Talk:Zecharia Sitchin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Using galacticdiplomacy.com or exopolitics.org as a source or link

Both sites are registered personally to Michael Salla (via a P.O. box in Hawaii). Based on the site information (http://www.galacticdiplomacy.com/about.htm and http://exopolitics.org/about.htm) they exist to promote the existence of ETs and to sell services or raise money to enable others to contact ETs. The sites are self published, have no official affiliations and cannot be considered a reliable source, in any way independent or of academic interest. The sites fail WP:RS as a reference and WP:ELNO as a link. The sites might only be suitable for an article on Michael Salla or his company, the "Exopolitics Institute" based on the guidance of WP:SELFPUB.—Ash (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Using sitchin.com as a link

This site is currently described as "official". This site is actually registered to "sitchin.com Private Registrant", "A Happy DreamHost Customer". The site contents do not claim any official status or particular association though the single page it consists of is titled "The Official Web Site of Zecharia Sitchin". There is no apparent link between Sitchin and the merchant links on the site to sell books. I suggest the site is removed unless its status can be confirmed.—Ash (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See [1] and particularly [2] - it looks to me as though this is the official site. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you could find a reliable source that points to Sitchin's website (perhaps one of his recent books?) this would lend validity. Unfortunately on closer examination you have pointed to (1) the self published site of "Kenneth Pollinger" (describes himself as "an ordained priest in The Order of Melchizedek") and (2) a geocities site which is self published again. These sites don't really constitute proof but are encouraging.

Found a book as a source; "Flying Saucers - 50 Years Later", Author C. A. Honey, Publisher Trafford Publishing, 2002, ISBN 1553692950, quotes his website as http://www.sitchin.com. You can find the text in Google Books. I think this is good enough to keep the site in external links as "official".—Ash (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Slanted Reference Material for Article

How can anyone in good conscience have an article without any positive source material. Should this not be fair and balanced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.54.102 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Read our NPOV policy at WP:NPOV and read WP:Fringe. Balance doesn't mean equal representation of pro and con. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Sitchin's ideas are PURE fantasy, as has been established by competent, responsible scholarship, the only positive comments that are possible in all good conscience would be those favorably comparing his work to the Grimm's Fairy Tales and other Märchen. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That having been said, and even though I respect Thompson's work, he descends into hyperbole when he talks about intergalactic travel in the quoted passage in this article. However, I'm willing to concede that citing him as a reference in this article may be fair-minded, even if the citation, itself, isn't. rowley (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thompson engages in "hyperbole" in criticizing The Twelfth Planet? Considering Sitchin's back story for the arrival of the Planet X/Nibiru many millions of years ago before the existence of any eyewitnesses, whether it came from another star system in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or from another galaxy altogether is really a distinction without a difference. Sitchin is really out of his depth discussing scientific subjects considering that in his first book he did not know that Earth's seasons are caused by our axial tilt and not our varying distance from the Sun during the course of the year. I wrote Sitchin in April 1978 asking, among other questions, how intelligent life arose on Planet X long before it arose on Earth when Planet X spends over 99% of its time beyond the orbit of Pluto where it is very cold and dark. Sitchin replied that the surface of Planet X was kept warm by the heat from radioactive decay in the crust, but he ignored the darkness issue. One does not need a college major in physics or chemistry to see how ridiculous Sitchin's entire scenario truly is. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read Sitchins work and found that some of his ideas do seem far fetched and perhaps wrong but there are many ideas that make sense and explain gaps and confusions in ancient history. He does lack evidence to prove these ideas but not as much as the scientists lack evidence when they discredit him. jasmin-jade (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And? Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure there is any "And" here. We seem to agree he is far fetched and wrong. I dare-say that the Chuckle Brothers spout nonsense that occasionally explains gaps in conventional knowledge. As Wikipedia is about reliable sources rather that determining the truth, if their theory were in a reliable source, we might use it here. It appears that there is no recommended improvement on the table, so this thread has drifted off-topic.—Ash (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Although somewhat less concise Ash has expressed my concern rather more eloquently than I did. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to this argument the point of view that what Sitchin proposes can be seen as an alternative 'religious' ideology. If you want to disprove the science of Sitchin then the same should be done for the science of other religions. As critiques of the science of other religions in religious articles on Wikipedia are not as damning then I do not see why they should be in the case of Mr Sitchin. Very little in this world is concrete fact. We base our knowledge merely on a series of theories which hold until they are replaced by new, revised theories. Those who argue Sitchin's theories can only battle with other theories which are masqueraded as fact. The fact that many who disagree with Sitchin are 'scholars' is meaningless in the light that Sitchin himself is a scholar. What makes these 'experts' on Sumerian history any different from, for example, Egyptologists, who also claim to be experts but who have themselves made many, many mistakes in their accounts of the ancient history of Egypt? I whole-heartedly feel that the article in question should dignify itself with remaining neutral and biographical, rather than as a platform to attempt to discredit the theories of Mr Sitchin, which in the majority, sadly, does. ([ACT78]) (ACT78 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Sitchin is an ex-journalist and author, not a scholar by normal definitions. He doesn't claim to be putting forward a religious ideology. This is not a forum for such arguments unless you have reliable sources for your statements. We do not strive for 'neutrality' in your sense but for articles with a 'neutral point of view' as described at WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Sitchin a "scholar"? Well, sort of in a way, in the same way that Immanuel Velikovsky was a "scholar"--a self-taught person with very firmly held beliefs about ancient history and the recent history of the Solar System who was immune to any suggestion that he might be wrong. Sitchin and Velikovsky are known to be wrong because the "real world" really does not resemble the fantasy world these "scholars" described. The fact that so many readers among the public find Sitchin's ideas interesting is a testament to their scientific illiteracy and ignorance of how knowledge is accrued by true scholars. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller - I put forth the suggestion that Sitchin's theories CAN, if so inclined, be seen as a religious ideology, in the same way as beliefs such as Raelism are considered to be religious ideologies, and NOT that Sitchin himself has claimed this. I believe that this view holds water in light of the fact that it is known that practically all of the stories of the Old Testament included in the Bible are taken from much earlier Sumerian writings, such as The Story of Creation. Is a religion not an institution which seeks to provide answers to the mysteries of our existence on this planet? I would say yes, and isn't that in a sense what Sitchin has done with his suppositions? Yes. Since what an individual holds dear as 'faith' is subjective, then it is not a matter which requires a "reliable source", any more than your dismissal of my point does. (ACT78 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

And Phaedrus7, the point which you seem to be missing is that human beings as a species are in a constant search for meaning by our very nature, thus we are eager to label things as fact so that we can make sense of them. History is littered with examples of so-called facts which have been overturned by new discoveries, scientific or otherwise. What makes the state of our knowledge any different now? The point is that many scholarly writings have been left to go stale and have often not been revised and updated in accordance with new discoveries. On the whole, we are not willing to throw out our understanding of certain subjects when new evidence to the contrary is revealed only to leave us back at the drawing board with more question marks, so the new evidence is routinely mocked while we stubbornly cling to the outdated theories of many "true scholars". Anyone disputing the words of these scholars now has a metophorical mountain to climb, because, as Graham Hancock has pointed out, they are going against the grain in attemting to counterbalance the "unquestioned" acceptance and support given to orthodox views by the education system, the media, and by society at large. (ACT78 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Any interpretation of Sitchin's ideas as religious ideology would have to have a reliable source -- WP:RS - at the moment is is your own hypothesis, which we call original research -- see WP:OR and doesn't even belong on this discussion page, let alone in the article. Your comments to Phaedrus7 are also OR and do not deal directly with this article although they might be relevant on some of the discussion pages of our policies and guidelines. But since they go so much against what Wikipedia is all about, an encyclopedia based on reliable and verifiable sources, I don't expect you'll get very far. Please read up on our policies and guidelines before posting again, and when you do post it would be good if you would refer to them, bring sources to the table, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I take your point on my unfamiliarity with your rules and regulations, but I only signed up because I felt your over-all representation of Zecharia Sitchin was unfairly disparaging and wanted to make a case for a less-scathing account of him to be published. I did not want to have to read an instruction manual before doing so. Since I have no way to source my own personal philosophical viewpoint on the debate besides signing my post, then I suppose you're right, this is not the place for me. I know you deal in facts here, but not, I would have thought at the expense of sense. This brings the Burt Munro registration debacle to mind, the story of a man who was almost denied the fulfilment of his own destiny because of beaurocratic dilly-dallying. He who watches the finger which points to the moon does not see the heavenly glory. I shall not post again. (ACT78 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

The reference material to this statement..."Sitchin's speculations are entirely discounted by professional scientists, historians, and archaeologists, who note many problems with his translations of ancient texts and with his understanding of physics,[2] categorizing his work as pseudoscience."...is slanted. The reference material is a diatribe without citations http://skepdic.com/sitchin.html and it does not indicate multiple scientists, historians, nor archeaologists. The statement is misleading, and it is not an impartial tone.Gymboot (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the statement, another editor restored it, stating that my 'personal dislike' was not sufficient reason for deletion; and, that skeptic.com had been accepted as a credible source of information. My reason was not NPOV, it was, and is simple misrepresentation - the cited source (skeptic.com) does not support the statement. I challenge the editor that restored the statement to list the names of the multiple professional scientists, historians, and archeaologists (from the cited source page), whom, 'entirely discount' Sitchin's speculations; count the number of the 'many' problems 'they(?)' noted; and, if you could list the title/s of the paper/s that distinguish Heiser as a respected academic in this field, I'd appreciate it. I don't think many people regard a science fiction novel as academic literature. Writers at skeptic.com do not have carte blanche credibility, I expect statements to be supported, until then, they are just opinions.Gymboot (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The author of the Skeptics dictionary is Robert T. Carroll. The cite at skepdic.com (not skeptic.com), did indeed not fully support the statement in that it didn't mention physics, so I've removed that. I think we need to attribute the statement to Carroll and then by our guidelines there should be no problems. We don't even try to prove a reliable source right or wrong, but we do verify that the source is being used correctly. You misunderstand our policy here. We aren't after truth, we present what reliable sources have to say in a verifiable way. These will undoubtedly conflict at times, we accept that. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

skepdic.com also doesn't list these so-called professional scientists, historians and archaeologists who supposedly oppose Sitchin. Who are they? What are their qualifications - I "don't see this supported" at skepdic.com. The statements must be deleted. No I do not "misunderstand" the policies. You are in error. First and foremost, encyclopedic content 'must' be 'verifiable'. There is no source saying who these scientists, historians and archaeologists are at the reference given, so how do I check if they exist, and oppose Sitchin's view? I can't, because it's an opinion, not a fact, the information is unverifiable even at the source pointed to. Therefore the statement is misleading. Wiki is not to be abused like this, the result will be a degeneration of the encyclopedia into a compendium of opinion. I'm suspicious of your motives, why are you defending unsupported slander on a BLP? You are obligated to rewrite the content to an acceptable level or delete it.122.149.109.89 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Debunk?

It is plain that Sitchin is an author who has taken the wondrous ambiguity of ancient historical fragments, and woven a rather phantasmagorical garment from them. For a biographical page, SHOULD the POV be one of challenging the scientific veracity and/or provability of his book content? My instinct is that the article divorce the discussion about his book content from the information about the writer. It is ENTIRELY likely that his public stance on his writings is a MARKETING ploy. He's not selling us science and truth, he is selling a book product. He is NOT a "charlatan" and his writing isn't "absurd"...he's a writer of psuedoscience-based fantasy. There is no need to debunk fantasy, merely the requirement to identify it as such. When discussing Tolkien, we don't have to "debunk" the existence of trolls, magic, and elven-kind. Taken from this point of view, his writing is quite successful, in that it SOUNDS just plausible enough, given a credulous reader, to be perhaps NOT untrue. So he is a success at writing FANTASY. There is no need to vilify, simply the need to identify. He is a writer of fantasy books that cull from the ancient historical record to help suspend the reader's disbelief. 96.61.68.38 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor 96.61.68.38, your comments are a day late. They have all the appearance of an April Fool's Day joke. You cannot be serious that Sitchin is just selling a book with no concern about science and truth, just fantasy. This is absurd. If Sitchin's writing were the fantasy you want to think it is, then you may have a point as with Tolkien. But you are wrong and therefore Sitchin's absurdities need to be exposed for the fraud they are. Phaedrus7 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sitchin is not a fraud. He believes in what he writes and claims, and he is a highly respected person, worthy enough to be noted on the New York Times and History Channel programs. He has an opinion which you dislike (obviously). He may be wrong, or the Sumarians may have been wrong, but only time well tell eventually. John Hyams (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can know what he believes. He is respected by those people who believe his ideas, but disrespected by others including academics who have commented on him. He was in the NYTimes regional section which suggests that was just a local interest piece. Some of his key translations are clearly wrong unless you think all the academic experts on Sumerian are wrong, and his science is also clearly wrong. His books are badly to not at all referenced despite his huge bibliographies. The History Channel features all sorts of fringes stuff, inclusion there may indicate notability but not respect or accuracy - tv tends to be much more about getting the audiences than accuracy. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sitchin plainly tells people what he believes in videos (youtube), that creation myths are cryptic documentaries of real events. He offers his interpretation of cryptic clues in creation myths in context with this belief. His interpretations are not exclusively based on any specific ancient text, he claims to have explored a compendium of resources from ancient writings. WP should not become distracted with endorsement or debunking the claims of a popular public figure. Inform about Sitchin, expose his theories for examination, without bias. The reader can explore further, elsewhere, to formulate their opinion.Gymboot (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more criticisms than ideas

Why not have it more balanced. Explain his ideas out thoroughly and then add criticisms later. This has a brief synopsis of his ideas followed by a very long section of criticisms. The criticisms themselves seem very bias. They use words to counter his idea such as "absurd". That is far from a logical counter to a point. Namecalling? is that what objective criticism has come down to? This entire page seems bias and unfair against Mr. Sitchin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.245.157 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer: per WP:NPV, there are more criticisms of Sitchin than there are uncritical repetitions of his ideas because that reflects the preponderance of opinion in the reliable sources about Sitchin. Or, more succinctly: everyone thinks he's a nut, therefore our article should make it clear that everyone thinks he's a nut. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

[The following was being written as the preceding comment was being posted.] This is ridiculous. Sitchin has nothing positive on his side other than the distinction of being a very successful crackpot by virtue of his promulgating a totally ludicrous story about the extraterrestrial origin of intelligent life on Earth, as is established by the referenced criticisms in the entry. In a case such as this, objectivity merely entails reporting the truth because there is no valid content in Sitchin's ideas per se. As David Whitehouse remarked concerning pseudoscience in 7 April 1983 New Scientist: "everything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about." Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the article is not balanced. Much of Sitchin's work is not detailed, and the article requires expansion in the sections other than criticism. There are plenty of citable resources per WP:NPV that can be used for expanding these sections (about his life, his research, his books, his public notability and influence. Overall, to me this whole article looks like a smear article, regardless of the "science fiction" nature of the subject. I will do my best to improve it, but only when I get the time to do it (I invite neutral editors to improve this article). John Hyams (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, apart of the fact that the language and content of the article adopt the critical point of view only, the "Skeptic's Dictionary" is not exactly a neutral source. By its definition, it was designed to be used with a certain POV. John Hyams (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been written according to our policies of neutral point of view on fringe subjects. NPOV doesn't mean "equal weight": the article reflects the opinions of the relevant experts in due proportion. If a subject's work is condemned by the overwhelming percentage of the experts, our articles have to reflect that. We can't write about fringe subjects from within their own point of view. The question of whether Skeptic's Dictionary is a reliable source is irrelevant to "its definition." Auntie E. (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The "Skeptic's Dictionary" is not a neutral source. However, It would be possible to mention that "According to the Skeptic's Dictionary, Sitchin is a crackpot (or whatever)." John Hyams (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The January 10, 2010, article on Sitchin from New York Times is hardly any "reliable source" because the writer Kilgannon is totally uncritical in repeating Sitchin's nonsensical ideas. For example, a "woodcarving from 7,000 B.C. of a large man handing a plow to a smaller man" is shown. This "woodcarving" is obviously a greatly enlarged copy (a photograph or reproduction, the article is not clear) of the impression made from a Cylinder seal, which typically was less than two inches tall. And cylinder seals like the one that produced the image shown are far younger than 9,000 years old considering they were invented ca. 3500 B.C. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the NYT article is not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No info was taken from the NYT. The Influence section merely mentions that there was a Sunday edition article about Sitchin on the NYT. As for NYT not being a reliable source, well it is a relaible source regarding its reporting on what Sitchin says. The NYT is not here to support Sitchin's claims, but only to report on what he claims (it's quite funny that this has to be explained to anti-Sitchin editors, at the same time that they are probably fully aware it... Oh well :) John Hyams (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the tag of nomination for neutrality check can be removed now after my recent edits, which I believe are OK. John Hyams (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I reinstated the tag since sources other than the Skeptic's Dictionary are needed. If it's indeed the majority view, plenty of other resources should exist. John Hyams (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, a site that calls itself "SitchinIsWrong.com" is hardly a neutral source. John Hyams (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I initially visited this page to find out a little more about Sitchin's history and background, etc. Not to be convinced of his lack of credibility by his skeptics, or told that I must be stupid for taking an interest in his theories. Fans of Sitchin are already aware of his detractors and to be honest may well end up thinking less of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information for giving far more credence to the naysayers than to the ideas of the man himself. The article is a disgrace in that respect and simply reads as a smear job against a man who, agree with him or not, has given people a lot of pleasure with his work in that the subject matter it provides is both thought-provoking and original. It is shameful that someone who has dedicated so much of his life to this topic is ridiculed in such an ignorant way, [attack on other editors deleted here by user:Dougweller. Have some respect! So there are a few holes in his theory, big deal, hardly surprising given the range it spans. There are massive holes in all major religions but that doesn't stop millions of people believing does it?! Don't get me wrong, I think it is fair to add a critique of his work on the page, of course, but it shouldn't dominate, as in this case. The article is about as neutral as a live-wire. ACT78 (ACT78 (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

I think I've already said that the article is not meant to be neutral. So have other editors. Our WP:NPOV policy is about a neutral point of view, please read it and WP:FRINGE. "The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy". And you need to stop attacking other editors, see WP:CIVIL and WP:RESPECT. I'm deleting your attacks - we don't allow them and it can be a reason to block an editor - this isn't a threat, just an explanation as you are new here and new editors rarely understand how Wikipedia works (and even we more experienced editors usually only know a fraction of it). Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller - It is not my intention to attack you or anyone else sir, sincerely. I am a great believer in questioning the preconceived concepts which are programmed into all of us about our perception of reality, that's all. I feel that the argument here is tipped in favour of the anti-Sitchin camp by way of sheer numbers and am just trying to redress the balance through the medium of debate, not to personally insult anyone. In my defence, I only used the word 'absurd' because that was the very word used in the argument against Mr Sitchin. I thought that was fair game. No disrespect intended. (ACT78 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Pseudoscience or pseusohistory?

Sitchin's work is not a scientific work, it is mainly a history-related work, with assumtions regarding DNA interventions. DNA interventions are not pseudoscience if they are to be dicovered as historically correct. Therefore his work is regarded pseudohistory, not pseudoscience. John Hyams (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, since his theory mentions Nibiru, a planet beyond Neptune, then OK, pseudoscience it is. John Hyams (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with most of what John Hyams is saying. So without wishing to re-phrase what has already been voiced by his good self, I would just like to echo his wise sentiments on this entire subject. ACT78 (ACT78 (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Using SitchinIsWrong.com as a source

SitchinIsWrong.com is non-neutral source, and I think that any text supported by this site should be removed per Wikipedia:Libel. Dougweller, since you have replied to the previous ones, what's your take on this one? John Hyams (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is simply not true that neutrality requires us to remove all sources critical of their subject. In this case, arguably, the opposite is true. Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It seems that the proprietor of this source is a recognized expert on Sitchin's work, making him potentially a reliable source despite the self-published nature of his site. And, it also seems that by far the predominant view of Sitchin is that his theories are very far from correct, so it is not a violation of NPOV to say so, and it is a violation of NPOV to avoid clearly stating so in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

David, this source is also a "recognized expert" on Sitchin's work: xfacts.com. Also, if the promiment scientific/historical view states that Sitchin is wrong, then I would like to see academic articles, NASA articles, and scientific journals that prove it's the prominent view. "SitchinIsWrong" or "Skeptic Dictionary" are, by their nature and model - POV-based debunking sites, and cannot be taken as reliable sources even if the information in them is correct. The source should be coming outside of these private/personal debunking sites. John Hyams (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Please read WP:TE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your repetition of the same arguments you started with, without any evidence that you have paid any attention to the previous discussion, is serving only to convince me that you yourself do not hold a neutral point of view and that your edits here should be examined with the deepest suspicion. Which is to say: if you want me to respond more constructively, say something different than what you said in the previous dozen comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What?.. Are you accusing me of something? Dear sir, I am here to improve an article, like many other articles in the past, with NPOV, and I already have contributed to this one more positively than others (who were focused on criticism only, failing the balance). I have fully read and understood your points in the discussion, but I do not have to agree with your interpretations in those discussions. If something is not answered, or if further clarifications are required, I will raise my issues. Accusing me of diruptuive editing is a rude thing to do, and I may regard this is as a personal attack. Please mind your language and tone when you discuss on this talk page, and if "This is getting tiresome", go and have a break! John Hyams (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this bit about non-neutral sources, it seems to be a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy as David says above. We definitely do not expect our sources to be neutral. Libel is also not an issue here. If criticism wasn't allowed in article we wouldn't be an encyclopedia. David is correct, and WP:Parity also covers this site where it says "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal.". Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's like using "GlobalWarmingSkeptic.com" for debunking global warming, using "BibleIsWrong.com" to debunk the Bible, "ObamaIsWrong.com" on the Obama article, and so on. Since this article is related to a biography of a living person, we should be very careful when using sources. If Sitchin is refuted by the mojority of the scientific community, plenty of other reliable sources should exist. Anyway, I am considering to open a case about this on the BLP board, since such domain names sound like slander domains on the personal level, regardless of the scietific/historical issue. The refuting of the scientific community should be brought from non-slander sites/domains. John Hyams (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

These are very bad analogies. The reason they're bad analogies is because those subjects are very different from Sitchin in the way they're viewed by mainstream consensus: global warning is widely accepted with some prominent dissent, and our article should reflect that. The Bible is widely respected as an important piece of religious literature, by Christians, non-Christians of other religions, and atheists, and is trashed by a few nuts; within that consensus view there are differing views on how literally it should be read, of course, but "debunking" it is very non-mainstream. Obama's views are a subject of wide partisan debate within the US. In contrast, the mainstream view on Sitchin is that he is a nut, and anything else is a very fringe view. The way you keep ignoring this point while bringing up objections on other grounds does not speak well to your objectivity as a Wikipedia editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, private/personal debunking sites cannot be used as reliable sources. John Hyams (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor Hyams, for all his efforts to rehabilitate Sitchin's reputation, fails to appreciate the fact that Sitchin is a crackpot par excellence and the NPOV objective does not mean that scientific and scholarly honesty be sacrificed in its name. I would like to think that if Editor Hyams would ever step back and finally take a critical look at what Sitchin claims he would abandon his delusional pursuit of NPOV. The popularity of Sitchin's "Earth Chronicles" saga that began in 1976 with The Twelfth Planet is notdue to Sitchin's genius and scientifico-intellectual perspicacity. No. Sitchin's popularity is due to the scientific illiteracy, stupidity, and pig-ignornace of the general public. Start with the highly elliptical, 3600 year orbit Sitchin posits for his planet Nibiru, which was originally called Marduk in 1976. A planet on such an orbit spends over 99% of its time in deep space beyond the orbit of Pluto where it is cold and dark; yet Sitchin claims that intelligent life developed on Nibiru millions of years before modern humans developed on Earth, which is the only planet in the solar system in the Sun's Habitable zone. Sitchin boasts of his having consulted with astronomers Tom Van Flandern and Robert Sutton Harrington at the United State Naval Observatory on their work on the search for Planet X. This is correct and it is also correct that Van Flandern explained to Sitchin why Nibiru cannot have maintained a constant 3600 year orbit for so many millions of years because perturbations from the other planets, mainly Jupiter, would have led either to a much bigger orbit or to the escape of Nibiru from the solar system. At a more elementary level of Sitchin's scientific illiteracy is the fact that in his first book he claims, while noting that his science was checked by his brother who is/was an engineer, that Earth's seasons are due to our distance from the Sun, not to the actual cause, our axial tilt. As for Sitchin's interpretations of ancient Sumerian and other Mesopotamian texts, they are pure inventions from his imagination, as University of Michigan Assyriologist Piotr Michalowski explained to Usenet's sci.archaeology group in several posts in December 1995 and January 1996, some of which Editor Doug Weller copied to this Discussion page a year or so ago. Editor Hyams, what part of "crackpot" do you not understand? Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I neglected to mention previously that if Sitchin's Nibiru existed, it would have been discovered by astronomers who have been searching the sky for the suspected Planet X, that was thought to be perturbing Neptune, and more recently in the search for near-earth asteroids and small, icy objects beyond Pluto in the Kuiper belt. Believing in the 12th planet as Sitchin's Nibiru is analogous to searching for the Invisible Man because H.G. Wells wrote about one as Peter J. Smith noted in the 25 April 1985 Nature with respect to the search for Atlantis. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Phaedrus7, you've opened a big subject but it's not about the specific issue I raised above ("SitchinIsWrong.com"). Since you've referred to me as an editor personally, all I would say is that I am trying to keep an open mind and bring balanced to an article which I and others before me felt is not balanced, or reflects only a certain viewpoint. Sitchin may be a "crackpot" as you say, but I refrain from using such words since that is an extreme POV, and I have respect for Sitchin and his 40-year work, even if he is totally wrong. Charles Darwin was first regarded as a crackpot, Galileo Galilei, and many others throughout history. Anyway, that was a short explanation of my own view and I see little point in answering to all the things you've written. Instead, I urge you to find reliable sources to what you say, and use those sources in the article instead of "SitchinIsWrong" or "Skeptic Dictionary" which are, by their nature and model - POV-based debunking sites. I want to see University publications, NASA articles and other sources that debunk Sitchin, if you can find them (I'm sure you can). John Hyams (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

“ But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ” — Carl Sagan

—David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath Editor Hyams waiting for University publications and other responsible, scholarly sources to discuss Sitchin's ideas because Sitchin is beyond the pale of responsible scholarship. He is in the same class as Erich von Daniken and Immanuel Velikovsky. In 1995 on Usenet, University of Michigan Assyriologist Piotr Michalowski denounced Sitchin's pseudo-scholarship in no uncertain terms and would not allow his posts to be archived because he did not want his name permanently associated with Sitchin's. I have personal relationships with several world-class Assyriologists and none of them is interested in wasting their time studying Sitchin's palpable nonsense. Michael S. Heiser is a responsible, honorable scholar who hosts several webpages debunking various of Sitchin's ideas. The chances of Heiser's criticism being published by a university press are nil. For the foreseeable future, Heiser's webpages will probably be the best source of criticism from an accredited Assyriologist. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Phaedrus7, use your sources in the article, with proper citations, not on this talk page. John Hyams (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC

The entry already contains sufficient valid, sourced criticisms to prove that Sitchin's ideas are nonsense. Anyone who expects there to be university press-type publications discussing and assessing Sitchin's ideas is living in an alternate reality. Sitchin's 40+ years of effort do not deserve any respect; only pity for a life wasted in the course of following P.T. Barnum's credo: "There's a sucker born every minute." Sitchin's notion that intelligent life evolved on Nibiru, a planet that spends 99% of its time beyond Pluto, millions of years sooner than on Earth, the only planet in the solar system inside the Habitable zone, is ludicrous on its face. It does nottake someone with a Ph.D. to understand the logic of this fact. A refutation only requires finding one false premise. After noting this evolutionary conflict with reality, any other criticism is superfluous, although additional criticism may be interesting in its own right. Phaedrus7 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, all this has nothing to do with using SitchinIsWrong.com, which is a website run by Dr. Michael S. Heiser. A summary regarding Mr. Heiser and his approach exists here: http://erikparker.com/articles/august02.htm John Hyams (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And I quote:

“ Mr. Heiser's goal is not to add knowledge and understanding to these issues. His goal, from the beginning, when he came on the web page and speaking scene, was to tear down the work of an established author. He had no name recognition to stand on so he used Sitchin's good name to get attention for himself so he could sell his own book, appear on the radio and get speaking engagements. Mr. Heiser does not think he is a debunker and I will not declare that he is. My purpose is, for the reader, to point out that his tactics and behavioral patterns fit the mold and style of a debunker which includes using personal attacks and ridicule. You can make the decision on your own once you see both sides of the issue. Hopefully, you will reach your own conclusions about his motives.

Debunker trick #1, when having no reputation of your own, attempt to destroy the work of an established individual, in the process creating a name for yourself. In fact, the method involves using the name of the person you are attempting to destroy as the springboard for yourself. His first web page that I read was full of insults and uncalled for statements. You would think that a man who claims he has a respected background and career would not want to use someone else’s name for his own gain. Wouldn't he want to be recognized for his own individual achievements? This maneuver is a “shifter” strategy made famous in the book, “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand. This procedure is used to take away from someone the thing you want the most for yourself, thereby "shifting" it away from them and to you. In this case, Heiser wants to take away Sitchin's fame and respect as an author, researcher and speaker.

”

John Hyams (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to bring Wikipedia:Coatrack to everyone's attention, in addition to the above about Mr. Heiser. John Hyams (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to conclude this matter, I have opened a case on the BLP board: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Zecharia_Sitchin John Hyams (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm here from the noticeboard. If sitchiniswrong.com is a self-published site, it cannot be used as a reference. If it is a polemic anti-Sitchin site, it cannot even be linked from the external links section. Yworo (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note on the fringe theories noticeboard about this article, here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Zecharia_Sitchin. ClovisPt (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that this is a case where we can use the self-published source, given that the author is a recognized authority in his field. I'm going to restore some of the text removed by Yworo. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ClovisPt, the rules are different for biographies of living people: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." Note the use of the word never. The "expert" exception does not apply to BLPs. Yworo (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Point very much conceded. A good effect of all this is that I'm certainly more familiar with BLP issues. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ClovisPt, why do you say Dr. Heiser is a recognized authority in his field? His "field" appears to be the debunking business, as he is making a linking out of it. Wikipedia is not a platform for supporting his business, and other third party sources can be used instead of his site (why can't anybody find them? Is it so difficult?...) Futhermore, he uses Sitchin's own name in order to discredit Sitchin. How would you feel if someone would set up a website called "ClovisPtIsWrong.com"? John Hyams (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Heiser is a recognized authority on the relevant ancient languages, enough so that his refutations of Sitchin's misinterpretations are good enough to source here. I will, however, keep an eye out for further supported sources, and add these when I locate them. I'm pretty sure that WP:Fringe encourages the use of self-published sources in cases like this, i.e. given that Sitchin's views are so removed from actual scholarship that the vast majority of academics completely ignore them. That Heiser is a "debunker", or has made money from offering counter-arguments to fringe theories in no way discredits him, anymore than anyone else who used a ration approach to counter pseudoscientific concepts would be somehow automatically discredited. "ClovisPtIsWrong.com" would be an astoundingly boring website. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also opened a case on the Notablity noticeboard: Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Dr._Michael_S._Heiser John Hyams (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the "reputations" of Sitchin and Heiser, the only reputation Sitchin has is that of an unaccredited independent scholar with no academic training in Mesopotamian studies who has sold alot of popular books on an ancient astronaut theory based on his ad hoc interpretations of Mesopotamian sources that has essentially been ignored by professional Assyriologists, but he has never published peer-reviewed material in the scholarly Assyriological literature. Heiser, on the other hand, is an accredited scholar with a Ph.D. in 2004 from the Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Studies at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. On the basis of scholarship, there simply is no comparison. Heiser's conclusions about the validity of Sitchin's ideas are endorsed explicitly and implicitly by Ronald H. Fritze in Invented Knowledge: Fals History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions (London, 2009), pp. 210-214; Tim Callahan in "A New Mythology: Ancient Astronauts, Lost Civilizations, and the New Age Paradigm", Skeptic 13(4), 2008, pp. 32-41; and Eric Wojciehowshi in "The Return of Ancient Astronauts", Skeptic 5(1), 1997, pp. 30-33 (reprinted in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience). It is also significant that Sitchin does not reply to critics and does not revise his books in the wake of devastating criticism. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This article in the Fortean Times [3] refers to Heiser, any objections to using it? Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have have no objection to use of sources other than self-published ones. There is nothing wrong with use of Heiser's opinions, just so long as they are published by third parties. Yworo (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading Heiser's website and his pdf on sun, star and planet symbols, I didn't feel reassured of academic ability, witnessing emotive opinion in his comments. I'm unsure of the material on the Wiki Michael S. Heiser page, as there are no citations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Heiser. Who put the Heiser page up, and is it true that Heiser believes in conversations with dead spirits? I'm not convinced in Heiser's expertise to comment on Sitchin's theories. I question the impartiality of those defending his expertise.Gymboot (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

See [4] and [5]. Heiser has a number of scholarly publications and is cited in a number of scholarly publications. Dougweller (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd already checked out his publishing record, with his two science fiction novels, and one academic paper Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God [6]. Two citations are listed for his paper. Neither Sitchin nor Heiser can prove their interpretation of ancient texts is correct. Sitchin is out on a limb with something having to occur in a 3600 year time frame to support his ideas, and Heiser is out on a limb stating he believes in communication with the dead and alien abduction. Both men peddle their science fiction books to a gullible public, one gets a lot of attention and makes money, the other ignored. Though skepdic.com opposes Sitchin's ideas, citing Heiser as a 'credible academic' to refute Sitchin, skepdic.com also says those who believe in communication with the dead, and alien abductions are basically deluded and attention seekers. So according to skepdic.com is Heiser a credible academic or a deluded attention seeker? The editor of skepdic.com newsletter says he/she added the link to the Sitchin page, pointing to Heiser's website. [7]. I don't think skepdic.com is worthy of promotion as a reliable source to verify information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymboot (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For Heiser, I also located "The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material" 2001 [8]; and his dissertation defense presentation.pdf. Heiser has his own website where he lists his research papers [9]. So few published papers for an 'expert critic' in ancient languages; and content, though perfectly referenced, seems mediocre. Scientific conclusions are rare in their field; instead they take positions on different interpretations of the same information, then argue against the least popular, cull the competition. Basically manipulation of history to appease a prevailing establishment. Sitchin's ideas threaten Heiser's monotheistic position. So Sitchin doesn't play their game, refuses to be drawn into their academic lynch parties; perhaps smart tactics under the circumstances, if book sales are any indication?Gymboot (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As I expected, Heiser supports and promotes the Judeo-Christian world view [10]. Understandably his view is directly threatened by Sitchin's ideas. The religious bias might explain the immature choice of sitchiniswrong.com?Gymboot (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as you are going to resort to these personal comments about editors it appears to be a waste of time having a discussion with you. As for Skeptdic.com, that's been hashed and rehashed before, it's a published source by an academic. It needs attributing but I leave that to you. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion IS academic, not personal. This concerns the editorial ethics. The resource has degenerated, quality disclaimers on pages becoming the norm. Reading this editorial discussion is an education in why the quality devolves, via differing 'interpretations' of basic rules by editors. Ironically similar to the controversial 'interpretation of information' between these two individuals, Sitchin and Heiser. Neither have facts to back up their claims, their work is theoretical until we perfect time-travel, ok, or...if Nibiru suddenly appeared. The BLP's challenge you to be robot in reporting information on pages, don't succumb to the whirlpool of attending emotion on topics - it's not valued for an encylopaedia, it's more appropriate for blogs. "It's a published source by an academic" can't logically be credible criteria when degrees are purchased over the net. Are there any 'academic quality papers' at skepdic.com, or is it typically "blog-like", such as the Sitchin page they have? I'm not going to edit again, for another to simply undo, again, lol, I'm too busy for games. Its a commitment to become educated in a subject area you love. Respect Wiki as an important learning resource - roam some pages on mathematics, earthquakes, chemistry, hydrology, and the value to the learner is obvious, with educational links to value-add the visit. Consider, BLP's could be the first pages censorship groups target, potentially resulting in domain blocks. Oh, by the way, for the record, I give full credit to skepdic.com for the scientific connection that those who believe in alien abduction are 'deluded attention seekers', that was their learned opinion, not mine. My point was the 'contradiction' of skepdic.com's regard for the same person. The only Wiki page that should link to skepdic.com is the one teaching everyone how meglomanic skeptics can convert 'reason' into whitenoise. ~good luck~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymboot (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thanks to all who participated in the recent discussions about, and edits to, this article. The article may actually be a little bit better as a result. A thought occurred to me, and I thought I'd share it here to see what other editors might have to say. It has become apparent that coverage of Zecharia Sitchin in third party, reliable sources is at least somewhat lacking. It seems to me that, given this paucity of coverage, we might want to move in the direction of trimming down the amount of space we've devoted to explaining Sitchin's ideas. Obviously we can source his ideas to his books to indicate that this is, in fact, what he advocates, but without reasonable third party treatment, there's really little that suggests to me that the notability of these ideas has been established. I'm looking forward to everyone's comments. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I said something like this on one of the noticeboards where this has been discussed this week. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If WP is going to have an article about him at all it should present his ideas, at least enough so that readers can understand what he is known for. If 90% of the article is debunking it creates the impression that we are afraid of his theories. We aren't are we? :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the percentage is, but I don't see how it could suggest anyone is afraid of his ideas, although some people's minds might work that way. Sure, the article needs to make it clear to people what his ideas are. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, "we are [not] afraid of his theories" because his theories are totally lacking in valid scientific and scholarly Assyriological content--which is the thrust of all the criticism. His ideas have basically been ignored by those academic communities most closely associated with his ideas, mainly Assyriology and related Mesopotamian studies, because those ideas are out and out b.s., while Sitchin has ignored what little well-intentioned scientific criticism he received personally from Tom Van Flandern, then at the United States Naval Observatory, which high-lighted the fact that the long-term survival of the orbit Sitchin posits for Marduk-Nibiru is astronomically impossible. The status of Sitchin's ideas is precisely analogous to someone who claims to present a proof that pi equals 3.125: totally wrong and provably so. The only objective assessment of such a claim is that it is wrong, just as Sitchin's ideas are wrong. The fact that his nonsense has been embraced by numerous New Age enthusiasts and promoted in such fringe publications as Atlantis Rising and UFO Magazine does not garner any reliability points. Science is not a democracy where truth and falsity are determined by ballots. In Invented Knowledgy: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions (London, 2009), Ronald H. Fritze, Professor of History at Athens State University, Alabama, discussed Sitchin's ideas in Chapter 5: Pseudohistoria Epidemica or Pseudohistorians in Collusion along with Immanuel Velikovsky, Charles Hapgood, Erich von Daniken, and Graham Hancock. For sources, Fritze draws on Eric Wojciehowski in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience and two Michael Heiser webpages (including sitchiniswrong.com), in addition to several of Sitchin's books. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nibiru, Marduk, Jupiter

Contrary to the text, Nibiru is NOT the planet associated with the god Marduk in Babylonian cosmology. The planet associated with Marduk was Jupiter, beyond all doubt. In 1976 Sitchin called the 12th planet Marduk. Later he started calling it Nibiru. I implore some editor with more patience than I to please make the appropriate revision on this point. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying 'beyond all doubt', can you supply a specific reference - which ancient texts have you read? Or are you just repeating what you've heard? All editors are disadvantaged in commenting on Sitchin or Heiser if they cannot read cunieform, nor understand it's nuances, and it's context - thus we defer to the scholars. All professional and amateur scholars of ancient texts are disadvantaged in translation if their perspective of the society writing the statements is incorrect. This applies to Sitchin as equally as it applies to Heiser. Investigators can interpret information within context of their expectations. How many professional scholars of these ancient languages understand the astrological instructions in the texts? Those who appreciate the astrological context will interpret what they read differently from those who discard the astrological information as primitive superstition.Gymboot (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

See Marduk, which cites Morris Jastrow, Jr., who reports the universally agreed identification, as anyone may confirm for theirself by accessing standard texts and encyclpodia entries. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated thanks. I edited Criticism to be more concise, and repositioned the link to Jastrow to support Heiser's claims. Curious choice of words do you think...'universally agreed', when only a handful of people had access to the texts in 1911?Gymboot (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gymboot, If you were even the least bit familiar with the Assyriological literature dealing with the astral content of ancient Mesopotamian religion, you would not write as you do. Every professional commentator who deals with the planetary associations of the major gods in the pantheon reports Marduk associated with planet Jupiter. In the 11th ed. of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910), Morris Jastrow states "In the astral-theological system, Marduk is identified with the planet Jupiter" (p. 698). Similarly H. Zimmern in James Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (New York, 1910), vol. II, p. 310, consistent with the reports of A. Jeremias, P. Jensen, S. Langdon, and others in their respective textbooks; and B. L. van der Waerden, Science Awakening (New York, 1961), p. 187. It should be kept in mind that such planetary associations were purely the result of theological speculation in the interest of astrology. W.G. Lambert relates in "The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism", in H. Goedicke & J.J.M. Roberts (eds.), UNITY AND DIVERSITY: Essays in the History, Literature,and Religion of the Ancient Near East (Baltimore & London, 1975), pp. 191-200, that the name Marduk means "Bull-calf of Utu", i.e., the Sun god in Sumer, while later Marduk was officially the son of Enki and he was always the city god of Babylon. It is also interesting to note that the Babylonians considered their moon god Sin to be the father of their sun god Šamaš. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I'm a bit surprised to find that Hector Avalos hasn't been used, although the reference is included in the ancient astronaut article: Avalos, Hector (2002) "The Ancient Near East in Modern Science Fiction: Zechariah Sitchin's The 12th Planet as Case Study." Journal of Higher Criticism, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 49–70. For the Nuwaubian connection, Nuruddin might be an adequate source: [11] (I have only had a short look at that article some two years ago.) - Bob Carroll's claim that Rael has appropriated ideas from Sitchin is unfortunately an unfounded assertion. I can find no arguments for that specific claim. Ancient astronaut theories had been published by a number of authors in the 1960s, in France especially by Jean Sendy, Robert Charroux, Jacques Bergier and Louis Pauwels. Erich von Däniken got worldwide attention after his 1968 publication chariots of the gods. Raels first and basic messages were made public around 1974. So please be more specific: which ideas were taken (when?) from Sitchin, and how can you prove it? I'm aware that Wikipedia is no research platform, but I think you should evaluate critically which information from which sources you include in the article. Maybe there is a good reason for that stated link between Sitchin an Raelism, but it is not apparent to me. --Jonas kork (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Although we can use Carroll I'd prefer something with more detail also and don't mind it being removed. I don't have Avolos's article, I'll try to get hold of it. Have you got the Nuruddin article? Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, a local university library holds the now-discontinued Journal of Higher Criticism; and I was able to skim the Avalos article this afternoon. His criticisms are no better than what the entry already contains. I did not recognize any of his references as containing explicit criticism of Sitchin, merely presenting academic positions that Sitchin either ignores or dismisses. One of his early criticisms deals with Sitchin's faulty interpretation of mesh and DIN GIR. Near the end of the article (pp. 66-67), Avalos relates: "From a pedagogical standpoint, the lack of a serious response to Sitchin from academia often leads to the notion that his theories are so sound that no one has challenged them. In fact, in one of his latest books Zecharia Sitchin (1992:20) said that his 12th Planet 'has not been refuted since its first printing in 1976.'" The 1992 source is Genesis Revisited. I am not sure what to make of this. As the entry shows, Sitchin's ideas have been subjected to devastating criticism by many writers over the years; but Sitchin simply does not accept this criticism as valid. As a matter of policy, he does not reply to criticism, so far as I am aware. Strangely, this sentence is marked with fn. 35, which is to Goldsmith, E.[sic] (ed.), Scientists Confront Velikovsky, which has nothing to do with Sitchin. The next observation by Avalos is that Sitchin has already been twice annointed a "biblical scholar" by Larry King (a popular TV talkshow host in America), which means more to the general public than any criticism from anonymous academic scholars. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Avalos does make one coercive criticism of Sitchin's thesis concerning the notion that the Sumerians came as almost from out of nowhere at ca. 3800 B.C., i.e., having no antecedents, noting that recent developments in Mesopotamian archaeology show that Sumerian culture was preceded by the Ubaid period from 5300-4000 B.C. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Avalos' aim is not to criticise, but to analyse Sitchins works as an attempt to reconcile or synthesise science and religion (or, to be more precise, science and a quasi-religious search for human origins and destiny). He doesn't really argue why the books should be science fiction, though - I'd say they're non-fiction. But who am I ;-)

If anyone has access to the informaworld database (or other journal database that allows access to the Nuruddin article) I would like a copy, too. --Jonas kork (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You can find Nuruddin's article online: http://www.sdonline.org/42/nuruddin.htm --Jonas kork (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling for a free image of Sitchin - what's the problem?

Recently I've added the following image to the infobox:

Now, what is the problem with that?? Sitchin's article has no picture of him, and my addition is a call for a free picture of him, like in many many many many (did I say many?) articles of living people on Wikipedia. Dougweller, please explain why this standard Wikipedia practice should not be done here. In your in-line explanation for your last revert you have provided an explanation which I do not understand. If you feel that you have reverted this in error, please undo your last edit. John Hyams (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that plastering these requests across our articles is helpful. An image would improve the article, I agree, but I'd prefer to do something more unobtrusive such as using the {{reqphoto}} template here on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

PS you did see the summary of the April 2008 discussion over exactly this issue on File:Replace this image male.svg, right?

Ignore my edit summary, but I strongly suggest you stop making accusations of abuse in edit summaries, John Hyams. You owe me an apology as I have not used my tools here nor have the other two administrators who have reverted your edit. You can do a null edit and retract your accusation in the null edit's edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller: frankly, I think you owe me an apology. You made a null edit in which you implied that I was not following/reading/knowing the WP:NONFREE guidelines, you wrote "please stop this" as if I was doing something wrong (which wasn't the case), and you used this as a reason to revert my edit, even when it had nothing to with my edit. Instead of making a point like David Eppstein above, you wrote "please stop this", implying misconduct on my behalf, and then you simply reverted my edit just like that. This is something an administrator should not do; you should not write "please stop this" as if I was a vandal or someone engaged in distuptive editing. For that, you own me an apology. John Hyams (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If I think someone is wrong I think I should ask them to please stop, being wrong isn't the same as misconduct or vandalism. I am sorry I got confused about what was going on, but I repeat, I have not acted as an administrator in any of this and certainly haven't abused my status. I would have done the same if I was only an experienced editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. I posted the null edit. John Hyams (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

we're both guilty of misunderstanding, me of your edit summary, where I got my wires crossed somehow. Your edit summary is much appreciate. Dougweller (talk) 05

37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

George Noory, Van Flandern & Sitchin

The entry now relates that late nite radio talkshow host George Noory was "greatly influenced" by Sitchin. So? Of what good is that accolade when it is also known that on June 25, 2008, in response to a direct question from Noory, frequent guest Tom Van Flandern explained why Sitchin's astronomical scenario concerning the orbit of Nibiru is completely wrong? Phaedrus7 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Van Flandern didn't take the Nemesis (star) hypothesis into account, so he didn't relate to the possibility that Nibiru may be orbiting Nemesis and not our Sun. He also probably never commented about 90377 Sedna and its 12,000-year orbit around the Sun. John Hyams (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an evasive and inappropriately speculative answer. By what objective criterion are you picking and choosing which aspects of the radio show to include and which to exclude? It sounds like you are creating a false impression of the content of the show. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

David, that is an answer, you can choose how to tag it with your POV statements ("evasive" - as if it has anything to do with my answer). The section 'Influence' refers to Sitchin's influence on people and culture. He greatly influenced George Noory of Coast to Coast AM, and you can listen to his own words right here. John Hyams (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Sitchin's influence on Noory something that belongs in an encyclopedia? Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If both Noory and his radio station are notable enough to have two separate articles on Wikipedia, it would be only appropriate to mention Sitchin's influence on both, same as David Icke who is already mentioned (but I guess that it's OK to mention David Icke because it somehow promotes a negative impression on Sitchin, while Noory promotes a positive impression so it's not OK to include him? just a thought). Sitchin had (and still has) great influence on the radio show, a show which is more than equivalent to Icke's theories. Also, I'm generally in favor of inclusionism if the content properly sourced and it has relevance to other articles. John Hyams (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being offensive: Mr. Hyams, please engage your mind in composing your defenses of Sitchin's ideas. Clearly, Sitchin posits Nibiru is in orbit about the Sun, NOT any other star such as Nemesis (in which case Nibiru would not repeatedly and regularly enter the inner solar system, crossing Jupiter's orbit and thereby experiencing perturbations that in the course of time would drastically alter Nibiru's orbit and possibly even eject it from its embrace by the Sun). Sedna's 12,000 year orbit is irrelevant to Sitchin's scenario with Nibiru's 3600 year orbit because Sedna's orbit is entirely beyond the orbit of Pluto, meaning it never enters the inner solar system as Nibiru does. Do you understand these astronomical facts of life? Sitchin's "New Age" fellow author Andrew Collins writes in Atlantis Rising #81, May/June 2010, that Sitchin's theory is "untenable" after pointing out that the proto-Neolithic megalithic complex of Gobekli Tepe in southeast Turkey was constructed ca. 10,000 BC, long before Sitchin claims the Sumerians appeared on the scene in Mesopotamia, and surveying various interpretations of the meaning of "Nefilim", i.e., "those who fell". See the article "The Fate of the Watchers: Exploring Ancient Texts for Secrets of the Beings 'Who Fell' to Earth", pp. 29, 61-63. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In reply to "Do you understand these astronomical facts of life?", yes I do, and it's a fact of life that these facts were considred lunacy just 10 years ago. I gave the Nemesis and Sedna examples to illustrate this, and to make it clear that unfortunately we do not yet know everything there is to know about our solar system. We didn't put WISE in space just because we already know everything now didn't we? As for the rest, there's no point to open a debate/discussion, it's not the place. It's clear that you strongly disagree with Sitchin's views, and I hope it's clear that I choose to remain balanced at this point. While I will not rule out that some of his assertations/interpretations are correct, I will not rule out the possibility that he is wrong in some others or in most. In any case I will not smear him, and I will strive to include positive mentions when justified, since the negative ones are already being handled by other faithful editors. John Hyams (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As for Sitchin saying Nibiru orbits the Sun, well he may be wrong on that if turns out that it actually orbits Nemesis (link provided just for visual illustration), but he will be right that Nibiru exists, meaning that he will be partially right. It's not all black or white as you know. John Hyams (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is ignorant twaddle. If Sitchin says that a planet exists, with a particular orbit around the sun that takes a particular period of time, you can't just point to some other unrelated astronomical body with a completely different pattern of motion and say that his theories are confirmed. By doing so you only make yourself look a fool. You might equally well point to the existence of a volcano on Europa as confirmation of the theory that the moon is made of green cheese. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to make the issue perfectly clear (hopefully): The possible existence of the star Nemesis (which is posited to come close to our Sun every 24 (or 26) million years) does NOTHING for Sitchin's scenario with the planet Nibiru having a return time to Earth/inner Solar System every 3600 years. If the mythical Nibiru (which has yet to be discovered by astronomers who would have observed it already via the IRAS project in the 1980s and the search for Near Earth Objects begun in the 1990s) were actually orbiting the hypothetical (it has not been discovered by astronomers yet) Nemesis which comes close to the Sun/Earth system every 20+ million years, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Nibiru to approach the Sun every ca. 3600 years, as Sitchin claims, and as Mr. Hyams wishfully "thinks". We must strive to keep in mind that the real, phenomenal world does not operate according to the rules implied by The Acme Corporation in "Road Runner" cartoons. Massive bodies such as Nibiru in orbital motion about stellar primary do not change host stars at will, as animated cartoons show. It also should be noted that with Sitchin claiming a perihelion passage at 3800 B.C. at which time the Sumerians were aided, implies another close approach 3600 years later at ca. 200 B.C.; but Sitchin says nothing (the last time I looked) about what happened then and there is no record whatsoever in the real world of scholarhip/science to support a perihelion passage by any so-called Nibiru at ca. 200 B.C. The arguments forwarded by Mr. Hyams are nothing but an ignorant and desperate flailing to "save the phenomenon". Yes, new space missions/experiments will continue to be mounted to explore the great "unknown" of outer space; but do not let anyone, especially Mr. Hyams, delude themselves thinking such missions will validate Sitchins ancient astronaut fantasy. As G.K. Chesterton once noted: "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." There is nothing "solid" in Sitchin's Mesopotamian claptrap. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Like most Wiki pages involving the paranormal, the extraterrestrial, and other topics not in conformance with our modern-day deity known as "mainstream science," this article smacks of insecure and overzealous skepticism. In one humble reader's opinion, the whole entry should be shorter. I would have liked more about Sitchin's world view and less block quotations from induviduals whose studies, salaries, and personal identities are threatened (however unseriously lol) by Sitchin's works. Yeah, yeah, I think we get that his ideas are "out there"--but I came here to read about them anyway. Inevitably, discussions on topics like these always reveal two groups of people: those who like to think they know What It Is All About, and those who delight in recognizing again and again that no one really knows. Anyone who finds themself looking up Zecharia Sitchin on Wikipedia is not looking for 12 retitrations by academics denouncing his ideas. That is not to say that there should not be a criticisms section. But consider whether Wikipedia is here for the benefit of its readers or for the egos of its editors. I would shrink the hilariously disproportionate criticisms section, as well as add another few hundred words to the "Ideas and Works" section; because really, that's what an article about the man should primarily contain, and that's what people are coming to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.126.51 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• For the benefit of Editor 174.70.126.51, one does not need to "know What It Is All About" to know that Sitchin is off in cloud-cuckooland because, given the size of Nibiru indicated by Sitchin and the notion that it returns to the inner solar system every 3600 years, IF it existed, then it would have been discovered long before now in the ordinary activities of astronomers. I am confident that Tom Van Flandern explained this to Sitchin, as Van Flandern very patiently explained it to me many years ago. But Sitchin, like all "true believers", ignores the evidence that disproves their idée fixe, when they cannot counter it with a handy ad hoc rebuttal. The fact that Nibiru has NOT been discovered argues coercively that it does not exist and that the raison d'etre for Sitchin's monomania is a delusion. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Gray Disavows Sitchin's Sumerian "Translations"

Last night on George Noory's "Coast to Coast a.m." late night talk show, former Sitchin ally Jonathan Gray explained why he no longer has any confidence in Sitchin's use of Sumerian texts. Although the invited topic was suppressed ancient discoveries, when Noory asked Gray what he thought of Sitchin's work, Gray was more than eager to oblige. Of this sidebar, the coasttocoastam.com webpage reports: "Gray also spoke about his challenge to the work of Zecharia Sitchin, who contends that an ET race, the Annunaki, visited Earth from the planet Nibiru. Sitchin's translations of Sumerian cuneiform does not match the accepted dictionary meanings, he commented." Make no mistake, in the event, Gray's comments were no mere "challenge", but nothing less than a repudiation. Gray went into great detail, explaining how after he mentioned Sitchin favorably in one of his books, his readers began to ask detailed questions. Since Gray did not know the answers, he read all he could find on what the Sumerian texts tell us, finding much help in publications from Assyriologists at University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania and University of California--Berkeley. Gray discovered that there are no Sumerian texts about the Nefilim and Annuaki and Nibiru and that parallel texts of Sumerian cuneiform next to other ancient languages whose meanings are secure show that the meanings Sitchin gives to Sumerian words are all fraudulent insofar as they do not match the meanings modern scholars have rendered for them. Finding no confirmation whatsoever in mainstream scholarship for Sitchin's translations of Sumerian texts, Gray wrote a letter to Sitchin questioning him on his discoveries. Two months later Gray received Sitchin's reply which consisted of a photocopy of Gray's letter marked up with brief remarks that were completely non-responsive--being equivalent to "trust me; I know what I'm talking about". With this, Gray concluded that nothing in Sitchin's Annunaki-Nefilim-Nibiru story is credible. Noory did not press Gray for more details, but mentioned that his conclusions were similar to those of Michael Heiser; but Gray did not elaborate on this comparison. The "Coast to Coast a.m." links to Gray's webpage, but I did not find any content concerning Sitchin. If an editor might find Gray's published repudiation of Sitchin, it would make a good addition to the entry. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)