Talk:Zecharia Sitchin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Is it me, or is it that the criticism to Sitchin's work doesn't make any sense, and not supported by proof?

Can anybody please show me a Sumerian text he miss translated (Physically show me something translated otherwise). Anyhow, nobody has proof, real proof either ways, am I right? Science and scientific theories are changing everyday with new technologies and new discoveries (in terms of space and earth formation and humans...)and we all new popular commercial history and religion and texts is a general consent among popular historians and academics.. I mean, come on, how can you falsify something that can't be either right or wrong.... It's just silly, anything that is out of the norm is attacked and attacked in a real silly way... I find his work mind opening and enticing and if only..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.151.18 (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is you perhaps, lets reverse this, can you post a source of refrence where these mysterious stone tablets are located?

Stichin's ideas violate basic Newtonian physics. There is simply no way our Solar System could exist with a Nibiru in it. If you can't accept that, then there is no way anything else anyone could say would convince you. Serendi^podous 13:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless of course, Newtonian principles do not apply to the entire universe, but to all apples. I came here to find out the facts - did he have qualifications in a mainstream sense, i.e. did he have a Phd or doctorate and in what field? Nothing here that I can find, just opinionated downgrading of what I should think. Kindly do the job of an encyclopedia and provide me with THE FACTS. Thank you.( P.S. The earth going round the sun theory didn't fit with the qualified of their day either.) 188.220.186.57 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We should have that information in the article, I agree. This NYTimes article [1] says "Born in Russia and raised in Israel, Mr. Sitchin studied economics in London and worked as a journalist and editor in Israel before moving to New York in 1952". It also says "Starting in childhood, he has studied ancient Hebrew, Akkadian and Sumerian, the language of the ancient Mesopotamians," but this seems to be self-taught as he doesn't actually say he has any qualifications in these fields or any qualifications outside his LSE degree (LSE is part of the University of London). Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Back again, sorry but: Section on criticism - The meaning of the word dingir (to which a wiki ref is provided), gives the meaning as - sky or heaven, god or goddess (as far as I can make out with my limited intelect). As you are giving Sitchen's translation, should you not also show the current accepted translation (it would be wonderful if you also showed if there were alternative theories too, but that would be like asking to get news on the news as opposed to 'you will beleive this'. Thank you :)188.220.186.57 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fritze Reference: Not original source. Fritze is only repeating Heiser.

I finally got around to reading Fritze's referenced book here related to Sitchin and was surprised and disappointed that he literally provides no original thought or insight of his own, but is rather only repeating Heiser near verbatim from Sitchiniswrong.com which is his only critical source on the subject. In fact, the whole book is no different and is not actually an "original" work, but rather a collection of outlines of the theories in question followed by borderline copy and paste summaries of the criticisms of others.

So, how does this work? Despite what we are led to believe by this reference, "Fritze" in reality makes none of the statements and is merely only repeating Heiser almost word for word who is his only source. So much so that it seems without Heiser Fritze may not have included Sitchin in the topic at all. How does this work as a separate reference when you have one author only repeating another? Should there not be some reference made that he is only repeating Heiser and that Heiser is his only source or should the reference be removed all together and the original source, Heiser, quoted directly?Thanos5150 (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is he quoting Heiser, or is Heiser quoting him? Serendi^podous 07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fritze's book is a reliable source by our criteria. He does use Heiser as one of his sources. I've never run into a situation where we treat a source in this way. He uses other sources besides Heiser, so it is false to say he only uses Heiser, and pretty odd to suggest he might not have included such a well know fringe writer. We should stick with Fritze. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Is he quoting Heiser, or is Heiser quoting him?" Really? Why even say anything?

By other "sources" do you mean the ONE other source related to these criticisms: "Independent Scholar" Eric Wojciehowski from his article in psuedoskeptic Michael Shermer's compendium "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience"? Mind you, no doubt first found reprinted on the amateur skeptic's website "Hall of Ma'at", in which curiously our very own Doug Weller is a "Director" ? Now that is odd. I'm sorry, but I didn't think nobody "independent scholars" who got an article published in a psueodoskeptical debunkery book even counted as a source. My bad. And strangely enough, most of the sources he gives for Sitchin are made by way of Wikipedia no less-now THAT is scholarship!

The point about Fritze is that, as respected of scholar as he may be, the critical comments attributed to him in this Wiki article, the totality of which are part of one paragraph of the 4 pages devoted to him, are not his own being wholly derived from one, excuse me, two sources; Heiser and this Wojciehowski fellow, of which Heiser is already part of the article. These two are the "critics" Fritze is apparently referring to and offers nothing original of his own. With this being the case, why are we quoting Fritze repeating Heiser and this other guy when we could just quote Heiser himself? This seems like a disingenuous way to pile on additional critical sources of Sitchin when in reality it comes from another source already in the article. So, does this mean if say, Mark Lehner repeats what Fritze is repeating from Heiser and offers no original scholarship or insight, and cites Fritze, then we can quote Lehner and list him as another critical source too? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to make trouble, but I am just confused as to why quoting Fritze is acceptable here when at least one of the original sources is already part of the article.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on Doug et al, surely you should answer Thanos. You have had plenty time to find the holes in his argument. No wait, I know why you haven't replied - you have no answer, so no answer means Thanos is right. So now we know that Thanos is right, please don't just ignore his point, process a correction to the references. Use only those that are meaningful, I am sure there are plenty(!) for you to choose from. Bolandista (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

On the section "Literalism of myth"

In regards to the William Irwin Thompson comments they seem non-contributive or consistent. That the concept of gods, for my understanding of the proposed hypothesis, is that they aren't gods at all, but that is how the native population could have seen them (by the proposed hypothesis). After that simple fact his criticisms in regards to the "gods" abilities have no bearing on the validity of the images and I find that the need to link it to Erich Von Däniken's work (that seems to state the much of the same, not deities or magical beings, but how people at the time could have regarded them) seems superfluous and extraneous to this article and adding nothing to the criticism. In fact that mention is out of scope. --79.168.6.93 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the section to remove the unnecessarily pejorative term and the out of scope section, as there was no need for them here. --79.168.6.93 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that Thompson criticizes Sitchin in the same vein that Däniken is sometimes addressed, then what he finds fault with is: Däniken/Sitchin usually does not accept any symbolic, psychological or cultural-anthropological interpretation of myth. If in a text or picture there is a powerful being flying around, only literal ("materialist") interpretations are allowed for Paleo-SETI authors. If this is what Thompson is complaining about, the quote isn't very specific or clear. --Jonas kork (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the criticism section longer than everything about his life an research? Kind of pathetic in how biased this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.3.61 (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Death

Don't Wikipedia biographical entries, where the subject is diseased, usually have a section relating to his/her death ? There isn't one for Stichin, just the predictable gang rape of his reputation, and no explanation of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.25.50.172 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't that much information available about his death. And as far as his reputation goes, it's not our job to protect it. Serendi^podous 16:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

proposal for a section about notions that seem to support sitchin

I think that, as you have a 'criticism' section, it would be correct to have a section dedicated to material that gives (or tries to) support to some sitchin's claims and translation. In case you agree, i can add some links (i have been studying on his material for about 12 years). I also give you some informations and considerations: 1) sitchin was a self-taught in sumerian, having studied on the oldest material (it is the same i used for my studies, e.g. sumerian lexicons from about 1890 to 1930) 2)most of what is criticized of sitchin's claims actually are not his. If you read his books you found out that he reports or discusses ideas or findings of other scholars. E.g.: when he says that Sumerian may have been the original proto-language he does so because he shows that many scholars in the past had the same idea. He cites studies and articles by rinomated scholars that investigated on this matter (e.g. C.J.Ball about the relationship between Sumerian and Chinese). - Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.232.45 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

All sources need to discuss Sitchin, see WP:NOR. Not that it matters except in an article about Ball probably, but I note that an article in East Assian History says "CJ Ball,373 known for his advocacy of a relationship between Chinese and Sumerian, a feeble theory which has met with but little support and has been finally demolished by LC Hopkins." Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

Opening paragraph --- "...a race of extra-terrestrials..." should read "...a race of extraterrestrial entities"

"extraterrestrial" is an adjective not a noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.11.250 (talk • contribs)

It can be both. See for instance the Merriam-Webster entry: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraterrestrial%5B2%5D But we should take the hyphen out, I think. --Jonas kork (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bigotry and worse

"And as far as his reputation goes, it's not our job to protect it" "Ideas violate Newtonian physics"

Is there yet a coherent collective voice against this behaviour?

I know that people cultivate a sense of creativity, attracting with discernment a reconciling path of intelligence to explore the living universe of human culture.

Is there another place on the web where people explore history, social study, ideas of science, without having to fight such ignorance?

Why can we not ask "what could he have meant?" instead of being so bloody belligerent?!?

We need to cultivate an uncertain alternative to the fact of our biospheric disaster, You know what I mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.0.220.171 (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That Sitchin's ideas violate Newtonian physics is a fact, not an opinion. You can disagree with the validity of Newtonian physics I suppose, but as far as they go there's no room for Sitchin. And it is not anyone's job on Wikipedia to protect a subject's reputation; it is his/her job to report facts objectively. And I don't really understand what Sitchin, who claimed his ideas were true, would say about fostering creativity, which suggests his ideas were fiction. And even if Nibiru exists I don't see how knowledge of it would do anything to improve our beleaguered biosphere. Serendi^podous 09:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

IP misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, and this discussion really should be on a web forum, not here. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Stupid response to the complaint Serendipodous. The page is corrupted with personal bias against Sitchin. I blame editors like you, that Wikipedia content can't be trusted anymore. Quantum mechanics "violates Newtonian physics" - are you going to add the same "warning" to the pages on that topic too? Gymboot (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, this page is not corrupted with personal bias against Sitchen, it's just not corrupted by your bias for him. Quantum physics and Newtonian physics do not operate on the same scales, claiming that one violates the other is like claiming neurology violates sociology. I'm an English major and I know that much. Sitchen makes claims that would be measured on a cosmic (i.e. Newtonian) scale, and those claims do not fit the math. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On introduction of article

The body of criticism in the article looks decent, but should mention of facts that Sitchin was criticized need to be addressed in the introduction? I don't think those kinds of facts belong there, since they seem to imply that Sitchin's writings were works of fiction. Any comments, questions, or concerns? 69.121.17.200 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. We need to make it clear from the start that his ideas are rejected by archaeologists, etc. They are essentially works of historical and archaeological fiction. Or, to put it another way, the lead needs to reflect all significant parts of the article. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No there is no need to criticise the individual's work in the introduction. But this is typical now of Wikipedia, due to corruption by egotistical editors. Wikipedia pages do not rank high in the search results anymore, because more ppl realise the content can't be trusted. Gymboot (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If he's known mainly for work that is criticized by mainstream science, then yes, he does need to be criticized in the introduction. As for your claims that no one trusts Wikipedia, why are we consistently within the top 5 most visited sites on the net? Why are Wikipedia articles on topics usually within the first page of any Google search result? We're not trusted by fringe communities who do not accept (or even understand) mainstream science, but we are more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica. You know nothing about Wikipedia, your post is just a tantrum as a result of people not accepting the delusions of your hero. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no reason at all to accuse the whole of Wikipedia editors of being egotistical and corrupt, or for making absolutely false "sour grapes" statements. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderfully balanced article (irony/sarcasm)

Wonderfully balanced article. No. There is a huge section on Criticisms, and nary a word on what proponents say.

I myself had issues with some of the seemingly-shallow arguments brought up. And while I don't appreciate Sitchin referring to ancient characters as "gods", that was a similar kind of interpretation that middle-of-the-road scholars used heavily.

And, unfortunately, there is a huge assumption within a lot of Academia that so many folks of the past were superstitious, and thus can have their ideas dismissed summarily. That is not science. And that often includes a huge jump of logic: just because a superstitious person's OPINION (or title) of what something is or what it means may be in question does not mean that the related FACTS must or should be rejected.

For a greater understanding of our history, so-called myth must be examined for its historical fact content vs. opinion content, or vs. fiction content. And, IF humans were interacted with by any advanced intelligences, then knowledge of that may change all of our view of history, if that was not included in that history. And it often is not included, or is included only in some kind of "religious" context. (People may have deified others, due to their advanced abilities; we see that in cargo cults. But it doesn't change the facts.)

Also, mythology must be REexamined to see what the most ancient views were vs. what they developed into later. If we find that myths had correct astronomy or cosmogony "early on" but got goofy later, then this is significant to the idea that maybe some of that early information came from elsewhere and not from Human understanding alone.

But religionists and skeptics have this in common: they both reject so-called myth, and various "religious" writings, based on their opinions and/or beliefs. That is not science; that is often presumption, and settled-bias which can color investigation and reasoning.

And this article, as it stands, is almost a critic's dream, and needs to be balanced out by including proponents' views.

Let us reasonable skeptics keep in mind that when we are dealing with hypothetical topics (especially when it comes to origins and some human development), we are often dealing with a lot of assumptions, and very little historical reference, and a lot of human hubris and opinion, and that it's often best not to be vehement, or dogmatize, and to put our pride and pride in others (whose views we may agree with) away, and not to call people on the other side of an argument "idiots".

Misty MH (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's actually multitudes of direct scientific and historic evidence about our origins and history and not one bit of it supports claims of visits from an advanced intelligence or any such nonsense. If you have some refs feel free to present them. Capeo (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not seem that the text from Roger W. Wescott, Peter James, nor William Irwin Thompson are quoted. If this is a quote, then it should all be placed within quotation marks. If not, it would seem that this is someone else's opinion mixed with a few quotes from the three, and that should be stricken. Either give direct quotes, or none at all.--Craxd (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughly and completely biased article

The title says it all. An article should present a man's life and work without repeated (and INLINE) quotations of his arrogant critics. Wikipedia is plagued with shameless bias such as this, and it has become no more trustworthy than any other knowledge base on the Internet. It is a great shame. Nathanbrisk (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny how, every time someone makes a complaint like this, they never offer sources to counter the bias. That's because there aren't any. Or at least any that would pass WP:RS. Serendi^podous 17:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not worth paying attention to him, see [2] as an example of another of his talk page comments. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Unclear

"as well as in braille.[9] " Braille is not a language; it is a writing system used, with variations, in writing many different languages. So, what language(s) printed in braille are we talking about? 211.225.34.162 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I had that argument with the guy who put it up there, but he seemed really keen to mention it, even though, well, Braille translation isn't exactly a privilege; the whole point of Braille is to get as many books as possible written in it. Serendi^podous 08:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Annunaki from Nibiru EDIT

I am neutral on this subject, neutral towards the author, and have only read 1 of his books--this one. I propose that this section is removed on the grounds of:

• his book is very scholarly, detailing and referencing many, many sources.
• Sitchin's writing is not out to prove anything; it reads like anyone discussing their observations and readings.
• this book is based on his translations, transliterations, etc. As anyone--including Sitchin--would say, "this is up to interpretation".
• there is absolutely no authority on the Sumerian cuneiform written language, as scholars who study this language must learn the language from ancient text dictionaries, ancient language learning courses (in written form of course), etc.
• one of the sources (8) for this is an article written by, basically, a critic that writes for a popular, powerful magazine. Definitely not a credible source, and closer linked to the possibility of propaganda.
• this is more of a debate subject for scholars and book club members, and less of a pseudo science.

I find this little part of the Pseudoscience Topics to be quite unfair, and more appropriate for the category of deliberate mis-information. This dilutes the quality of this article. Source 9 of "The Skeptics Diary" made me look and dig into this further. I was very curious about it, and ultimately inspired me to do something about this. I am still unable to find a peer-review of Sitchin's work authored by someone credible in the field. I have learned that there are very few scholars in this field anyways. To my amazement, I'm having a very hard time finding a source other than some guy's popular internet website quoting other people's popular internet websites or biased articles lacking proper sources. There's nothing scientific at all about the link to "The Skeptics Diary", nor the sources, and I believe it is an embarrassment to the scientific community that wishes to keep others safe from disinformation.

Erich von Däniken is out to promote his books, as his methods and communication are appropriately categorized under pseudoscience. If we're going to list Sitchin here, we may as well list some other author of a book concerning the subject of Greek gods and goddesses, or something obvious like the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean to say, you were neutral, then you read the Sitchin book, and you are now on Sitchin's side. BTW, it's "Skeptic's Dictionary, not Diary. Why are "popular, powerful magazines" "definitely not credible"? Because you decided so.

What Sitchin writes is classical pseudoscience. But someone who reads it while knowing nothing about the subjects touched by Sitchin's ideas, such as yourself, will not recognize this - you need knowledge about the subjects as well as about the scientific and pseudoscientific methods. That is the reason pseudoscience exists - it needs victims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a quick "too long, didn't read" version of my message... Sitchin's book is simply translation, and him explaining his transliteration of these translations. Under no context is that pseuoscience, especially as outlined extensively here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have several of Sitchin's books. They aren't simply translations (or rather mistranslations). He clearly tries to discuss matters of a scientific nature. Doug Weller (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If you could also kindly dig up peer-reviewed responses on Sitchin that are better than the citations on the site, I think it would do this community better justice on this one detail. If you have also spent decades studying, translating, and transliterating Sumerian, please share that information, too. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on this per se, but have removed the cite of a blog as not needed and only minor amount of Nibiru content at it. Markbassett (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Good call. Please check out my reply to Hob Gadling, as it summarizes why this just simply doesn't belong in pseudoscience category. I don't know why it was added, but my guess was for the ill-guided citations. I see that we're all here to prevent misinformation, and I'm calling this one out for what it is: biased and unfounded. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hob Gadling (talk · contribs), your opinion -- as sound as it may be -- is simply irrelevant and not appropriate to the conversation. If the RS says Sitchin is pseudoscience, it gets a mention on this page. Eventually this page is going to bite the wrong person, and it will be removed from the Encyclopedia -- as it should be. For now, give the "skeptics" all the rope they need to hang themselves. It will happen soon enough. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who is biting the wrong person. Aerozeplyn wrote his own opinion after reading a Sitchin book, does not even know the correct name for the Skeptic's Dictionary, and gives a lot of WP:OR of his own. Why don't you bite him instead of me?

Answer: Because you agree with him. You are just one more run-of-the-mill pseudoscience supporter in a long line of run-of-the-mill pseudoscience supporters who use empty posturing instead of good reasoning, and Aerozeplyn's and your opinion is just as irrelevant as you say mine is. Zecharia_Sitchin#Translations_and_interpretations has reliable sources which categorize Sitchin as a pseudoscientist. 07:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that reliable sources label his views as pseudoscience, the problem here lies in people's refusal to accept that those sources are reliable. To respond directly to Aerozeplyn's claim that "one of the sources (8) for this is an article written by, basically, a critic that writes for a popular, powerful magazine. Definitely not a credible source, and closer linked to the possibility of propaganda", that source is from a non-opinion article in the New York Times, which is, directly contrary to his statement, an absolutely credible source. One of the most credible sources, one might even say. I think the problem is that once people are convinced that 99% of experts are either wrong or part of some vast conspiracy (as they would have to be to buy into these kinds of pseudoscience), by default they have already rejected the idea that reliability is based on consensus (as they must actively reject consensus to reach those views), and thus refuse to accept that something must gain consensus to be reliable.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

People talking about journalists and article writers being a credible source in an area that claims to be all scientific and warding people from pseudoscience.... if that isn't an oxymoron, then I do not know what is :) Sorry, but I must absolutely disagree: no "reliable" sources have called Sitchin pseudoscience. In fact, since "reliable" hasn't even been defined, shall we agree to define a "reliable source" as someone who has also learned the Sumerian language and translated many Sumerian texts? Good luck funding that "reliable source". Sitchin is sharing information with the world, and I respect that he's shared it even though there are plenty of people who are going to attack him and disrespect his work over it. The only thing that has been presented (here) as any sort of citation are sources from people who have absolutely no background in the same field as Sitchin. How about you dig up a credible source that is capable of a peer review? As it stands, you have very little evidence to back up any of your claims. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aerozeplyn: See, this is exactly my point. You want to re-define the word reliable. We are not going to re-define "reliable source" to your strange and specific definition, we will continue to operate using Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Your assertion that third party and secondary sources are unacceptable is directly opposed to Wikipedia policy which specifically emphasizes the preference towards those sources. Directly from the policy page: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Hence, your rejection of "articles that are not original themselves" is without basis as these are in fact the preferred sources of citable information. "Published sources with a reputation for fact checking" is exactly what the New York Times is, and that is why a New York Times article that says scholars believe he is wrong is actually a superior reference than citing each individual who believes he is wrong and then using synthesis to say there is consensus. You do not get to decide that in this particular case the New York Times should be discounted because the writer of the article can't translate Sumerian. That's not the way it works. You really need to acquaint yourself with the policy regarding what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes original research, as your discarding of sources based on your own analysis of their accuracy violates that policy as well.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's very scientific of you. My message is simple: I noticed there's an obvious bias against Sitchin, and I wrote up some words to consider. Apparently Sitchin offends some people... --Aerozeplyn (talk)

Your message is lopsided. Actually, there is obvious bias for Sitchin and against him. You only find fault with the second because the first comes from you. I considered that mote-in-thy brother's-eye way of thinking long ago, it is always the same, and it is somewhat interesting but well-known.

The relevant question is the reasoning behind the bias. I am biased against Sitchin because I can see, even with my limited amount of knowledge on the subject, how incompetent he is, and because those of the experts in the fields he tries to mix up, who deemed to notice him, agree with me. I think that combination of reasons is a good one. What is your reason for your pro-Sitchin bias? Only the "someone has to speak up for him" nonsense above?

"someone who has also learned the Sumerian language and translated many Sumerian texts": how about Michael S. Heiser? Here is a website of his [3].

Why do you demand peer-reviewed Sitchin criticism when Sitchin himself never published his stuff in a peer-reviewed paper? That lopsidedness of yours again. Peer-reviewed papers are rarely interested in bullshit of this type, nor in refutations of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted this discussion is on the wrong talk page, it should be at Talk:Zecharia Sitchin. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is a list with one criteria, the subject is noted as a pseudoscience in its own article. Sitchin's theories are noted as such in his article. If that is incorrect it should be changed there first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I didn't "bite" you. You wrote that "What Sitchin writes is classical pseudoscience." But that is your opinion. I don't have a horse in this race, never heard of Sitchin before, and I think you put your own opinions on the line unnecessarily. The only way the Pseudoscience page exists is by the black-ball principle: If an RS says that subject X is a "pseudoscience", it is. Conversely, if no RS says it is, it is not. Philosophically and onotologically, that page is no different from the anathema lists of the apostolic councils, the papal heresy lists of the Middle Ages, and the fatwa lists of mujahidin. It's just an IDLI[[4]] hit-list from the ruling intellectual elite. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If you never heard of him before, how can you know that what I wrote is my "opinion"? For all you know, it could be an established fact about the person you never heard about.

"that page is no different from the anathema lists" - Postmodernist bullshit. With that opinion, you obviously cannot tell science from non-science. I can, and lots of other people can. Why do ignorant people always think that if they can't see a difference between two things, nobody can? Please read Dunning-Kruger effect.

By the way, ontology is a subset of philosophy, so "Philosophically and onotologically" does not make a lot of sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please reread Wikipedia:Civility and consider deleting your remarks about "ignorant", "you obviously (etc.)", "for all you know", etc. A statement purported to be fact without citing a source is an opinion, particularly when decorated with "obviously". We discuss RS, not what is "obvious" when seen through the limited lens of a Skeptic(R)(TM). Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If someone comes to this talk page unable to distinguish Sitchin's pseudoscience from actual science, I think "ignorant" is a good word for them. Or "purblind", maybe. As for reliable sources for his work being pseudoscience: they are in the article where they always have been and where the non-ignorant may easily find them. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia editor is unable to distinguish between his own opinion and that of a RS, he is in the wrong place at the wrong time applying the wrong skills to the wrong forum. And I suggest that you also should reread Wikipedia:Civility. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

While we're handing out suggested readings, try WP:COMPETENCE. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The only "competence" required is to know and understand what the RS states. No one's opinion of the Orthodox Skeptic doctrine is of the least importance. We can huff and puff about "pseudo" science and "true" science and "future" science in the barrooms and classrooms, but that is not our role as editors on Wikipedia. Our role is WP:CIVILITY, maintain WP:NPV, and conform to WP:RS. And as I say, I predict that one day the "pseudoscience" page will bite the wrong person. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

By your own admission, you never heard of the guy before. That is usually called "ignorance", as David pointed out above. There is nothing uncivil about calling it that. You have been talking about a subject you know nothing about, and you are wasting everybody's time with general handwaving, platitudes, and empty rhetoric. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

All of my remarks are addressed to YOUR expression of YOUR opinion on the subject of science and peudo science, the role of RS and personal opinion in WP, and the proper conduct of WP editors. Those are subjects of which I know a great deal. Wikipedia articles are not edited on the personal knowledge of the editors, nor is the content determined by bullying tactics. WP Policy requires you to address content, not other editors. Please do not insist that I warn you again. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You keep posting these vague and vaguely threatening notices about editor opinion vs reliable sources and yet you have not pointed to one single specific point in the article that is not properly sourced. Are you here to improve the article or are you here to make a mess of its talk page? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved the paragraph here from Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the direct link, this was another good link I found that turned out disappointing. At first it was good, and then again, it was until I read this: "Such is the case for the ancient languages of Sumer and Akkad. Sadly, Mr. Sitchin neglects these resources." -- This didn't sound right to me, so I looked after Thanksgiving dinner. And wow, that's just a downright lie. Apparently Michael S. Heiser isn't really that familiar with Sitchin's work. Not only does Sitchin site the the modern text volumes mentioned, but he also uses the original texts. There are very few people in the world who have the study and discipline on this subject, which really makes no one an expert: so stop NOT listening to each other, and share information! Sorry man, but the reality is that all I can find is 1) people who admit that they really don't know much about Sitchin or his work, yet criticize it anyways, 2) articles that are not original themselves and just talk about how all of these scholars criticize him (duplication of content), and 3) scholars who sound good, and then suddenly they base their whole ideas of something entirely untrue and verifiable, such as "Sitchin neglects these resources" (which he does not). I smell bullshit, and I'm giving you guys a heads up so your minds can be less programmed. The least you can do is thank me ;)

I'm not demanding it, I'm making a point. You missed that point... go ahead and re-read with this in mind: Did you ever take into account that you can't just publish something in a peer-reviewed paper? You need the grace of those making decisions on what content goes into the paper. Therefore, this is irrelevant, as it's possibly beyond someone's control to make that publication. "...are rarely interest in bullshit of this type", who are they to judge what is bullshit and what is not? You sound like some European from the 1300's who still desperately clings to the idea model that leeches will suck the sickness out of an ill patient... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 November 2015‎

If you absolutely must respond to specific points like that, you can quote the comments, but inserting your comments into the middle of another person's, especially if you don't bother to sign your comments, makes the discussion impossible for others to follow. For that reason, I have rearranged your comments, moving them to the bottom of the page, per WP:BOTTOMPOST, and added an unsigned template. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"Did you ever take into account that you can't just publish something in a peer-reviewed paper? You need the grace of those making decisions on what content goes into the paper." - Yes! That is the whole point of peer-reviewed papers. If you submit bullshit to a peer-reviewed paper, it will be rejected. That's why they are are more reliable than non-peer-reviewed ones. And that's why WP prefers them as sources. That's a good thing, not a drawback as you seem to think.

But of course your aim is not having sources as reliable as possible, you aim is having sources that support your opinion, right? So, for you, it is a drawback.

"who are they to judge what is bullshit" - well, they are competent. Telling bullshit from science is eminently possible for competent people. Your reasoning seems to go in the direction of changing the Wikipedia rules so that reliability and competetnce are not required? If you want to achieve that, this is the wrong place. Please go to WP:Sources. But I doubt you will be able to convince anyone there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Hob Gadling, you are reminded of WP:CIVILITY: attributing impure motives to other people is definitely UN-civil (WP:PERSONAL). Those rules are not suspended by any personal sense of righteousness. If you do not maintain civility, you will be warned. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You think you are civil because you say "please" while insulting my intelligence? Think again.

You are just huffing and puffing without answering my reasoning. I am used to that. It is the usual behavior of those who have nothing substantial to say. If you want to impress me or anybody else here, use good reasoning instead of "warning" me. Relativistic phrases, denying the existence of expert knowledge, like "who are they to judge what is bullshit" may impress the simple-minded who hope that there is no such thing as people superior to them in any way, but most Wikipedia editors are smarter than that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not used those words. We know a RS calls it Zecharia Sitchin's work pseudoscience. That is all that is necessary to add Zecharia Sitchin's work to the pseudoscience page. If you have an objection to that statement, please state it politely. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to that. But I think Aerozeplyn has. He is the one who wants his opinion in the article instead of RS. You are barking up the wrong tree.

And you are promoting your own opinion as much as everybody else when you equate an expert's page about the mistakes made by Sitchin with "anathema lists" and all the other religious intolerance stuff. You may think that that equation is the truth, but outside your own mind, it is just one opinion among many. Postmodernists always fail to apply their postmodernism to their own views.

I predict that you will not have any valid answer but also that you will not recognize that I am right, so you will strut and be offended and claim that I am uncivil. And that will not impress me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources

See [5], [6] and [7]. Doug Weller (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zecharia Sitchin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173338/http://www.parkstpress.com/community/company-blogs/1-latest/373-sitchin-bio to http://www.parkstpress.com/community/company-blogs/1-latest/373-sitchin-bio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121602055400/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/199/zechariah_sitchin.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/199/zechariah_sitchin.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211232601/http://www.ianlawton.com/mesindex.htm to http://www.ianlawton.com/mesindex.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205194138/http://www.lauralee.com/vanflan.htm to http://www.lauralee.com/vanflan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Has not been updated for recent developments

Recently, scientists used computer models to predict there is likely to be another planet in our Solar System. This planet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine) is hypothesized to have roughly the same size and orbit characteristics as those described by Sitchin. Given this, wouldn't it be fair to mention the this in the article, and perhaps tone down some of the "criticism" that seems outright dismissive of his theory (since you know, he predicted it 40 years before the scientists)? While we're at it, a reference on the "planet nine" page of Sitchin might be justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.69.132 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine is not Nibiru. It does not come anywhere near Earth. Unless someone connected to Sitchin makes that connection, then it's not relevant. Serendi^podous 20:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Evidently you are stating a fact rather than opinion when you say that planet nine does not come anywhere near earth...How do you know since this nine planet has only been recently speculated about and has not been positively identify or it's trajectory pathway, whether this ninth planet has a clockwise or counterclockwise orbit. Until we have more proof, you are only speculating and at the same time you are only adding to the the confusion. Also i might add that Sitchins, wrote that the Sumerians said that the planet Mars, had water and a atmosphere at one time, this was back in the 70's. Now scientists have just recently found water on planet Mars, and it might very well had oceans and lakes as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:8180:533A:49E7:A6:D2C7:6B9D (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Our policies require any such material to be sourced to WP:Reliable sources linking Sitchin and this planet. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zecharia Sitchin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420051431/http://www.coasttocoastam.com/photo/photo-of-the-day/43881 to http://www.coasttocoastam.com/photo/photo-of-the-day/43881

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ZECHARIA SITCHIN.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinions

Where is Sitchen’s education? All his years of study? People he studied under? Why include people that try make a name for themselves trying to invalidate his work before you show his work, we don’t need your bias just facts in an orderly fashion.

Have you read the Bible? Lost Book of Enki which is thousand of years older than the Epic of Gilgamesh, Book of Enoch, how about any recent publicized discoveries by NASA validating the planets and Sitchen’s data?

Come Facts please. His daughter is still alive and it would be easy to at least get the basics.

Thank you Margaret P. Clarke, M.B.A. 17:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attackgirl (talk • contribs)

His daughter wouldn't be a reliable source. We need reliable sources. Serendi^podous 18:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Attackgirl: he has a degree in economics. He became a journalist. In the books of his I have read he uses sources I have also read which contradict what he wrote. I was told by a Professor who teaches Sumerian to undergraduates that he would be embarrassed if any of his students so badly misunderstood Sumerian. NASA has never validated his work and you won't find a NASA source that says it did.Doug Weller talk 19:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Proof is the point not rhetoric and hearsay

I’m aware of his education and years of validated study, papers etc the point is his daughter is live and can provide the documented proof. You are also incorrect about NASA. Margaret P. Clarke, M.B.A. 22:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attackgirl (talk • contribs)

Example

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/hypothetical-planet-x/in-depth/ Margaret P. Clarke, M.B.A. 22:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attackgirl (talk • contribs)

An example of what? Planet Nine already has its own article. Serendi^podous 23:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

mate sitchin made claims about planet TWELVE. any discoveries on planet 9, planet 10, etc. dont effect his claims validity. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)