planets can capture (and indeed captured) moons (see Jupiter and Saturn) - galaxies can capture (and indeed captured) galaxies (see Milky Way) So I see no reason for classifying as non-scientific an hypotheis of the Sun capturing a planet.
Then: -the Moon comes form a planet collision (current best theory) -the whole Venus suffered a global-wide event (based on probes observations of its surface) -Mars suffered a global-wide event (based on disappearing of seas of water).
So I suggest to divide the article in -the general concept of possible old and new planets rather than the old 8 -fictional hypothesis in case they exists/have existed.
The first part IS scientific. The second part is questionable. But I see that there is the usual mess here, so I avoid editing.
This page is a mess and filled with copyrighted, NPOV info. Can someone please tag it?? FluxFuser ( talk) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is articles like this that give wikipedia a bad name. Needs to be flagged for cleanup/deletion. 219.101.94.80 ( talk) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing here indicating why the POV template is on this article. What specifically about this article is POV? I'm removing it. If someone wants to come here to the talk page and discuss the issues they have with the article and how those issues can be addressed, it can be readded. Neitherday ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, Sitchin may translate some parts of epic tails different than other scolars, fact is that those other scolars don't know eighter how to translate some parts/words of those ancient stories. Claiming Sitchins translation to be wrong is just not possible. We can't ignore that most parts of his translations are undisputed, such as very detailed descriptions of so called Annunaki visiting earth (weather we like it or not, Sumerians are really describing such happenings). The thing is, nowadays we can't determine weather those Sumerian stories were already fictional at that time or descriptions of actual events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.136.219 ( talk) 17:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
While I have no interest in most of this page, which is purile in the extreme, I find the section about Sitchin biased, wrong and offensive. Someone has attributed such rubbish to Sitchin that they make his work completely unrecognisable. I have read everything published by Sitchin, so I can tell that some of the ideas attributed to him here have no basis in fact. Please tell me where this rubbish came from so that I may re-educate the individual. I can see it was not from someone who is familiar with his work but who may be familiar with one or more of his detractors, looking at the links to people who are incredibly anti Sitchin. In fact it is an insult just to include his work in a page dedicated to mythology. His work has taken the myth out of the historical documents found in Iraq and made them into a real living history. This author is not expressing any religious views, he is describing its historical origin and development. The astrology described also belongs in a historical context. There is no ufology, only history in which once living beings are described.
TAKE THE SITCHIN SECTION DOWN, NOW!
Bolandista ( talk) 19:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Serendi pod ous 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Your answer came too quick, showing venomous bias. So tell me erendipodous, who is the author of the Sitchin section? If you insist that this section should be kept then there should be a discussion on the removal of any bias. The same must apply to all references to this author throughout the Wikipedia. But then, looking at the style of your signature, one can tell you are quite unsure of yourself to the point of being insecure. With insecurity, such individuals are often forced to express themselves by using bullying and high handed tactics. Now, Serendipodous, you are not a bully are you? Nor would you like to be seen as one, would you? So try to adopt a less biased attitude and high handed manner, reconsider your answer.
Bolandista ( talk) 10:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't engage Sitchinites in debate, for the same reason I don't debate creationists. Serendi pod ous 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
erendipodous,
Thank you for condescending to add a few words for your "No". However, you have further confirmed my diagnosed of "venomous bias". By not engaging with potentially half of the population of the US you are, in addition, showing absolute arrogance. This you are doing in the face of new archaeological evidence showing more and more that the work of Sitchin is closer to the mark than many "academics". If you are responsible for writing the error-filled section, you should be ashamed of yourself. On your own admission, you did not try to find out from a Sitchin source whether what you were to quote from writings was correct. I am not here talking about whether HE is right or wrong, just what you assert he said in his books. If you can't be honest about the content of his work - how would you be able to find out for yourself whether his position is right or wrong? The same goes for anyone, say, someone who is reading Sitchin's so called text for the first time. They are not getting an unbiased report of his words from your twisted idea of what the man wrote. But then, that's the idea, isn't it. No wonder so many people laugh when I claim that Wikipedia is unbiased.
Do you want to know what I think? Of course you don't, you have already told be that you don't! But, I am going to tell you anyway! You have simply jumped on the sick anti-Sitchin band-waggon and foolishly assumed that they were correct by virtue of the fact that they are "academic", so they must be right! This extends to their mis-representing of what Sitchin actually wrote. You have stupidly simply reproduced the party line, using error filled text without analysis. How very lazy, taking the easy route. Typical of journalists throughout the world. OK, so you don't have a couple of brain cells to rub together to create a spark could let you off the hook, but allowing yourself to be misled by out of date cuneiform analysis is unforgivable. I believe that the relevant parts of the academic community are fearful of their precious reputations. So much so that they and their supporter will do anything to degrade the man, because they are can see his work is becoming unassailable, including attributed non-Sitchin ideas to the man.
Time to talk?
Time to change your give away signature?
Bolandista ( talk) 11:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Doug,
If you have read my first submission above you will know what I am asking for. If you haven't, please read that first. Then tell me what you think.
Bolandista ( talk) 16:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I was specific. Sitchin does not belong here. That is the most important thing to understand. I also gave the reasons why he does not belong on this page, I repeat those reasons now. If you have read some of his books, as you say you have, you know he is not expressing a religious point of view. Nor is he using astrology for any of his analysis or suggesting that it should be used by anyone. He is not into observations or analysing UFO sightings, therefore, he is not a ufologist. He has given his interpretation of the cuniform material found in Iraq. Which according to him, explains the origin of religion, how the zodiac came into being and describes entities who lived on this planet onward from half a million years ago.
Sitchin spent most of his life on this work, which included vast amounts of research, all honestly done. He came up with a translation of the contents of the material which allowed a rescue of the ideas expressed in that material from the realms of myth, giving them the status of a written record of actual events. People may not agree with his interpretation, so let them show where he is wrong. No one should misquote him or in other ways try to diminish him as a man, by, for example, including him on a page such as this. I am an academic. I know that everything proposed by academic colleagues is offered for falsification. Nothing is set in stone. Results of tests can never prove a theory, but can disprove one. However, until disproof comes along, the theory, ideas, whatever, become a paradigm to be used as a basis of further study, a foundation, if you like, on which new theories can be developed.
So, to remove bias on Wikipedia we should allow only dispute of concepts which; A) Confront the basis of the theory. Show that the concepts used are not sustainable. B) If that cannot be done, put the results to the test. One has to ensure the tests are carried out on parts of the theory, which, if disproved, demolish the theory and not simply allow it to be modified and therefore saved.
What should not be allowed here. A) Any attack on any individual author as this would be outside the reasonable mores of Wikipedia. B) Mis-quotes must be removed. C) Do not allow links to internal or external text which result in a breach of either A) or B).
Its the message not the man that should be the object of dispute. As a very clever man once said, "Those who cannot attack the thought, instead attack the thinker." (Paul Varery, 1871-1945)
Please remove Sitchin from this page. Let's give him a page of his own which outlines his ideas and shows the extent of his work. This page should include a section for reference to authors who have issues with his ideas. In this way all conditions of reasonableness are satisfied.
Bolandista ( talk) 12:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Given all the discussion in the archives, maybe we need an RfC? What we don't want is a solution that immediately gets challenged. Dougweller ( talk) 16:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Because I'm not going through that nightmare again. I've had it up to here dealing with irrational people. If the only answer is to rename an article, then let it be this one. Serendi pod ous 19:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No reply = no comment = Agreement. Thank you guys.
Bolandista (
talk)
10:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not Nibiru, but Niburu, according to those with a lingual studies background nibiru is a mixup of two mistakes; one is its pronunciation, the other is its source. The fact that WikiPedia doesn't even list niburu, and Google corrects it for you, is a sure sign of the downfall of true to source language skills in the English speaking parts of the world. Ridiculous. 146.50.227.64 ( talk) 09:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Tiamat is more than just a Sumerian goddess, someone who has studied into this subject will agree that the Sumerians also referred to Tiamat as the celestial object that used to be located where the asteroid belt is beyond Mars. The article just doesn't have that information.
I'm not saying that Tiamat and Nibiru are actual realities, but this is all based on clay tablets left by Sumerians which is why Tiamat should be categorized in Ancient astronomy. AI 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know zip about Ancient astronomy, but I couldn't find anything in JSTOR about Tiamat as a planet. I did, however, find that during the late 19th and early 20th century there was extensive discussion by theologians about the ways in which the Tiamat cosmology influenced the creation of Genesis. If anybody is interested in those articles, please send me an e-mail and I'll forward them to you. -- Fastfission 02:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You wasted everybody's time by not having references in the first place, besides Sitchin. Decius 03:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is an analysis of Sitchin's claims by Sasha Lessin, Ph. D. [3]. I have not read it, I only use it here because it was the first google listed page I could find with any trace (poor copy even) of one of the clay tablets I am referring to.-- AI 03:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is a site discussing Sitchin's claims. If this site is right, it once again shows that Tiamat as a celestial body (complete with moons) depends on Sitchin's interpretation: [4]. Decius 03:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Using Sitchin as a basis for factual information is pretty much the equivalent of using Aesops Fables as a biology text. The man is not accepted as credible by pretty much anyone but fringe lunatics. He is contradicted by all the experts trained in archeology and astronomy. DreamGuy 16:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I have provided references about the Tiamat (Planet) theory asserted by Sitchin. However, even small a mention of this is constantly being censored on this main Tiamat article by DreamGuy and Decius. -- AI 19:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I to added the story of tiamat as a planet and it was removed. The fact of the matter is there is plenty of hard evidence to support Sitchin's theory unlike other ideas. I myself accept the concept as it makes perfect sence, sadly we live in a world full of delusional minds that would rather accept biblical nonsence that has no hard evidence. If the theory had no impact and no one else believed the theory, then maybe you can explain to me why NASA has been searching for nibiru (marduk) since the 70's and why Zecharia Sitchin has managed to sell over a million copy's of the 12th planet, not to include all his other books that have sold mass amounts. (unsigned, but by User:Khaosinfire)
"The idea of a hypothetical fifth planet has served as the basis for many science fiction stories, including Ocean by Warren Ellis and the Hidden History trilogy by Burak Eldem." should definately be in 'fifth planet' if it is allowed to remain at all.
Celestial bodies should not have gender.
Detailed explinations of planets should not be 404 errors.
Without sources I am under the impression that this 'theory' was taken in whole from Sitchin's fiction book and deserves a less serious demeanor if not outright destruction (along with Gaga) 70.253.111.246 16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)John Brownlee
Not sure this should be a speedy. While Zecharia Sitchin may be a charlatan, I think that deserves a discussion. Satori 02:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I moved it because bracketed things are usually formatted in lowercase unless they are proper names (Planet) -> (planet). -- ShaunMacPherson 18:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a growing article. There are many ways it could be improved. For example:
These are just a few ideas. Can anyone think of more? Mrwuggs 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There was some random nonsense in the article about pterosaurs wings not being able to hold up and T-rex being able to move faster than an elephant. First off, the impact which created the moon pretty much entirely resurfaced the Earth and is known to have occured many billions of years ago; second, the nonsense wasn't cited, and is, in fact, nonsense. Pterosaur wings were more than capable of holding together structurally, and t-rex was a biped. If anyone wants to reference this nonsense as their claims, that's fine, but as it was unreferenced and just wierd I thought it best to remove it. Titanium Dragon 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed it as a candidate for deletion because it is referenced in Michael Tsarion's work, and also linked in the Michael Tsarion Wikipedia entry.
Tiamat redirects here, but there is no article of the such. What gives? -- Emevas ( talk) 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nibiru is not a moon of Tiamat!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.134.205.9 ( talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states:
Is this an assertion and not based on actual sources. Who are these scientists and historians? Why isn't pseudohistory also mentioned? Please, provide sources.-- AI 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is also weasel terminology.-- AI 20:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have not been able to spell any references or sources because it was years ago and I no longer have access to the references which were hardcopies and not available online as far as I know. I'm sure there are other contributors who may have seen these references also, but since they are not coming forward at this time, I will not make any further claims, and DreamGuy is now free to enforce his limited POV over any theories explaining mythologies.-- AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)
It has been almost a month and no one has has provided attribution of pseudoscience label.-- AI 3 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
There comes a time in a discussion when one must say "Let the blind lead the blind". Main stream science is as pseudo as the ones they called pseudo. The more main stream history and archeology I read, the more I realize the state of chaos and ignorance main stream scientists are in.
Nazis from OUTER SPACE!? What? Are you trying to make a point AI? Zeelog1 May, 19 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 ( talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've recently collected material on Sitchin's theories from other articles and moved it here, since I do not believe it was appropriate to place such fringe nonsense in otherwise serious articles (see Talk:Nibiru). The pages in question are:
Brickbats and backslapping may be directed to my talk page. — Charles P. (Mirv) 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
"I've recently collected material on Sitchin's theories from other articles and moved it here, since I do not believe it was appropriate to place such fringe nonsense in otherwise serious articles" - I take issue that any of this can be considered a "serious" article. Whether I agree with Sitchin or not (and before you give me grief.. I don't") this entire article is rediculously one sided. On this alone I can state that it is not "serious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.100.246 ( talk) 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone collect more biographical details about her? e.g. DOB-- MacRusgail 04:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
He is actually a him. There's some doubt about the biographical detail already in the piece as it's lifted wholesale from the publisher's website (potentially a copyright issue, but I detest copyright paranoia). His publishers say: "Zecharia Sitchin was born in Russia and raised in Palestine, where he acquired a profound knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and archaeology of the Near East." Leave out the word "profound," and that's what we have. We need someone to find his actual c.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.109.95 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I just heard of Sitchin for the first time a few minutes ago. I'm 58 years old. "Best-selling" is a relative term, but by what standard does Sitchin earn the title? None of his books, old or new, are among the top 3,000 sales rank at Amazon.
Removed the term. If it's to be replaced let's have some reliable sales figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.109.95 ( talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the criticism section to remove the odd Q&A layout, and modified some of the genetics section to make it better set out. I've also made it clear that the 2001 Nature paper does not claim that 223 genes are unique to humans, as is Sitchin's claim, rather that they do not occur in yeast or invertebrates, but do in higher animals (a point which was somewhat distorted).
Additionally, does anybody have a source for the first criticism (Sitchin's planet being too cold)? I don't believe that anybody has criticised that directly, as Sitchin has always claimed that it was internally heated - so it's a bit of straw man and should be removed.
-- JonAyling 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This section uses technical terminology far beyond the understanding of the average person, such as "horizontal gene transfer" and even perhaps "genomic evolutionary tree" and an explanation of what bacteria have to do with chimpanzees and humans. (Yes, I do know what it is referring to.) Either there should be a link to an appropriate article or one should be written. Because the concept is fairly complicated and important for reasons having nothing to do with this article, I don't think it should just be a footnote.
RickReinckens 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is Zechariah Sitchin and this article the same? Arbusto 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made a complete edit of this webpage. First, the article was way too long and repetitive. It would discuss the Nibiru thesis and then have a separate section for the Nibiru thesis and discuss it again. The Anu and Enlil, etc sections were superfulous, they were aliens who became gods. That can mentioned with a sentence or two. The "impact" section was muddled, too long, and disjointed. I stuck it with controversies. Please add to it, but don't go too in-depth; this is an article about Sitchin. If you want to go into mind-numbing detail about Nibiru and Lilith and spaceports in the Sinai, etc, create a specific article about his theories. The introduction was entirely too long (so long, I wonder why some other Wikipedian hasn't caught it yet). I have also added a Sitchin photo from a book jacket. I have cut some silly external links and split them up a bit. Some of the criticism was not NPOV and derisive.
Some problems. The "See also" section is, I think, too long. Some external links seem like they are plugging a book. Should they be removed? Someone should really track down more details about Sitchin's life and education (his birthdate for instance). A source needs to be added for the statement I put in a footnote. And until Sitchin can back up that assertion, I think it should stay a footnote.
As for the people who want this article better cited. I believe that Sitchin's books and the external sites listed should serve as good enough sources. Here is why. Sitchin has huge bibliographies in his works that make it seem like he really did his homework. They are really some solid sources, but he doesn't footnote a damn thing, so you can't check any of his facts or any of his assertions. (As an historian, it is an excurciating pain in the ass.) Sitchin is not accepted by the scientific or historical community, no matter what books he sticks in his reference section. Just because I say that the Universe was created by a guy named Norman and put Stephen Hawking's books in my bibliography doesn't mean that I am an accepted scientist and everyone should believe that a guy named Norman created the Universe. In fact, I would and should be called a fringe scientist.
And yes, I own all Sitchin's books. Do I believe the thesis? No, but it makes for good reading, and if he footnoted the damn books you might be able to pick out some good points.
TuckerResearch 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sitchin's cosmological descriptions of Sumerian or Annanaki views of the solar system are only a small part of his writing about the nature of civilization and the correlations of Old Testament to earlier sources and artifacts. Mountainsidereview ( talk) 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
To Zechariah or to Zecharia?
His books definitely say Zecharia Sitchin. Zechariah Sitchin should be redirected to Zecharia Sitchin.
TuckerResearch 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's very encyclopedic to have a section criticizing the subject, followed by one that refutes the criticism, and neither of them having references. Instead, both sections should have quotes or references to scientists arguing against his theories, and him defending them. Makerowner 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If a man was born in 1922, he couldn't be raised in Israel, which was created when he was well into his 20'th. Therefore, I shall revert the last edit by the anonymous user 151.191.175.196.-- JoergenB 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed some blatantly pro-Sitchin material and wording that is unsourced.
And I removed: "(The 12th Planet now in its record 45th printing in the U.S.)," do we have any citation and proof for this? And what is implied by "record"? The Bible has been through many more printings, and, last I heard, Guns, Germs, and Steel is the best-selling modern non-fiction book in the US. So, as much as I enjoy reading Sitchin, I do like some of his ideas, we have to be corect, fair, and even-handed.
TuckerResearch 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The section of arguments against and counter argument is not written according to scientificly adequate manners (Since both mainstream science and Sitchin and its propents claim to follow the scientific principle, their arguments should do as well).
First, the claim that, if alien gene is present in the human genome it would have been found by now is scientifically rude. The phrase, no evidence from DNA has been yet found to confirm the presence of alien influence in our gene, is scientifically more appropriate.
Second, from the fact that no alien DNA has been yet found does not follows that "our DNA does indeed contain [alien] genes". Since no evidence is yet found, the claim of the presence of alien gene is an unproven hypothesis. It is thus not a theory. To the point of exaggeration: that no uranium is found in the human genome doesn't mean in any way that a) uranium indeed is present in the DNA but that it has not yet been found and b) the scientist can say that the human genome really doesn't contain uranium merely because of the fact that it is empirically hasn't been encountered. The reasonability and relevancy-for-research of a claim or hypothesis should first be discussed and put in contrast with other estabilished scientific knowledge, e.g. that no radioactive, heavy element is likely to positively participate in a living organisms metabolism. It follows that the scientist does not claim the absence of the alien gene or does not claim merely because there is no empirical evidence. The scientist cannot justify the worth of the research and reasonability of the particular claim.
"Indeed, the gene that predisposes people to heart-disease, for example has also not yet been identified."
And no gene is yet found that predisposes us to like Jazz music rather than Rock or the gene that predisposes us to move to a city where air is highly polluted or many other genes. Do we assume here that for every single pecularity of a human there is a gene at work? I assume I need say no more on this.
"That present-day genetics has not yet discovered evidence that supports Sitchin's theories is simply because no self-respecting geneticist would threaten their reputation by publishing any papers that support such a theory."
If it is "simply because" then it follows that the replier just assumes that the 'theory' of Sitchin is true and that if the geneticist doesn't find the gene, its not the problem of the 'theory' but of the geneticists unscientific attitude. It follows that it is the duty of science to find evidence for Sitchin's theory that is just true and actually does not need evidence. The alternative possibility that it is "simpley because", or, more adequately said, "it could because" the theory could be wrong is not considered. The counter arguments of the proponent of Sitchin here are prototypical of pseudoscientific arguments. 82.170.248.73 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)NimaM
There in fact is evidence of 'alien' DNA in the human genome. See http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01288.html -Ian
I am new to this and trying to figure out how to edit this article. The above comment and link supporting the discovery of "alien" DNA is an absolute hoax and needs to be removed from this website immediately. Anyone who has taken the time to recognize how riduculous the article is, and has checked the validity of the source, has discovered it is a hoax.I am going to attempt to remove this statement from the piece. 67.142.130.29 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. "Controversy" over his theories? It seems to me there is no controversy. Absolutely everyone in the position to form a valid opinion on such matters has disregarded the theories. Why, then, does an encyclopedia do differently, including nonsensical arguments back and forth that look like they came out of a ufo-ology newsgroup? Talking about "controversy" and "rebutting" crackpots is not NPOV. As soon as you start into this sort of thing, you've elevated the legitimacy of the crackpot and given the impression that reasonable people disagree about his nonsense. It is fundamentally misleading, not NPOV, to engage in this sort of thing, especially in something purporting to be an encyclopedia. The rabbit in the suitcase 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this statement:
However, Proff. Sam Chang, a coordinator of the Human Genome Project, along with other researchers in the group, have postitively identified alien DNA in the so-called 'non-encoding' sequences ('junk' DNA) of human DNA. This new development supports Sitchin's assertions.[3] link title
This link and the information is provides are a ridiculous hoax. I'm not at all sure that ALL of what Zecharia Sitchin presents isn't a hoax ), but let's at least start with what we know . . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.29 ( talk) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC). 67.142.130.29 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase this. I DO believe that Sitchin's information is a hoax -- and yes, I have read it, and in fact lived with a man who was one of his mindless followers -- desperate believers. You can call it psuedo-science, but I call it insanity. I would remove the entire webpage and others like them, but of course we must allow for gullible people to fall in the rabbit hole if they so choose. That is their right, though I don't know what it says about the future of humanity . . . 67.142.130.29 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Eep, I feel sure that you well know that one cannot in any absolute sense "prove" the non-existence of something; like the aether or unicorns, one can only point to its undetectability and the singular lack of any evidence that it does exist. The original articles containing this claim certainly do not provide any evidence that Chang or his publication are real. The HGP is a multinational and multi-institutional project involving thousands of researchers across many dozens of laboratories; even if there is no Prof. Chang in the NHGRI staff directory (and you can search, there is no-one of this name), you might still not be satisfied.
The claim is a palpable hoax, and you seem ready yourself to accept it as such. To echo our exasperated friend User:67.142.., what then is there to be gained by demanding the editors here prove it to be a hoax, when the only third-party sources -which you provided- say as much? In any event as pointed out earlier, this is an article about Sitchin and his specific claims, not about "exo-genetics" in general; the whole thing should be removed unless it is demonstrated to be tied to Sitchin- and presently there is absolutely no link on offer.
I note that The Canadian, the online "newspaper" in which this bogus claim is uncritically reported, has in its current issue a lead story with the title "Researchers suggest that Jesus may have been a descendant of Black human being-looking Extraterrestrial time-travellers"...by the self-same John Stokes, no less. I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a kind of theme here in that website - and it's one in which Reliable Sources and Verifiability are nowhere to be found.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well? Manic Hispanic 06:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Anunnaki does not translate to "heaven to earth" in any legitimate context. Now, I'm not here to disprove your theory, just knock off it's proposals. Really, the Anunnaki were only 7 of the Sumerian gods, the rest were Anunna. Besides, the Anunnaki didn't live upon the earth, they lived underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJMauthor ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to note here that there are some pretty bad refs from some pretty non reliable sources that are throughout this article. I may try to get to them one day, but hopefully someone will beat me to it. Arkon ( talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
it seems to me that little seems to known about sitchin a few decades ago he was among rhe few translaters of sumerian clay tablets . he has lectured to NASA on planet x , with regards to the so called mainstream reshearchers they seem to quote each others reshearch sitchin has the source mainstream follw each others scent and it is normally in a circle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwnndog ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This article does have unreliable sources one of them being "sitchiniswrong.com". Someone really needs to do something about the bias against sitchin in this article 24.126.115.119 ( talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The UFO cult is based on Blavatsky, who based her teachings on Brahmanist Aryanism. Sitchin is sure to describe the first real human as Caucasian.
Sitchin clearly portrays all of us as hybrids, half-evolved and half-created. Terrestial evolution, in his view, was interfered with. The psychological depth of understanding that servitude is programmed into us culturally, developmentally and genetically is an important non-racist concept.
The variety of talents and genius humans display are mixed, in Sitchin's approach, with the cold, antisocial, competitive, and ethically undeveloped personality traits of the Annanaki. Despite their longevity and technology the Annanaki who chose to portray themselves as god-like and superior committed a hoax, according to Sitchin.
Sitchin does suggest that there have been a variety of breeding projects. But none of these are portrayed as the real humans. Temple servants or warriors, we are all blinded by propoganda, awaiting the missing leadership of the departed Annanaki, or misled by those who may have remained to toy with us.
The suggestion he makes of the blonde hair of one of the first Annanaki surrogate mothers in the implants of the genetic experiments to create an "adam" in "our likeness" does not establish any superiority for blonde hair even if it is read as an alien trait. We were all left with genetic defects, limited lifespans, and preprogrammed confusion. Mountainsidereview ( talk) 06:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
George G. Cameron Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations University of Michigan, Ann Arbor His comment was I think in an email to me, but Michigan does teach Sumerian, and if you want to minor in Ancient Near Eastern languages, a prerequisite is basic Sumerian+Akkadian [14]. Some 1996 comments by Professor Michalowski: Begin quoted Usenet post: First of all, I did point out that the whole shem is a sham, but here is one more go at this nonsense. On p. 139 S begins this incredible rubbish by translating the Sumerian verbal prefix mu- as if it were a noun. That is like arguing that the /s/ in "dogs" is not a plural marker. but means, "bathroom." He seems to think that anytime the syllable /mu/ appears, it is the same thing. That is like arguing that -ness in "goodness" is related to the Loch Nes monster@! On p. 140 he really does a doozy, rendering zag.mu.ku as "the bright Mu whic is afar." This is news to everyone who thought that zagmu meant "new year" in Sumerian and ku (actually kug) meant "holy" or "pure," especially to the poor fellow who just published a whole book on the word! This is the holy processional barge for the new year festival! On p. 141 he invents a meaning for mu "that which raises straight" for which he provides not a shred of evidence. That is followed by five cuneiform signs which are meant to show the development of "mu." Only th first two are mu, the other three are completely different signs and have nothing to do with it at all. The final one on the left which he thinks is a conical chamber is actually a version of ninda (bread) or gar (to place), originally a representation of a beviled rim bowl, the standard ration bowl of the Uruk culture. After more nonsense on p. 143 he says: mu or its Semitic derivatives shu-mu (that which is a mu), sham or shem....But the universal application of "name" to early texts that spoke of an object used in flying has obscured the true meaning of early records". This is truly mindboggling! First, the root that comes out as shumu in Akkadian and shem in much later Hebrew is an old one, as attested by the fact that it occurs in other Semitic languages, including Arabic, as well in Ethiopic, that is in Afro-Asiatic outside of Semitic. This means that it is older than any contact with Sumerian and likewise there are no loans from Sumerian in Ethiopic! Just because two words have an m in them does not mean that they are related! You might believe that millions of people have misunderstood the Old Testament for thousands of years, you might also believe that one of the most common verbal prefixes in Sumerian actually refers to spaceships, so that every other or so Sumerian phrase is about one thing only, including cattle accounts! If you do that, you would also have to believe that in the Near East today people speak about speceships to each other every day and we have never heard about it! You might be interested to know that in modern Hebrew the word to name is indeed shem, and in Arabic it is ism, which derives from the same Semitic root! Every day people say, "your name please," or so we think, but they are really talking about spaceships! It would be impossible to point out every single piece of rubbish in this book, but every page is full of such nonsense. Enough already!
[END FIRST QUOTED POST}
[BEGIN SECOND QUOTED POST]
Subject: Re: Stitchin's Language Skills 2(was: Looking at Sitchin...) From: pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) Date: 1995/12/21 Message-Id: <piotrm.91.000E3...@umich.edu> References: <4b588u$...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <NEWTNews.29771.819485372.sagnier@vectra11> <shokwave-2012951508380...@dialup-88.austin.io.com> <DJxn5H....@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com> <shokwave-2112950940510001@dialup-76 austin.io.com> <piotrm.89.000C4B10@ Organization: University of Michigan Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.archaeology,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors,alt.ali n.research
Let us start with the chapter on Sumer: land of the Gods. Most S's summaries of Sumerian myths are from Kramer and reflect Kramer's time and predelections. I will not quarell with that. The moment he adds anything of his own, confusion enters. P. 90 he does not seem to realize that the Adapa story is Akkadian, not Sumerian, and that the earliest version of what he cites actually comes from Egypt, from the time of Akhnaten, when Akkadian was the international dyplomatic language. There is in fact a Sumerian version of Adapa, but S could not have known about it, as it was found only recently and we do not know how it goes, as it is still unpublished. IN the pages that follow he paraphrases rituals from the second half of the 1st millennium BCE, rituals that were written in Akkadian under the Seleucid kings! P. 95 he introduces Enlil, whose name he translates as "lord of the airspace." LIL, however, never means that, as I pointed out in previuos posts. P. 9 he claims that a Sumerian king complained about something to the Assembly of the Gods. The text that he is obliquely refering to is actually a literary letter written from the last king of Ur to his vassal in the northern city of Kazallu. Further on that page the fun really begins. "The third god of Sumer...bore two names E.A and EN.KI." ...E.a (the name meant 'house-water').
These are actually the two names, Akkadian and Sumerian respectively, for the same deity, but in two different languages. The thinks that E.A, although Akkaidian, consists of Sumeria e and a! Actually, the sign that we transliterate as e2, when used for early Semitic languages, has a value /'a/, the ' being the Akkadian equivalent of many Proto-Semitic glottal stops. When two vowels are written together, it is a writing convention for /aja/, not for a long vowel. Hence a-a is the writing of the wife of Shamash, who is actually Aja. Thus, most people believe that the real name of Ea was actually /Haja/. It certainly was not Sumerian--that was Enki.
Next page (100) "a city appropriately named HA.A.KI (Place of the water-fishes); it was also known as E.RI.DU ("home of going afar"). First, ki was a classifier for place names that was not pronounced. HA.A was read Kua'ra, and was a small place next to Eridu, not the same city. No one knows what Eridu means, but it was never spelled the way S analyzes in, but was written with the sign NUN, the symbol of Enki. When they did spell it sylabically, it was eri-dug, a fold etymology meaning "sweet city."
I skip some strange stuff. P. 107 "an evil god named Zu ("wise"). Zu is Akkadian, zu is Sumerian. This is the thunderbird, or lion-eaded eagle, symbol of Ningirsu, who was named in Sumerian Anzu (in old books Imdugud) , and that was shortened and borrowed as a full name into Zu (long u). Same page the mention of Sumerian mu, which means "name" translated as a "flying machine" without any reason, but has a very strange explanation further on!
109 "sacred precinct (the GIR.SU) in the city of Lagash" [this is repeated a number of times]. Girsu was the ancient name of the mound Telloh, while Lagash was the name of the neary enormous mound of Al-Hiba. Same page, he introduced the name of the Babylonian god Marduk, whose name he writes MAR.DUK and translates as "son of the pure mound." It took me a minute to figure out what outlandish mechanism had lead to this one; it must be Akkadian maru:, "son," and Sumerian du "mound," followed by ku "pure," likewise Sumerian! Just like Manhattan!
P. 111 "Nanna (short for NAN.NAR---"bright one")" Wrong again! Nanna is an old Sumerian name with no apparent etymology. Late in the first millennium a few scribes wrote it playfully with a final /r/, making a word-paly on Akkadian nama:ru, "to shine." This says nothing at all about it's etymology and cannot be reconciled with any imaginary nan and nar! P. 113 "Nanna's other name , Sin, derived from SU.EN...the same complex...be obtained by placing the syllables in any order, ZU.EN and EN.ZU were mirror words of each other. Nanna/Sin as ZU.EN was none other than EN.ZU (lord Zu)." He confuses writing and prononciation. In early cuneiform the order of signs did not conform to the order they were read in. Some words, such as ZU.AP = abzu, and EN.ZU = Su'en, were traditionally written like this even after the order had changed. Syllabic text indicate that EN.ZU was read Su'en, later as Sin. Again a Sumerian etymology with an Akkadian name (Zu) all mixed up, with no reason!
P 123. The etymology of Ishkur as "mountainous" because it has an element kur, "mountain, foreign land" is strange, but not as strange as what follows. The Akkadian name of this storm god as Adad. S derives it from Sumerian DA.DA, which does not even exist, and confuses the supposed Sumerian DA.DA with Hebrew "dod", which he renders as "lover" or "uncle"! Now three languages are confused. On the next page he confuses things even more by listing incorrect names of this deity in other languages, including Semitic Amorite, in which the name was Addu, not Ramanu. This and West Semitic Hadad, indicate that the root was 'DD in Semitic languages, but Hebrew dod, as well as the related Akkadian word da:du, are from a different root D'D. As we shall see later, S thinks that anything a little bit similar is the same, but in language phonemic differences are precisely those that make a change in meaning, hence in English "moose" and "goose" show that m and g are separate phonemes because they make such a difference. For S su is zu, shi is zi, etc.
P. 140 He proposes that the boat ZAG.MU.KU means "the bright MU which is from afar." This is all wrong. zag-mu is Sumerian for "new year" and ku means "holy, clean." This leads to pure fiction about mu. It never means "that which rises straight." Never in any text. He then provides a strange chart of the development of the sign mu, but only the first two of the five are actually mu, the rest are completely different, unrelated signs!!!! This leads on p. 143 to shu-mu, apparently the Semitic pronoun shu + Sumerian mu! This is simply impossible, and certainly never means "sky-chamber." When a slave is sold and it says X mu-ni-im, "X is his/her name" I really think it would be difficult to translate such a mundane document as X is his/her rocket!
P. 145 "fiery skyships...The Sumerians called them NA.RU ("stones that rise"). The AKkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians called them naru ("objects that give off light") He is actually speaking for the Sumerian word for a stone stelea, na-ru-a, which mean "demarcation stone." This was loaned into Akkadian as naru: (when a Sumerian word ended in a vowel and it was loaned into Akkaian, the vowel became long). He evidently confuses this with the Semitic root for "light" which comes out as nu:ru in Akkadian (middle vowel long, final short). He illustrates a naru on p. 152 and tells us on 151 that "this central figure (i.e. who everyone else knows was Naram-Sin of Akkad) is that of a deity and not of a human king, for the person is wearing a helmet adorned with horns--the identifying mark exclusive of the gods." Naram-SIn, grandson of Sargon, had proclaimed himself divine, and was in fact represented thus! More to come!
[END SECOND QUOTED POST]
Doug Weller (
talk)
17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The challenge by Svadhisthana to the authenticity of the Sun symbol represented by Heiser is unwarranted. This is no mere opinion of his since he supports the interpretation with examples from Jeremy Black and Ursula Seidl. Many other authorities might be added to this list, including Alfred Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur, Leipzig 1913, p. 252, and S.H. Langdon, Semitic Mythology, Boston 1931, p. 151, Vol. V of The Mythology of All Races. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The requirement to provide a source for "Hundreds of sun symbols have been documented..." is absurd BECAUSE this fact is common knowledge in the fields of Assyriology and Mesopotamian studies and it is a guideline in scholarship that "common knowledge" does not need to be sourced. The citations provided to Heiser's remarks immediately above this sentence provide ample justification to the "Hundreds of sun symbols..." phrase. Considering that Sitchin bascially makes it all up as he goes along and gives etymologies for Sumerian and Akkadian words that that are completely ad hoc and have no basis in the subject languages, as Univ. Michigan Assyriologist Piotr Michelowski explained in great detail on sci.archaeology in December 1995 and January 1996, it is a bit like gilding the lily to insist on strick, pedantic standards for sourcing long-accepted commonplaces, such as the ubiquitously documented Babylonian sun symbol against the bald assertion of Sitchin that the seal on VA 243 portrays a sun symbol that has never been documented by Assyriologists and other specialists in the field. BTW: one of Michelowksi's posts to sci.archaeology (with many cross posts) on Dec. 22, 1995, can be read at < http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.research/browse_thread/thread/4af5e9bfd86808b3/9612cd2327d40067?lnk=st&q=#9612cd2327d40067>. An "advanced groups search" at googlegroups.com on sitchin in English by <piotrm@umich.edu> from Dec. 22, 1995, to Jan. 12, 1996, yields nine messages that handily dispose of Sitchin's knowledge of ancient languages and Mesopotamian cosmology. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I simply contend that I looked through just the first argument on sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors with an open mind since I do not believe Sitchin's theory's but still find them entertaining and I was disturbed to find that the person claiming that Sitchin was incorrect for particular reasons would himself be doing the same basic things that he claimed Sitchin was wrong in doing. For instance, he claimed that what Sitchin claimed was a symbol for the sun, was not the sun because it did not resemble the other symbols for the sun used. He intend claimed that the symbol Sitchin thought represented the sun was representing stars. Yet later in his document he showed the symbol for sun next to the symbol for star and the symbol for star was also not close to the symbol the critic claimed was a star and that Sitchin claimed was the sun. Why should we believe that the critic was correct, when he has made the same error that he claimed Sitchin made only with a different symbol. Wouldn't it be likely to think that the official symbol for sun would be something that was used to describe the sun in texts as with the writing on the seal, and that a drawing of the sun and solar system might look more like the symbol on the seal. Particularly since that drawing of the solar system does not coincide with the writing on the seal, but the pictures on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.60.101 ( talk) 04:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I see there is a claim that Sitchin lectured NASA. When and where was this? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I heard Zechariah Sitcin doesn't believe in evolution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This section renamed to "Detractors", and removed bias, straw-man arguments, and obvious coloring words that further reflect a bias to lead the reader to agree with the previous anti-Sitchin position. Honestly people, if you don't agree with someone, coloring information so others agree with you is the weakest position of all.-- 84.103.37.194 ( talk) 03:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems a user Aunt Entropy insists on keeping the anti-Sitchin biased text in this article, citing me for bias in the changes I've made... how does one bias get favored over another?-- 84.103.37.194 ( talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Current version has much of the previous bias removed. If you revert, explain yourself first here (see? Wikipedia rules work both ways!)-- 84.103.37.167 ( talk) 06:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed tag about whether article subject is fringe, THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. In this case, obvious bias is hiding behind the fringe topic; even fringe topics deserve unbiased content; this is the heart of Wikipedia. See below for more.
The IP starting 84.103 has disputed the current stable version of this article, and is edit-warring to add his/her preferred version. The POV is quite different in the IP's version, not conforming to the FRINGE guidelines. So whether Stichin's ideas are fringe is the question that needs to be answered to start with, and should the article's POV be changed? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 02:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Examples section added below for proper discussion.
So here is the chance to discuss the issues... any takers or should we continue pedantic squabbling over WP procedure and continue using our friends to rvt for us?
For the life of me I do not understand why there is so much resistance to accept the fact that Zecharia Sitchin is a crackpot of the first order. His "translations" of cuneiform texts have been totally discredited by fully accredited Assyriologists: Piotr Michalowski and Michael Heiser. Anyone who knows anything about science knows from a reading of Sitchin's first book The 12th Planet that the author does not know what he is talking about when he says Earth's seasons are caused by its changing distance from the Sun, instead of the correct cause: Earth's axial tilt. In the first book Sitchin has Marduk/Nibiru entering the Solar System essentially in the plane of the ecliptic since it "meets" every planet on its way in order, which can only happen with a co-planar passage. Recently, from what I have read, Sitchin posits Nibiru's orbit to be tilted about 30 degrees to the ecliptic, evidently with no explanation for this change. But, in any event, as astronomer Ton Van Flandern has explained on the basis of his extensive research on the stability of eccentric or cometary orbits, and has been cited in the Sitchin entry, no body on Nibiru's 3600 year orbit could maintain such a clockwork-like orbit over the duration Sitchin claims. If anyone claims 2 + 2 = 5 in base 10 arithmetic, he could be legitimately labelled a "crank" or "crackpot". The same reasoning leads to this label applying to Zecharia Sitchin. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
IP, you'll get a lot farther in your arguments if you do not personalise this and make it about me. The reason we had to go this far is you would never make a case for your edits and only used the article talk page to impugn me and my motives. That's not how things are done here. This is a collaborative project, and attacking others gets nothing done. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Aunt Entropy seems to have a misplaced ego since nothing written by me was directed purposefully at her. My position is based solely on the content-less nature of Sitchin's work. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck". Just because someone masquerades as a scholar, as Sitchin most certainly does, does not entitle him to all the deference accorded a genuine scholar. He is a crackpot, pure and simple. He refuses even to reply to critics, which hardly befits a true scholar. He is akin to Kingsley Amis's "Lucky Jim": "revelling in pseudo-resarch, shedding new light on a non-subject". Phaedrus7 ( talk) 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In the section titled Ideas there is the following sentence:
Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space.
Calling this absurd seems like a value judgement on the idea. Does wikipedia as an entity feel this idea is absurd or do other sources in the scientific community feel this way? Also in that section is whole paragraphs worth of quoted text
The scenario outlined by Sitchin, with Nibiru returning to the inner solar system regularly every 3,600 years, implies an orbit with a semi-major axis of 235 Astronomical Units, extending from the asteroid belt to twelve times farther beyond the sun than Pluto. "Elementary perturbation theory indicates that, under the most favorable circumstances of avoiding close encounters with other planets, no body with such an eccentric orbit would keep the same period for two consecutive passages. Within twelve orbits the object would be either ejected or converted to a short period object. Thus, the search for a trans-Plutonian planet by T.C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, which Sitchin uses to bolster his thesis, is no support at all."[3][4]
Sitchin's theory "posits that, from an equal start, the Nefilim evolved on Nibiru 45 million years ahead of comparable development on Earth with its decidedly more favorable environment. Such an outcome is unlikely, to say the least, since Nibiru would spend over 99% of its time beyond Pluto. Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space. Also unexplained is how the Nefilim, who evolved long after Nibiru arrived, knew what happened when Nibiru first entered the solar system."[5]
Is it normal to included that large of a quote mixed in with wikipedia text? 76.106.50.133 ( talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that all the planets from Jupiter on out are dark, frozen wastelands, it is NOT sensible to posit, as Sitchin does, that a habitable planet on a highly elliptical orbit that spends 99% of its time beyond the orbit of Pluto can exist and the handwaving of the "save the phenomonon" notion that heat from radioactive decay in the crust keeps the planet warm is laughable. It is NOT unreasonable to label such notions "absurd", as the SOURCED QUOTATION from Ellenberger does. Keep in mind, in dealing with Sitchin one is dealing with a person who in 1976 believed Earth's seasons were caused by its distance from the Sun and NOT by its axial tilt. Sitchin is, to quote Henry Bauer regarding Velikovsky in his Beyond Velikovsky (1984) "an ignoramous masquerading a sage" and it is not beyond the responsibility of an encyclopedia to label subjects correctly. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, Mr. Sitchin is both right and wrong. In a sense, we should all keep an open mind about the possibilities of the unknown. Human science is still an infant. Remeber, some of our greatest known scientist were labeled "nuts" becasue of the fact that the norm did not see the possibilities. Cohcekn ( talk) 23:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As a user of wikipedia, I depend on it as a source of un-biased information, sometimes for research, and other times just for fun. I find this article to be extremely biased. In one sentence this article states
"Elementary perturbation theory indicates that, under the most favorable circumstances of avoiding close encounters with other planets, no body with such an eccentric orbit would keep the same period for two consecutive passages. Within twelve orbits the object would be either ejected or converted to a short period object. Thus, the search for a trans-Plutonian planet by T.C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, which Sitchin uses to bolster his thesis, is no support at all."
Personally, I find the utilization of theory's that have not been veted through empirical scientific process and proven as fact to debunk other theory's reprehensible. I understand "Main stream science" constantly attempts to argue theory as fact using other theory's, none of which have been proven, but I don't feel wikipedia should assist is this chain of delusion. Anyone who uses a theory as a fact in order to disprove another theory is either irresponsible, ignorant, or stupid and should henceforth be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.1.225 ( talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This article should be completely ignored, and possibly removed. Any attempt to remove the biased opinions in the article seems to be quickly reverted. I think I just lost all faith in wikipedia regarding its ability to provide hard information on a subject without being used as a tool to influence a popular opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.1.225 ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia'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)
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)
Is there mention in this article about how the tenth planet ties in with an evolutionary theory? My history teacher told us about this theory that an alien race lives on the tenth planet and that every 10,000 years, the planet comes within a few hundred miles of Earth. When that happens, the aliens come to Earth and help mankind in some way. As far as I know, it's not a scientology idea. This seems possible as every 10,000 years, there is a sudden spike in human development.- JustPhil 11:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears that your teacher has been reading way too many science fiction stories. Even if it were true, the civilizations that benefitted from such exchanges have since disappeared such as the race before the Ancient Egyptians, the civilization of Atlantis (hypothesized), and other ushc civilizations yet to be uncovered. That planet could be Nibiru, a planet seen by the Sumerians thousands of years ago. It could not be Thea because Thea is now part of the Earth....the reason why the inner and outer core of the Earth has a much divergent composition than the rest of the Earth (only a theory still). These are all theories, however, as we did not live during those times or have any recordings of the period between the late stone age and the early bronze age.
"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.
On the section Planet X in Myth: This does not belong here. There is a page called 12th Planet which contains some of this material and where the rest belongs.
I am working on correcting this page in my user space. This stuff on Nibiru is going to go in almost its entirety. A reference of some sort will replace it, but that is all that I will tolerate in this page. This should be primarily about the search for trans-Neptunian objects, not this odd piece of pseudoscience. (This is not to say that the material does not belong in Wikipedia. I am just saying that the details do not belong here. I gather that this is part of human knowledge in one way or another.) -- EMS | Talk 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
A Zachariah Sitchin has repeated referred to this rock many times. Martial Law 10:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a growing article. There are many ways it could be improved. For example:
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.
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)
What specifically can be changed to remedy this problem? Mrwuggs 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
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. Mrwuggs 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Following the rationale outlined at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiamat (hypothetical planet), this article has been redirected to the article Hypothetical planet (non-scientific). -- Mainstream astronomy 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not support this page as it is exposed. But I admit that the state of the art of our scientific knowledge states: - planets can capture (and indeed captured) moons (see Jupiter and Saturn) - galaxies can capture (and indeed captured) galaxies (see Milky Way) So I see no reason for classifying as non-scientific an hypotheis of the Sun capturing a planet.
Then: -the Moon comes form a planet collision (current best theory) -the whole Venus suffered a global-wide event (based on probes observations of its surface) -Mars suffered a global-wide event (based on disappearing of seas of water).
So I suggest to divide the article in -the general concept of possible old and new planets rather than the old 8 -fictional hypothesis in case they exists/have existed.
The first part IS scientific. The second part is questionable. But I see that there is the usual mess here, so I avoid editing.
This page is a mess and filled with copyrighted, NPOV info. Can someone please tag it?? FluxFuser ( talk) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is articles like this that give wikipedia a bad name. Needs to be flagged for cleanup/deletion. 219.101.94.80 ( talk) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing here indicating why the POV template is on this article. What specifically about this article is POV? I'm removing it. If someone wants to come here to the talk page and discuss the issues they have with the article and how those issues can be addressed, it can be readded. Neitherday ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, Sitchin may translate some parts of epic tails different than other scolars, fact is that those other scolars don't know eighter how to translate some parts/words of those ancient stories. Claiming Sitchins translation to be wrong is just not possible. We can't ignore that most parts of his translations are undisputed, such as very detailed descriptions of so called Annunaki visiting earth (weather we like it or not, Sumerians are really describing such happenings). The thing is, nowadays we can't determine weather those Sumerian stories were already fictional at that time or descriptions of actual events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.136.219 ( talk) 17:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
While I have no interest in most of this page, which is purile in the extreme, I find the section about Sitchin biased, wrong and offensive. Someone has attributed such rubbish to Sitchin that they make his work completely unrecognisable. I have read everything published by Sitchin, so I can tell that some of the ideas attributed to him here have no basis in fact. Please tell me where this rubbish came from so that I may re-educate the individual. I can see it was not from someone who is familiar with his work but who may be familiar with one or more of his detractors, looking at the links to people who are incredibly anti Sitchin. In fact it is an insult just to include his work in a page dedicated to mythology. His work has taken the myth out of the historical documents found in Iraq and made them into a real living history. This author is not expressing any religious views, he is describing its historical origin and development. The astrology described also belongs in a historical context. There is no ufology, only history in which once living beings are described.
TAKE THE SITCHIN SECTION DOWN, NOW!
Bolandista ( talk) 19:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Serendi pod ous 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Your answer came too quick, showing venomous bias. So tell me erendipodous, who is the author of the Sitchin section? If you insist that this section should be kept then there should be a discussion on the removal of any bias. The same must apply to all references to this author throughout the Wikipedia. But then, looking at the style of your signature, one can tell you are quite unsure of yourself to the point of being insecure. With insecurity, such individuals are often forced to express themselves by using bullying and high handed tactics. Now, Serendipodous, you are not a bully are you? Nor would you like to be seen as one, would you? So try to adopt a less biased attitude and high handed manner, reconsider your answer.
Bolandista ( talk) 10:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't engage Sitchinites in debate, for the same reason I don't debate creationists. Serendi pod ous 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
erendipodous,
Thank you for condescending to add a few words for your "No". However, you have further confirmed my diagnosed of "venomous bias". By not engaging with potentially half of the population of the US you are, in addition, showing absolute arrogance. This you are doing in the face of new archaeological evidence showing more and more that the work of Sitchin is closer to the mark than many "academics". If you are responsible for writing the error-filled section, you should be ashamed of yourself. On your own admission, you did not try to find out from a Sitchin source whether what you were to quote from writings was correct. I am not here talking about whether HE is right or wrong, just what you assert he said in his books. If you can't be honest about the content of his work - how would you be able to find out for yourself whether his position is right or wrong? The same goes for anyone, say, someone who is reading Sitchin's so called text for the first time. They are not getting an unbiased report of his words from your twisted idea of what the man wrote. But then, that's the idea, isn't it. No wonder so many people laugh when I claim that Wikipedia is unbiased.
Do you want to know what I think? Of course you don't, you have already told be that you don't! But, I am going to tell you anyway! You have simply jumped on the sick anti-Sitchin band-waggon and foolishly assumed that they were correct by virtue of the fact that they are "academic", so they must be right! This extends to their mis-representing of what Sitchin actually wrote. You have stupidly simply reproduced the party line, using error filled text without analysis. How very lazy, taking the easy route. Typical of journalists throughout the world. OK, so you don't have a couple of brain cells to rub together to create a spark could let you off the hook, but allowing yourself to be misled by out of date cuneiform analysis is unforgivable. I believe that the relevant parts of the academic community are fearful of their precious reputations. So much so that they and their supporter will do anything to degrade the man, because they are can see his work is becoming unassailable, including attributed non-Sitchin ideas to the man.
Time to talk?
Time to change your give away signature?
Bolandista ( talk) 11:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Doug,
If you have read my first submission above you will know what I am asking for. If you haven't, please read that first. Then tell me what you think.
Bolandista ( talk) 16:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I was specific. Sitchin does not belong here. That is the most important thing to understand. I also gave the reasons why he does not belong on this page, I repeat those reasons now. If you have read some of his books, as you say you have, you know he is not expressing a religious point of view. Nor is he using astrology for any of his analysis or suggesting that it should be used by anyone. He is not into observations or analysing UFO sightings, therefore, he is not a ufologist. He has given his interpretation of the cuniform material found in Iraq. Which according to him, explains the origin of religion, how the zodiac came into being and describes entities who lived on this planet onward from half a million years ago.
Sitchin spent most of his life on this work, which included vast amounts of research, all honestly done. He came up with a translation of the contents of the material which allowed a rescue of the ideas expressed in that material from the realms of myth, giving them the status of a written record of actual events. People may not agree with his interpretation, so let them show where he is wrong. No one should misquote him or in other ways try to diminish him as a man, by, for example, including him on a page such as this. I am an academic. I know that everything proposed by academic colleagues is offered for falsification. Nothing is set in stone. Results of tests can never prove a theory, but can disprove one. However, until disproof comes along, the theory, ideas, whatever, become a paradigm to be used as a basis of further study, a foundation, if you like, on which new theories can be developed.
So, to remove bias on Wikipedia we should allow only dispute of concepts which; A) Confront the basis of the theory. Show that the concepts used are not sustainable. B) If that cannot be done, put the results to the test. One has to ensure the tests are carried out on parts of the theory, which, if disproved, demolish the theory and not simply allow it to be modified and therefore saved.
What should not be allowed here. A) Any attack on any individual author as this would be outside the reasonable mores of Wikipedia. B) Mis-quotes must be removed. C) Do not allow links to internal or external text which result in a breach of either A) or B).
Its the message not the man that should be the object of dispute. As a very clever man once said, "Those who cannot attack the thought, instead attack the thinker." (Paul Varery, 1871-1945)
Please remove Sitchin from this page. Let's give him a page of his own which outlines his ideas and shows the extent of his work. This page should include a section for reference to authors who have issues with his ideas. In this way all conditions of reasonableness are satisfied.
Bolandista ( talk) 12:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Given all the discussion in the archives, maybe we need an RfC? What we don't want is a solution that immediately gets challenged. Dougweller ( talk) 16:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Because I'm not going through that nightmare again. I've had it up to here dealing with irrational people. If the only answer is to rename an article, then let it be this one. Serendi pod ous 19:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No reply = no comment = Agreement. Thank you guys.
Bolandista (
talk)
10:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not Nibiru, but Niburu, according to those with a lingual studies background nibiru is a mixup of two mistakes; one is its pronunciation, the other is its source. The fact that WikiPedia doesn't even list niburu, and Google corrects it for you, is a sure sign of the downfall of true to source language skills in the English speaking parts of the world. Ridiculous. 146.50.227.64 ( talk) 09:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Tiamat is more than just a Sumerian goddess, someone who has studied into this subject will agree that the Sumerians also referred to Tiamat as the celestial object that used to be located where the asteroid belt is beyond Mars. The article just doesn't have that information.
I'm not saying that Tiamat and Nibiru are actual realities, but this is all based on clay tablets left by Sumerians which is why Tiamat should be categorized in Ancient astronomy. AI 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know zip about Ancient astronomy, but I couldn't find anything in JSTOR about Tiamat as a planet. I did, however, find that during the late 19th and early 20th century there was extensive discussion by theologians about the ways in which the Tiamat cosmology influenced the creation of Genesis. If anybody is interested in those articles, please send me an e-mail and I'll forward them to you. -- Fastfission 02:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You wasted everybody's time by not having references in the first place, besides Sitchin. Decius 03:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is an analysis of Sitchin's claims by Sasha Lessin, Ph. D. [3]. I have not read it, I only use it here because it was the first google listed page I could find with any trace (poor copy even) of one of the clay tablets I am referring to.-- AI 03:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is a site discussing Sitchin's claims. If this site is right, it once again shows that Tiamat as a celestial body (complete with moons) depends on Sitchin's interpretation: [4]. Decius 03:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Using Sitchin as a basis for factual information is pretty much the equivalent of using Aesops Fables as a biology text. The man is not accepted as credible by pretty much anyone but fringe lunatics. He is contradicted by all the experts trained in archeology and astronomy. DreamGuy 16:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I have provided references about the Tiamat (Planet) theory asserted by Sitchin. However, even small a mention of this is constantly being censored on this main Tiamat article by DreamGuy and Decius. -- AI 19:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I to added the story of tiamat as a planet and it was removed. The fact of the matter is there is plenty of hard evidence to support Sitchin's theory unlike other ideas. I myself accept the concept as it makes perfect sence, sadly we live in a world full of delusional minds that would rather accept biblical nonsence that has no hard evidence. If the theory had no impact and no one else believed the theory, then maybe you can explain to me why NASA has been searching for nibiru (marduk) since the 70's and why Zecharia Sitchin has managed to sell over a million copy's of the 12th planet, not to include all his other books that have sold mass amounts. (unsigned, but by User:Khaosinfire)
"The idea of a hypothetical fifth planet has served as the basis for many science fiction stories, including Ocean by Warren Ellis and the Hidden History trilogy by Burak Eldem." should definately be in 'fifth planet' if it is allowed to remain at all.
Celestial bodies should not have gender.
Detailed explinations of planets should not be 404 errors.
Without sources I am under the impression that this 'theory' was taken in whole from Sitchin's fiction book and deserves a less serious demeanor if not outright destruction (along with Gaga) 70.253.111.246 16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)John Brownlee
Not sure this should be a speedy. While Zecharia Sitchin may be a charlatan, I think that deserves a discussion. Satori 02:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I moved it because bracketed things are usually formatted in lowercase unless they are proper names (Planet) -> (planet). -- ShaunMacPherson 18:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a growing article. There are many ways it could be improved. For example:
These are just a few ideas. Can anyone think of more? Mrwuggs 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There was some random nonsense in the article about pterosaurs wings not being able to hold up and T-rex being able to move faster than an elephant. First off, the impact which created the moon pretty much entirely resurfaced the Earth and is known to have occured many billions of years ago; second, the nonsense wasn't cited, and is, in fact, nonsense. Pterosaur wings were more than capable of holding together structurally, and t-rex was a biped. If anyone wants to reference this nonsense as their claims, that's fine, but as it was unreferenced and just wierd I thought it best to remove it. Titanium Dragon 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed it as a candidate for deletion because it is referenced in Michael Tsarion's work, and also linked in the Michael Tsarion Wikipedia entry.
Tiamat redirects here, but there is no article of the such. What gives? -- Emevas ( talk) 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nibiru is not a moon of Tiamat!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.134.205.9 ( talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states:
Is this an assertion and not based on actual sources. Who are these scientists and historians? Why isn't pseudohistory also mentioned? Please, provide sources.-- AI 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is also weasel terminology.-- AI 20:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have not been able to spell any references or sources because it was years ago and I no longer have access to the references which were hardcopies and not available online as far as I know. I'm sure there are other contributors who may have seen these references also, but since they are not coming forward at this time, I will not make any further claims, and DreamGuy is now free to enforce his limited POV over any theories explaining mythologies.-- AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)
It has been almost a month and no one has has provided attribution of pseudoscience label.-- AI 3 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
There comes a time in a discussion when one must say "Let the blind lead the blind". Main stream science is as pseudo as the ones they called pseudo. The more main stream history and archeology I read, the more I realize the state of chaos and ignorance main stream scientists are in.
Nazis from OUTER SPACE!? What? Are you trying to make a point AI? Zeelog1 May, 19 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 ( talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've recently collected material on Sitchin's theories from other articles and moved it here, since I do not believe it was appropriate to place such fringe nonsense in otherwise serious articles (see Talk:Nibiru). The pages in question are:
Brickbats and backslapping may be directed to my talk page. — Charles P. (Mirv) 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
"I've recently collected material on Sitchin's theories from other articles and moved it here, since I do not believe it was appropriate to place such fringe nonsense in otherwise serious articles" - I take issue that any of this can be considered a "serious" article. Whether I agree with Sitchin or not (and before you give me grief.. I don't") this entire article is rediculously one sided. On this alone I can state that it is not "serious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.100.246 ( talk) 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone collect more biographical details about her? e.g. DOB-- MacRusgail 04:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
He is actually a him. There's some doubt about the biographical detail already in the piece as it's lifted wholesale from the publisher's website (potentially a copyright issue, but I detest copyright paranoia). His publishers say: "Zecharia Sitchin was born in Russia and raised in Palestine, where he acquired a profound knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and archaeology of the Near East." Leave out the word "profound," and that's what we have. We need someone to find his actual c.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.109.95 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I just heard of Sitchin for the first time a few minutes ago. I'm 58 years old. "Best-selling" is a relative term, but by what standard does Sitchin earn the title? None of his books, old or new, are among the top 3,000 sales rank at Amazon.
Removed the term. If it's to be replaced let's have some reliable sales figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.109.95 ( talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the criticism section to remove the odd Q&A layout, and modified some of the genetics section to make it better set out. I've also made it clear that the 2001 Nature paper does not claim that 223 genes are unique to humans, as is Sitchin's claim, rather that they do not occur in yeast or invertebrates, but do in higher animals (a point which was somewhat distorted).
Additionally, does anybody have a source for the first criticism (Sitchin's planet being too cold)? I don't believe that anybody has criticised that directly, as Sitchin has always claimed that it was internally heated - so it's a bit of straw man and should be removed.
-- JonAyling 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This section uses technical terminology far beyond the understanding of the average person, such as "horizontal gene transfer" and even perhaps "genomic evolutionary tree" and an explanation of what bacteria have to do with chimpanzees and humans. (Yes, I do know what it is referring to.) Either there should be a link to an appropriate article or one should be written. Because the concept is fairly complicated and important for reasons having nothing to do with this article, I don't think it should just be a footnote.
RickReinckens 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is Zechariah Sitchin and this article the same? Arbusto 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made a complete edit of this webpage. First, the article was way too long and repetitive. It would discuss the Nibiru thesis and then have a separate section for the Nibiru thesis and discuss it again. The Anu and Enlil, etc sections were superfulous, they were aliens who became gods. That can mentioned with a sentence or two. The "impact" section was muddled, too long, and disjointed. I stuck it with controversies. Please add to it, but don't go too in-depth; this is an article about Sitchin. If you want to go into mind-numbing detail about Nibiru and Lilith and spaceports in the Sinai, etc, create a specific article about his theories. The introduction was entirely too long (so long, I wonder why some other Wikipedian hasn't caught it yet). I have also added a Sitchin photo from a book jacket. I have cut some silly external links and split them up a bit. Some of the criticism was not NPOV and derisive.
Some problems. The "See also" section is, I think, too long. Some external links seem like they are plugging a book. Should they be removed? Someone should really track down more details about Sitchin's life and education (his birthdate for instance). A source needs to be added for the statement I put in a footnote. And until Sitchin can back up that assertion, I think it should stay a footnote.
As for the people who want this article better cited. I believe that Sitchin's books and the external sites listed should serve as good enough sources. Here is why. Sitchin has huge bibliographies in his works that make it seem like he really did his homework. They are really some solid sources, but he doesn't footnote a damn thing, so you can't check any of his facts or any of his assertions. (As an historian, it is an excurciating pain in the ass.) Sitchin is not accepted by the scientific or historical community, no matter what books he sticks in his reference section. Just because I say that the Universe was created by a guy named Norman and put Stephen Hawking's books in my bibliography doesn't mean that I am an accepted scientist and everyone should believe that a guy named Norman created the Universe. In fact, I would and should be called a fringe scientist.
And yes, I own all Sitchin's books. Do I believe the thesis? No, but it makes for good reading, and if he footnoted the damn books you might be able to pick out some good points.
TuckerResearch 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sitchin's cosmological descriptions of Sumerian or Annanaki views of the solar system are only a small part of his writing about the nature of civilization and the correlations of Old Testament to earlier sources and artifacts. Mountainsidereview ( talk) 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
To Zechariah or to Zecharia?
His books definitely say Zecharia Sitchin. Zechariah Sitchin should be redirected to Zecharia Sitchin.
TuckerResearch 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's very encyclopedic to have a section criticizing the subject, followed by one that refutes the criticism, and neither of them having references. Instead, both sections should have quotes or references to scientists arguing against his theories, and him defending them. Makerowner 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If a man was born in 1922, he couldn't be raised in Israel, which was created when he was well into his 20'th. Therefore, I shall revert the last edit by the anonymous user 151.191.175.196.-- JoergenB 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed some blatantly pro-Sitchin material and wording that is unsourced.
And I removed: "(The 12th Planet now in its record 45th printing in the U.S.)," do we have any citation and proof for this? And what is implied by "record"? The Bible has been through many more printings, and, last I heard, Guns, Germs, and Steel is the best-selling modern non-fiction book in the US. So, as much as I enjoy reading Sitchin, I do like some of his ideas, we have to be corect, fair, and even-handed.
TuckerResearch 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The section of arguments against and counter argument is not written according to scientificly adequate manners (Since both mainstream science and Sitchin and its propents claim to follow the scientific principle, their arguments should do as well).
First, the claim that, if alien gene is present in the human genome it would have been found by now is scientifically rude. The phrase, no evidence from DNA has been yet found to confirm the presence of alien influence in our gene, is scientifically more appropriate.
Second, from the fact that no alien DNA has been yet found does not follows that "our DNA does indeed contain [alien] genes". Since no evidence is yet found, the claim of the presence of alien gene is an unproven hypothesis. It is thus not a theory. To the point of exaggeration: that no uranium is found in the human genome doesn't mean in any way that a) uranium indeed is present in the DNA but that it has not yet been found and b) the scientist can say that the human genome really doesn't contain uranium merely because of the fact that it is empirically hasn't been encountered. The reasonability and relevancy-for-research of a claim or hypothesis should first be discussed and put in contrast with other estabilished scientific knowledge, e.g. that no radioactive, heavy element is likely to positively participate in a living organisms metabolism. It follows that the scientist does not claim the absence of the alien gene or does not claim merely because there is no empirical evidence. The scientist cannot justify the worth of the research and reasonability of the particular claim.
"Indeed, the gene that predisposes people to heart-disease, for example has also not yet been identified."
And no gene is yet found that predisposes us to like Jazz music rather than Rock or the gene that predisposes us to move to a city where air is highly polluted or many other genes. Do we assume here that for every single pecularity of a human there is a gene at work? I assume I need say no more on this.
"That present-day genetics has not yet discovered evidence that supports Sitchin's theories is simply because no self-respecting geneticist would threaten their reputation by publishing any papers that support such a theory."
If it is "simply because" then it follows that the replier just assumes that the 'theory' of Sitchin is true and that if the geneticist doesn't find the gene, its not the problem of the 'theory' but of the geneticists unscientific attitude. It follows that it is the duty of science to find evidence for Sitchin's theory that is just true and actually does not need evidence. The alternative possibility that it is "simpley because", or, more adequately said, "it could because" the theory could be wrong is not considered. The counter arguments of the proponent of Sitchin here are prototypical of pseudoscientific arguments. 82.170.248.73 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)NimaM
There in fact is evidence of 'alien' DNA in the human genome. See http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01288.html -Ian
I am new to this and trying to figure out how to edit this article. The above comment and link supporting the discovery of "alien" DNA is an absolute hoax and needs to be removed from this website immediately. Anyone who has taken the time to recognize how riduculous the article is, and has checked the validity of the source, has discovered it is a hoax.I am going to attempt to remove this statement from the piece. 67.142.130.29 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. "Controversy" over his theories? It seems to me there is no controversy. Absolutely everyone in the position to form a valid opinion on such matters has disregarded the theories. Why, then, does an encyclopedia do differently, including nonsensical arguments back and forth that look like they came out of a ufo-ology newsgroup? Talking about "controversy" and "rebutting" crackpots is not NPOV. As soon as you start into this sort of thing, you've elevated the legitimacy of the crackpot and given the impression that reasonable people disagree about his nonsense. It is fundamentally misleading, not NPOV, to engage in this sort of thing, especially in something purporting to be an encyclopedia. The rabbit in the suitcase 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this statement:
However, Proff. Sam Chang, a coordinator of the Human Genome Project, along with other researchers in the group, have postitively identified alien DNA in the so-called 'non-encoding' sequences ('junk' DNA) of human DNA. This new development supports Sitchin's assertions.[3] link title
This link and the information is provides are a ridiculous hoax. I'm not at all sure that ALL of what Zecharia Sitchin presents isn't a hoax ), but let's at least start with what we know . . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.29 ( talk) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC). 67.142.130.29 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase this. I DO believe that Sitchin's information is a hoax -- and yes, I have read it, and in fact lived with a man who was one of his mindless followers -- desperate believers. You can call it psuedo-science, but I call it insanity. I would remove the entire webpage and others like them, but of course we must allow for gullible people to fall in the rabbit hole if they so choose. That is their right, though I don't know what it says about the future of humanity . . . 67.142.130.29 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Eep, I feel sure that you well know that one cannot in any absolute sense "prove" the non-existence of something; like the aether or unicorns, one can only point to its undetectability and the singular lack of any evidence that it does exist. The original articles containing this claim certainly do not provide any evidence that Chang or his publication are real. The HGP is a multinational and multi-institutional project involving thousands of researchers across many dozens of laboratories; even if there is no Prof. Chang in the NHGRI staff directory (and you can search, there is no-one of this name), you might still not be satisfied.
The claim is a palpable hoax, and you seem ready yourself to accept it as such. To echo our exasperated friend User:67.142.., what then is there to be gained by demanding the editors here prove it to be a hoax, when the only third-party sources -which you provided- say as much? In any event as pointed out earlier, this is an article about Sitchin and his specific claims, not about "exo-genetics" in general; the whole thing should be removed unless it is demonstrated to be tied to Sitchin- and presently there is absolutely no link on offer.
I note that The Canadian, the online "newspaper" in which this bogus claim is uncritically reported, has in its current issue a lead story with the title "Researchers suggest that Jesus may have been a descendant of Black human being-looking Extraterrestrial time-travellers"...by the self-same John Stokes, no less. I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a kind of theme here in that website - and it's one in which Reliable Sources and Verifiability are nowhere to be found.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well? Manic Hispanic 06:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Anunnaki does not translate to "heaven to earth" in any legitimate context. Now, I'm not here to disprove your theory, just knock off it's proposals. Really, the Anunnaki were only 7 of the Sumerian gods, the rest were Anunna. Besides, the Anunnaki didn't live upon the earth, they lived underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJMauthor ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to note here that there are some pretty bad refs from some pretty non reliable sources that are throughout this article. I may try to get to them one day, but hopefully someone will beat me to it. Arkon ( talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
it seems to me that little seems to known about sitchin a few decades ago he was among rhe few translaters of sumerian clay tablets . he has lectured to NASA on planet x , with regards to the so called mainstream reshearchers they seem to quote each others reshearch sitchin has the source mainstream follw each others scent and it is normally in a circle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwnndog ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This article does have unreliable sources one of them being "sitchiniswrong.com". Someone really needs to do something about the bias against sitchin in this article 24.126.115.119 ( talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The UFO cult is based on Blavatsky, who based her teachings on Brahmanist Aryanism. Sitchin is sure to describe the first real human as Caucasian.
Sitchin clearly portrays all of us as hybrids, half-evolved and half-created. Terrestial evolution, in his view, was interfered with. The psychological depth of understanding that servitude is programmed into us culturally, developmentally and genetically is an important non-racist concept.
The variety of talents and genius humans display are mixed, in Sitchin's approach, with the cold, antisocial, competitive, and ethically undeveloped personality traits of the Annanaki. Despite their longevity and technology the Annanaki who chose to portray themselves as god-like and superior committed a hoax, according to Sitchin.
Sitchin does suggest that there have been a variety of breeding projects. But none of these are portrayed as the real humans. Temple servants or warriors, we are all blinded by propoganda, awaiting the missing leadership of the departed Annanaki, or misled by those who may have remained to toy with us.
The suggestion he makes of the blonde hair of one of the first Annanaki surrogate mothers in the implants of the genetic experiments to create an "adam" in "our likeness" does not establish any superiority for blonde hair even if it is read as an alien trait. We were all left with genetic defects, limited lifespans, and preprogrammed confusion. Mountainsidereview ( talk) 06:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
George G. Cameron Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations University of Michigan, Ann Arbor His comment was I think in an email to me, but Michigan does teach Sumerian, and if you want to minor in Ancient Near Eastern languages, a prerequisite is basic Sumerian+Akkadian [14]. Some 1996 comments by Professor Michalowski: Begin quoted Usenet post: First of all, I did point out that the whole shem is a sham, but here is one more go at this nonsense. On p. 139 S begins this incredible rubbish by translating the Sumerian verbal prefix mu- as if it were a noun. That is like arguing that the /s/ in "dogs" is not a plural marker. but means, "bathroom." He seems to think that anytime the syllable /mu/ appears, it is the same thing. That is like arguing that -ness in "goodness" is related to the Loch Nes monster@! On p. 140 he really does a doozy, rendering zag.mu.ku as "the bright Mu whic is afar." This is news to everyone who thought that zagmu meant "new year" in Sumerian and ku (actually kug) meant "holy" or "pure," especially to the poor fellow who just published a whole book on the word! This is the holy processional barge for the new year festival! On p. 141 he invents a meaning for mu "that which raises straight" for which he provides not a shred of evidence. That is followed by five cuneiform signs which are meant to show the development of "mu." Only th first two are mu, the other three are completely different signs and have nothing to do with it at all. The final one on the left which he thinks is a conical chamber is actually a version of ninda (bread) or gar (to place), originally a representation of a beviled rim bowl, the standard ration bowl of the Uruk culture. After more nonsense on p. 143 he says: mu or its Semitic derivatives shu-mu (that which is a mu), sham or shem....But the universal application of "name" to early texts that spoke of an object used in flying has obscured the true meaning of early records". This is truly mindboggling! First, the root that comes out as shumu in Akkadian and shem in much later Hebrew is an old one, as attested by the fact that it occurs in other Semitic languages, including Arabic, as well in Ethiopic, that is in Afro-Asiatic outside of Semitic. This means that it is older than any contact with Sumerian and likewise there are no loans from Sumerian in Ethiopic! Just because two words have an m in them does not mean that they are related! You might believe that millions of people have misunderstood the Old Testament for thousands of years, you might also believe that one of the most common verbal prefixes in Sumerian actually refers to spaceships, so that every other or so Sumerian phrase is about one thing only, including cattle accounts! If you do that, you would also have to believe that in the Near East today people speak about speceships to each other every day and we have never heard about it! You might be interested to know that in modern Hebrew the word to name is indeed shem, and in Arabic it is ism, which derives from the same Semitic root! Every day people say, "your name please," or so we think, but they are really talking about spaceships! It would be impossible to point out every single piece of rubbish in this book, but every page is full of such nonsense. Enough already!
[END FIRST QUOTED POST}
[BEGIN SECOND QUOTED POST]
Subject: Re: Stitchin's Language Skills 2(was: Looking at Sitchin...) From: pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) Date: 1995/12/21 Message-Id: <piotrm.91.000E3...@umich.edu> References: <4b588u$...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <NEWTNews.29771.819485372.sagnier@vectra11> <shokwave-2012951508380...@dialup-88.austin.io.com> <DJxn5H....@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com> <shokwave-2112950940510001@dialup-76 austin.io.com> <piotrm.89.000C4B10@ Organization: University of Michigan Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.archaeology,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors,alt.ali n.research
Let us start with the chapter on Sumer: land of the Gods. Most S's summaries of Sumerian myths are from Kramer and reflect Kramer's time and predelections. I will not quarell with that. The moment he adds anything of his own, confusion enters. P. 90 he does not seem to realize that the Adapa story is Akkadian, not Sumerian, and that the earliest version of what he cites actually comes from Egypt, from the time of Akhnaten, when Akkadian was the international dyplomatic language. There is in fact a Sumerian version of Adapa, but S could not have known about it, as it was found only recently and we do not know how it goes, as it is still unpublished. IN the pages that follow he paraphrases rituals from the second half of the 1st millennium BCE, rituals that were written in Akkadian under the Seleucid kings! P. 95 he introduces Enlil, whose name he translates as "lord of the airspace." LIL, however, never means that, as I pointed out in previuos posts. P. 9 he claims that a Sumerian king complained about something to the Assembly of the Gods. The text that he is obliquely refering to is actually a literary letter written from the last king of Ur to his vassal in the northern city of Kazallu. Further on that page the fun really begins. "The third god of Sumer...bore two names E.A and EN.KI." ...E.a (the name meant 'house-water').
These are actually the two names, Akkadian and Sumerian respectively, for the same deity, but in two different languages. The thinks that E.A, although Akkaidian, consists of Sumeria e and a! Actually, the sign that we transliterate as e2, when used for early Semitic languages, has a value /'a/, the ' being the Akkadian equivalent of many Proto-Semitic glottal stops. When two vowels are written together, it is a writing convention for /aja/, not for a long vowel. Hence a-a is the writing of the wife of Shamash, who is actually Aja. Thus, most people believe that the real name of Ea was actually /Haja/. It certainly was not Sumerian--that was Enki.
Next page (100) "a city appropriately named HA.A.KI (Place of the water-fishes); it was also known as E.RI.DU ("home of going afar"). First, ki was a classifier for place names that was not pronounced. HA.A was read Kua'ra, and was a small place next to Eridu, not the same city. No one knows what Eridu means, but it was never spelled the way S analyzes in, but was written with the sign NUN, the symbol of Enki. When they did spell it sylabically, it was eri-dug, a fold etymology meaning "sweet city."
I skip some strange stuff. P. 107 "an evil god named Zu ("wise"). Zu is Akkadian, zu is Sumerian. This is the thunderbird, or lion-eaded eagle, symbol of Ningirsu, who was named in Sumerian Anzu (in old books Imdugud) , and that was shortened and borrowed as a full name into Zu (long u). Same page the mention of Sumerian mu, which means "name" translated as a "flying machine" without any reason, but has a very strange explanation further on!
109 "sacred precinct (the GIR.SU) in the city of Lagash" [this is repeated a number of times]. Girsu was the ancient name of the mound Telloh, while Lagash was the name of the neary enormous mound of Al-Hiba. Same page, he introduced the name of the Babylonian god Marduk, whose name he writes MAR.DUK and translates as "son of the pure mound." It took me a minute to figure out what outlandish mechanism had lead to this one; it must be Akkadian maru:, "son," and Sumerian du "mound," followed by ku "pure," likewise Sumerian! Just like Manhattan!
P. 111 "Nanna (short for NAN.NAR---"bright one")" Wrong again! Nanna is an old Sumerian name with no apparent etymology. Late in the first millennium a few scribes wrote it playfully with a final /r/, making a word-paly on Akkadian nama:ru, "to shine." This says nothing at all about it's etymology and cannot be reconciled with any imaginary nan and nar! P. 113 "Nanna's other name , Sin, derived from SU.EN...the same complex...be obtained by placing the syllables in any order, ZU.EN and EN.ZU were mirror words of each other. Nanna/Sin as ZU.EN was none other than EN.ZU (lord Zu)." He confuses writing and prononciation. In early cuneiform the order of signs did not conform to the order they were read in. Some words, such as ZU.AP = abzu, and EN.ZU = Su'en, were traditionally written like this even after the order had changed. Syllabic text indicate that EN.ZU was read Su'en, later as Sin. Again a Sumerian etymology with an Akkadian name (Zu) all mixed up, with no reason!
P 123. The etymology of Ishkur as "mountainous" because it has an element kur, "mountain, foreign land" is strange, but not as strange as what follows. The Akkadian name of this storm god as Adad. S derives it from Sumerian DA.DA, which does not even exist, and confuses the supposed Sumerian DA.DA with Hebrew "dod", which he renders as "lover" or "uncle"! Now three languages are confused. On the next page he confuses things even more by listing incorrect names of this deity in other languages, including Semitic Amorite, in which the name was Addu, not Ramanu. This and West Semitic Hadad, indicate that the root was 'DD in Semitic languages, but Hebrew dod, as well as the related Akkadian word da:du, are from a different root D'D. As we shall see later, S thinks that anything a little bit similar is the same, but in language phonemic differences are precisely those that make a change in meaning, hence in English "moose" and "goose" show that m and g are separate phonemes because they make such a difference. For S su is zu, shi is zi, etc.
P. 140 He proposes that the boat ZAG.MU.KU means "the bright MU which is from afar." This is all wrong. zag-mu is Sumerian for "new year" and ku means "holy, clean." This leads to pure fiction about mu. It never means "that which rises straight." Never in any text. He then provides a strange chart of the development of the sign mu, but only the first two of the five are actually mu, the rest are completely different, unrelated signs!!!! This leads on p. 143 to shu-mu, apparently the Semitic pronoun shu + Sumerian mu! This is simply impossible, and certainly never means "sky-chamber." When a slave is sold and it says X mu-ni-im, "X is his/her name" I really think it would be difficult to translate such a mundane document as X is his/her rocket!
P. 145 "fiery skyships...The Sumerians called them NA.RU ("stones that rise"). The AKkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians called them naru ("objects that give off light") He is actually speaking for the Sumerian word for a stone stelea, na-ru-a, which mean "demarcation stone." This was loaned into Akkadian as naru: (when a Sumerian word ended in a vowel and it was loaned into Akkaian, the vowel became long). He evidently confuses this with the Semitic root for "light" which comes out as nu:ru in Akkadian (middle vowel long, final short). He illustrates a naru on p. 152 and tells us on 151 that "this central figure (i.e. who everyone else knows was Naram-Sin of Akkad) is that of a deity and not of a human king, for the person is wearing a helmet adorned with horns--the identifying mark exclusive of the gods." Naram-SIn, grandson of Sargon, had proclaimed himself divine, and was in fact represented thus! More to come!
[END SECOND QUOTED POST]
Doug Weller (
talk)
17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The challenge by Svadhisthana to the authenticity of the Sun symbol represented by Heiser is unwarranted. This is no mere opinion of his since he supports the interpretation with examples from Jeremy Black and Ursula Seidl. Many other authorities might be added to this list, including Alfred Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur, Leipzig 1913, p. 252, and S.H. Langdon, Semitic Mythology, Boston 1931, p. 151, Vol. V of The Mythology of All Races. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The requirement to provide a source for "Hundreds of sun symbols have been documented..." is absurd BECAUSE this fact is common knowledge in the fields of Assyriology and Mesopotamian studies and it is a guideline in scholarship that "common knowledge" does not need to be sourced. The citations provided to Heiser's remarks immediately above this sentence provide ample justification to the "Hundreds of sun symbols..." phrase. Considering that Sitchin bascially makes it all up as he goes along and gives etymologies for Sumerian and Akkadian words that that are completely ad hoc and have no basis in the subject languages, as Univ. Michigan Assyriologist Piotr Michelowski explained in great detail on sci.archaeology in December 1995 and January 1996, it is a bit like gilding the lily to insist on strick, pedantic standards for sourcing long-accepted commonplaces, such as the ubiquitously documented Babylonian sun symbol against the bald assertion of Sitchin that the seal on VA 243 portrays a sun symbol that has never been documented by Assyriologists and other specialists in the field. BTW: one of Michelowksi's posts to sci.archaeology (with many cross posts) on Dec. 22, 1995, can be read at < http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.research/browse_thread/thread/4af5e9bfd86808b3/9612cd2327d40067?lnk=st&q=#9612cd2327d40067>. An "advanced groups search" at googlegroups.com on sitchin in English by <piotrm@umich.edu> from Dec. 22, 1995, to Jan. 12, 1996, yields nine messages that handily dispose of Sitchin's knowledge of ancient languages and Mesopotamian cosmology. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I simply contend that I looked through just the first argument on sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors with an open mind since I do not believe Sitchin's theory's but still find them entertaining and I was disturbed to find that the person claiming that Sitchin was incorrect for particular reasons would himself be doing the same basic things that he claimed Sitchin was wrong in doing. For instance, he claimed that what Sitchin claimed was a symbol for the sun, was not the sun because it did not resemble the other symbols for the sun used. He intend claimed that the symbol Sitchin thought represented the sun was representing stars. Yet later in his document he showed the symbol for sun next to the symbol for star and the symbol for star was also not close to the symbol the critic claimed was a star and that Sitchin claimed was the sun. Why should we believe that the critic was correct, when he has made the same error that he claimed Sitchin made only with a different symbol. Wouldn't it be likely to think that the official symbol for sun would be something that was used to describe the sun in texts as with the writing on the seal, and that a drawing of the sun and solar system might look more like the symbol on the seal. Particularly since that drawing of the solar system does not coincide with the writing on the seal, but the pictures on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.60.101 ( talk) 04:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I see there is a claim that Sitchin lectured NASA. When and where was this? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I heard Zechariah Sitcin doesn't believe in evolution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This section renamed to "Detractors", and removed bias, straw-man arguments, and obvious coloring words that further reflect a bias to lead the reader to agree with the previous anti-Sitchin position. Honestly people, if you don't agree with someone, coloring information so others agree with you is the weakest position of all.-- 84.103.37.194 ( talk) 03:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems a user Aunt Entropy insists on keeping the anti-Sitchin biased text in this article, citing me for bias in the changes I've made... how does one bias get favored over another?-- 84.103.37.194 ( talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Current version has much of the previous bias removed. If you revert, explain yourself first here (see? Wikipedia rules work both ways!)-- 84.103.37.167 ( talk) 06:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed tag about whether article subject is fringe, THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. In this case, obvious bias is hiding behind the fringe topic; even fringe topics deserve unbiased content; this is the heart of Wikipedia. See below for more.
The IP starting 84.103 has disputed the current stable version of this article, and is edit-warring to add his/her preferred version. The POV is quite different in the IP's version, not conforming to the FRINGE guidelines. So whether Stichin's ideas are fringe is the question that needs to be answered to start with, and should the article's POV be changed? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 02:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Examples section added below for proper discussion.
So here is the chance to discuss the issues... any takers or should we continue pedantic squabbling over WP procedure and continue using our friends to rvt for us?
For the life of me I do not understand why there is so much resistance to accept the fact that Zecharia Sitchin is a crackpot of the first order. His "translations" of cuneiform texts have been totally discredited by fully accredited Assyriologists: Piotr Michalowski and Michael Heiser. Anyone who knows anything about science knows from a reading of Sitchin's first book The 12th Planet that the author does not know what he is talking about when he says Earth's seasons are caused by its changing distance from the Sun, instead of the correct cause: Earth's axial tilt. In the first book Sitchin has Marduk/Nibiru entering the Solar System essentially in the plane of the ecliptic since it "meets" every planet on its way in order, which can only happen with a co-planar passage. Recently, from what I have read, Sitchin posits Nibiru's orbit to be tilted about 30 degrees to the ecliptic, evidently with no explanation for this change. But, in any event, as astronomer Ton Van Flandern has explained on the basis of his extensive research on the stability of eccentric or cometary orbits, and has been cited in the Sitchin entry, no body on Nibiru's 3600 year orbit could maintain such a clockwork-like orbit over the duration Sitchin claims. If anyone claims 2 + 2 = 5 in base 10 arithmetic, he could be legitimately labelled a "crank" or "crackpot". The same reasoning leads to this label applying to Zecharia Sitchin. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
IP, you'll get a lot farther in your arguments if you do not personalise this and make it about me. The reason we had to go this far is you would never make a case for your edits and only used the article talk page to impugn me and my motives. That's not how things are done here. This is a collaborative project, and attacking others gets nothing done. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Aunt Entropy seems to have a misplaced ego since nothing written by me was directed purposefully at her. My position is based solely on the content-less nature of Sitchin's work. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck". Just because someone masquerades as a scholar, as Sitchin most certainly does, does not entitle him to all the deference accorded a genuine scholar. He is a crackpot, pure and simple. He refuses even to reply to critics, which hardly befits a true scholar. He is akin to Kingsley Amis's "Lucky Jim": "revelling in pseudo-resarch, shedding new light on a non-subject". Phaedrus7 ( talk) 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In the section titled Ideas there is the following sentence:
Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space.
Calling this absurd seems like a value judgement on the idea. Does wikipedia as an entity feel this idea is absurd or do other sources in the scientific community feel this way? Also in that section is whole paragraphs worth of quoted text
The scenario outlined by Sitchin, with Nibiru returning to the inner solar system regularly every 3,600 years, implies an orbit with a semi-major axis of 235 Astronomical Units, extending from the asteroid belt to twelve times farther beyond the sun than Pluto. "Elementary perturbation theory indicates that, under the most favorable circumstances of avoiding close encounters with other planets, no body with such an eccentric orbit would keep the same period for two consecutive passages. Within twelve orbits the object would be either ejected or converted to a short period object. Thus, the search for a trans-Plutonian planet by T.C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, which Sitchin uses to bolster his thesis, is no support at all."[3][4]
Sitchin's theory "posits that, from an equal start, the Nefilim evolved on Nibiru 45 million years ahead of comparable development on Earth with its decidedly more favorable environment. Such an outcome is unlikely, to say the least, since Nibiru would spend over 99% of its time beyond Pluto. Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space. Also unexplained is how the Nefilim, who evolved long after Nibiru arrived, knew what happened when Nibiru first entered the solar system."[5]
Is it normal to included that large of a quote mixed in with wikipedia text? 76.106.50.133 ( talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that all the planets from Jupiter on out are dark, frozen wastelands, it is NOT sensible to posit, as Sitchin does, that a habitable planet on a highly elliptical orbit that spends 99% of its time beyond the orbit of Pluto can exist and the handwaving of the "save the phenomonon" notion that heat from radioactive decay in the crust keeps the planet warm is laughable. It is NOT unreasonable to label such notions "absurd", as the SOURCED QUOTATION from Ellenberger does. Keep in mind, in dealing with Sitchin one is dealing with a person who in 1976 believed Earth's seasons were caused by its distance from the Sun and NOT by its axial tilt. Sitchin is, to quote Henry Bauer regarding Velikovsky in his Beyond Velikovsky (1984) "an ignoramous masquerading a sage" and it is not beyond the responsibility of an encyclopedia to label subjects correctly. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, Mr. Sitchin is both right and wrong. In a sense, we should all keep an open mind about the possibilities of the unknown. Human science is still an infant. Remeber, some of our greatest known scientist were labeled "nuts" becasue of the fact that the norm did not see the possibilities. Cohcekn ( talk) 23:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As a user of wikipedia, I depend on it as a source of un-biased information, sometimes for research, and other times just for fun. I find this article to be extremely biased. In one sentence this article states
"Elementary perturbation theory indicates that, under the most favorable circumstances of avoiding close encounters with other planets, no body with such an eccentric orbit would keep the same period for two consecutive passages. Within twelve orbits the object would be either ejected or converted to a short period object. Thus, the search for a trans-Plutonian planet by T.C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, which Sitchin uses to bolster his thesis, is no support at all."
Personally, I find the utilization of theory's that have not been veted through empirical scientific process and proven as fact to debunk other theory's reprehensible. I understand "Main stream science" constantly attempts to argue theory as fact using other theory's, none of which have been proven, but I don't feel wikipedia should assist is this chain of delusion. Anyone who uses a theory as a fact in order to disprove another theory is either irresponsible, ignorant, or stupid and should henceforth be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.1.225 ( talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This article should be completely ignored, and possibly removed. Any attempt to remove the biased opinions in the article seems to be quickly reverted. I think I just lost all faith in wikipedia regarding its ability to provide hard information on a subject without being used as a tool to influence a popular opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.1.225 ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)