Talk:Nibiru cataclysm/Archive 3

Planet X

The subsection called Planet X ends with a statement "Today astronomers accept that Planet X does not exist." The source for this is a book published in 2000. I think this needs to be updated as my understanding is that since then, and especially since Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet status and the launch of New Horizons, that there has been plenty of people in the astronomy community suggesting that many Planet Xes, even ones as large as earth, may be in the Kuiper Belt or beyond, awaiting discovery. None of this supports directly the main subject matter of the article, but considering this is a Good Article I think anything that might be outdated should be revisited. These days a 15-year-old source (using data presumably from the 1990s) has to be called into question when a blanket statement like that is made. WP:BOLD almost compels me to make the change myself however the GA status means flagging it here is the best option. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. The problem with bringing the new ideas into this page is that it may confuse people who don't understand the science into thinking that scientists believe Nibiru exists. This concept is so amorphous it just picks up names from everywhere, whether they have anything to do with the idea or not, and the new "planet X"es, even though they would never get anywhere near Earth, would be just more fuel on the fire. The statement, as is, is literally true: astronomers the world over accept that Planet X, the planet that Percival Lowell was searching for, does not exist. Other planets may be proposed, and may be called "Planet X" but they are not, technically, Planet X. Serendi ^pod ous 12:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no planet-mass object within 150 AU (2.2×10¹⁰ km; 1.4×10¹⁰ mi) of the Sun, thus near-Earth Nibiru claims are rubbish. An Earth-mass object 200AU from the Sun will not cause discrepancies in the orbits of Uranus or Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am reading way too much into this, but it seems to me that jettisoning an older reference in favor of a more recent one implies that it has only recently "discovered" that this Nibiru does not exist. Maybe retain several references? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V838 Mon

The image of V838 Monocerotis at the top of the article is unhelpful and potentially misleading. Placing the image so prominently seems to lend undue weight to the very conspiracy theories this page is meant to debunk (WP:WEIGHT).

For one thing, I fail to see the logic in illustrating a page about a fictional event with an image of a real object that is emphatically not the subject of the article. It seems arbitrary, like putting a picture of George Washington at the top of an article on the Illuminati—after all, I'm sure that somebody somewhere has made the case that he was one of them. Reading the caption, of course we are told that ~~"some have presented the image as evidence"~~ pictures of V838 Mon "have been presented by some as photographic evidence" of Nibiru, which is really not helpful. Who have presented them? ~~it?~~ In what context? The answer that the stilted language of the caption attempts to evade is: ignorant people on fringe conspiracy websites. Oh, and by the way, it isn't. Therefore, we're stuck again with a problem of undue weight given to extreme minority views. Why should a reader coming to this topic for the first time care that some misinformed nut thought that was a picture of a mythical planet? Following the source link, one has to scroll to nearly the bottom of the page to even find a mention of this connection, and even then there is no image displayed.

There is already a more informative graphic showing V838 Mon in the section on Conspiracy theories, which gives the image some context. I move to strike the large featured image. It does not fulfil a useful purpose in the article. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw particular attention to the section on due and undue weight in the WP:NPOV guideline which states, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." This image and its caption unfortunately do just that—the only accurate description one could attach to the image in this context would be, "This is NOT a picture of Nibiru". And if that's the case, what is it doing there? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this from WP:FRINGE: "When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear [...] A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." I'm afraid that the lovely image of V838 Monocerotis in its current placement at the head of the article fails these conditions. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another point related to the lack of prominence given to the V838 Mon/Nibiru connection by the source cited (David Morrison. "The Myth of Nibiru and the End of the World in 2012". Skepical Enquirer.), The only similar image returned by a Google image search for "Nibiru" is the one on this page! So the idea would appear to be in the minority even among the minority. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are WAY overthinking this dude. It's just a fricking picture. A picture that is succinctly and legibly captioned to explain its relationship with the article. No one who looks at this page for more than five seconds is going to be confused or conclude that that picture is meant to represent Nibiru. Quite the opposite. If they read the very obvious caption, they will learn that said oft-reproduced image is in fact NOT of Nibiru. Serendi ^pod ous 13:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most images of it are a lens flare, sun dog, the moon, Venus, Jupiter, etc. At least V838 Mon was one of the better marketing gimmicks. -- Kheider (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: it's just "a fricking picture". So it's not needed, and getting rid of it should be no big deal. ~~But there's no evidence that "said oft-reproduced image" is oft-reproduced anywhere but in this article.~~ As noted above, "most [purported] pictures of it" are not this one, but "a lens flare, Sun dog, the Moon, Venus, Jupiter, etc." And the caption does not explain its relationship to the article nor say explicitly that the image is not of Nibiru, only that it is a star that "has been presented as" evidence of Nibiru, as if that were a reasonable conclusion. No mention that it's a kooky fringe theory. The contention that "no one" who looks briefly at the article could come away with a mistaken conclusion is flawed; some people just look at the pictures and skim the lead section. Not everyone is brilliant or educated.. The caption is misleading and incomplete; the picture is largely irrelevant to the article and serves no useful purpose. I move to delete it. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's another problem when talking about "images of it [Nibiru]"; namely, that there are no images of it—because Nibiru does not exist. So why this article needs "a fricking picture" next to the title in the first place is beyond me. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an image of V838 Mon may be "oft-reproduced" elsewhere is irrelevant to this article; as explained at WP:AUDIENCE, it is possible that the reader knows nothing about either subject, and the juxtaposition of this image with the concept of Nibiru can easily be misleading to some readers. It may have been a good "marketing gimmick" and it may not; I haven't come across any sources giving that impression. Who are the "some" who claim it to be "photographic evidence" of Nibiru? The only connection seems to be one conspiracy website, greatdreams.com, mentioned in a single e-mail to "Ask an Astrobiologist". And they used a different, smaller and blurrier, pair of images. The image as used in this article is telling a story that isn't true, on multiple levels. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only readers to whom this could possibly be misleading are readers who don't actually read the article. If all they do is look at the title and the image, then yeah, that might be confusing. But if they look at literally anything else, they will not be confused. This article needs a lead image because it is a Good Article, and Good Articles need lead images. If you can come up with a better one, please let us know. Serendi ^pod ous 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to start expanding the article again?

There seems to be an upsurge in Nibiru/Planet X related activity on the web right now, with some speculating it could come in December. But why this particular prediction has caught fire as opposed to all the others I have no idea. Serendi ^pod ous 02:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best reliable source I've found seems to be this article in the Telegraph but it's so vague I don't really know what to say about it. Serendi ^pod ous 16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

This is why I will not donate to Wikipedia. They deleted Lee Rodgers who was a San Francisco Bay Area radio legend, apparently he was not known, They Deleted John Lear, yet leave this crap in. Wikipedia should start giving out degrees in the Pseudosciences, start a new university. Better yet, move over Scientology a new religion is in town. Sorry I have a headache the 19.5 Torsion field is upsetting the force.

Nibiru promoters do not care about science. They care about listeners, sponsors, and money. There will always be idiots promoting Nibiru to make a buck. -- Kheider (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lady believes this. i also think she suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. an implanted device is classic paranoid delusion. her mind will warp itself around anything to maintain its fixed delusions about nibiru, etc. she will always sound convincing, even to a trained BS detector. Others are likely all simpletons or charlatans.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:F9A6:4510:3DA9:22E0 (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X

Although it's fine to mention Lieder in connection with it, any sources relating to Planet X should mention Nibiru. This isn't the place for a discussion of anything called Planet X. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would render our pool of available sources to blogs or other similar pages, which wouldn't have the detail or authority to cover the material properly. All references to Planet X as Nibiru refer to Nibiru. Sources just referring to Planet X and its history do not need to mention Nibiru. Serendi ^pod ous 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nibiru cataclysm. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/198/planet_waves.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers
Corrected formatting/usage for http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

past collisions with planet Nibiru

I believe evidences of past collisions inside the solar system with Nibiru should be given in this article. As History will repeat itself. --Ne0 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nibiru is rubbish. In the early Solar System there were ~50 planets in the Solar System. Most were ejected and many collided forming the major planets. Planet on Planet collisions have not occurred for billions of years in the Solar System. Since Jupiter was the first planet to form, it prevented the asteroid belt from forming into a planet. -- Kheider (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tiamat

Thank you for bringing up discussion. Next time, post here before reverting. If you do not post here, how do I know doing so will make any difference?

There are several issues wrong with your additions.

1. Nibiru's formation has nothing to do with this article. It belongs, like all material related to Sitchin and his work, in Zecharia Sitchin's article, where it already is. This article isn't about Nibiru. It has nothing to do with Nibiru. Sitchin himself publicly stated that this had nothing to do with Nibiru. The object this article discusses wasn't even initially called Nibiru. It was called Planet X. People only started calling it Nibiru after they noticed the similarity.

2. Your edits appear to be advocating for the object's existence, which is POV-pushing, and does not belong in any Wikipedia article anywhere. It does not help that you are citing primary, rather than secondary sources. Serendi ^pod ous 06:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am only giving evidences of probable past collisions with Nibiru, not personal opinion. As per Sitchin translation of Enûma Eliš, Sumerian goddess known as Tiamat refers to a hypothetical planet between Mars and Jupiter, that was destroyed by Nibiru, creating the asteroid belt. According to NASA, there are evidences of violent collisions in our Solar System, in the past. If you do have any evidence against planetary collisions in our Solar System, please show me.

This article is now called Nibiru, not Planet X. So it should be about Niburu. --Ne0 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ne0. Thanks for showing up here. Now, please be patient and see what others think. If there is no consensus for inclusion, they content must stay out. Please do not revert at the article until this is resolved. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Nibiru. It is about a completely different object that happens to be called Nibiru. If Sitchin himself unequivocally stated that this object is not his Nibiru, why are you bringing his work into the article? Serendi ^pod ous 07:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

his Nibiru, my Nibiru ? To my Knowledge, there is only one Nibiru/Nebiru, the one in Akkadian Language, the one Sitchin wrote about. If you know of another scripture claiming a different Nibiru, please show me. And this is an article about the cataclysm(s) brought by this planet. --Ne0 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. It is about the delusion of a woman in Wisconsin. The fact that she linked her delusion to Sitchin and Nibiru has nothing to do with either. Serendi ^pod ous 08:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the text where this "woman in Wisconsin" linked her "delusion" to the Nibiru of Akkadian language. --Ne0 (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "Nibiru of the Akkadian language" have to do with this? The Babylonians used the term "Nibiru" to refer to any planet that crossed the point of the equinox. It was Sitchin, and only Sitchin, who defined Nibiru as a specific planet. Serendi ^pod ous 08:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nibiru only refers to a very bright planet(imagine a comet with 11 times the mass of earth):

Quote: Nibiru is Marduk's star which the gods in heaven caused to be visible. --Ne0 (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not a bright planet. Quote: "If Mercury (MULUDU.IDIM.GU4) divides the sky and stands there, [its name] is Nibiru." Mercury is NOT bright. And if Nibiru is Mercury, it cannot be a planet in its own right. Serendi ^pod ous 09:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divides the sky = has a tail dividing the sky. As per your quote, if Mercury had a tail dividing the sky, it would be Nibiru. But Mercury does not have a tail dividing the sky, hence it is not Nibiru.--Ne0 (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is original research. You're the one claiming a comet. There is nothing in the quotes to suggest a comet. That's not even Sitchin's interpretation; that's just your interpretation. Serendi ^pod ous 09:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason Nibiru is known/symbolized in Sumeria & Egypt as a horned disk/winged disk/Winged Sun. It is the "wings" of Nibiru that ´divides the sky´. --Ne0 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitchin didn't understand Sumerian - he wrote about his own personal interpretation of the text - his Nibiru is his invention. It doesn't belong in this article, except perhaps for Sitchin's denial. #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Google sky coordinates for Nibiru: 5 h 42m 21.0s 22° 36′ 45.7″~~ --Ne0 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Whoops sorry, my mistake. just found out it is GN 05.39.2 --Ne0 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're joking or want to be taken seriously. Either way, Wikipedia isn't a blog to post your pet theories. There's plenty room on the Internet for that sort of thing. But not here. Serendi ^pod ous 15:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of the Nibiru theory has been missed out. This whole article is trying to push the POV that Nibiru dosen't exist.

According to Bode's Law,[1] a planet should exist between Mars and Jupiter, some 260 million miles from the Sun, where the Asteroid belt is.
According to Enuma Elish, Tablet VII[2]:

"He who forced his way through the midst of Tiamat without resting,
Let his name be Nibiru, 'the Seizer of the Midst'! For the stars of heaven he upheld the paths, He shepherded all the gods like sheep!
He conquered Tiamat, he troubled and ended her life."

According to Zecharia Sitchin,[3] Sumerian goddess known as Tiamat refers to the hypothetical planet Phaeton between Mars and Jupiter, that was destroyed by Nibiru, creating the asteroid belt.
According to an email to John McCain,[4] Nibiru brings Pole Shift

As such, this article does NOT meet the standards of WP:NPOV --Ne0 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to change the article title?

When I named this article five years ago, "Nibiru" was WAY ahead of "Planet X" in terms of common use for the name of this topic; now, probably thanks to Planet Nine, they're about the same. Since "Planet X" was what this object was originally called, and the "Nibiru" name appears to be causing confusion (see above), maybe it's time to change it. Serendi ^pod ous 08:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit. I do not understand how Google works any more. Serendi ^pod ous 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect?

That line about Robert S Harrington being murdered was on this page for nearly a month. And no one noticed it. Not even me. I think I'm gonna be sick. Is it time to semi-protect? Serendi ^pod ous 23:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but does no one care about this article except me? I don't particularly want to be the Internet's sole guardian of rationality on this topic. I have other things to do. If I can't get it semi-protected (and it seems I can't) then I would appreciate knowing someone else had my back. Serendi ^pod ous 13:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you start pushing a POV on an article, people stop caring about that article.

The origins of the Nibiru theory has been left out of this article. This whole article is trying to push the POV that Nibiru dosen't exist.

According to Bode's Law,[5] a planet should exist between Mars and Jupiter, some 260 million miles from the Sun, where the Asteroid belt is.
According to Enuma Elish, Tablet VII[6]:

"He who forced his way through the midst of Tiamat without resting,
Let his name be Nibiru, 'the Seizer of the Midst'! For the stars of heaven he upheld the paths, He shepherded all the gods like sheep!
He conquered Tiamat, he troubled and ended her life."

According to Zecharia Sitchin,[7] Sumerian goddess known as Tiamat refers to the hypothetical planet Phaeton between Mars and Jupiter, that was destroyed by Nibiru, creating the asteroid belt.
According to an email to John McCain,[8] Nibiru brings Pole Shift

As such, this article does NOT meet the standards of WP:NPOV --Ne0 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. This isn't the section to talk about this.
2. No one has ever suggested that Nibiru is between Mars and Jupiter.
3. I could send an email to John Mccain. I could send an email to the Pope. It doesn't make what I have to say any more credible.
4. Sitchin himself did not believe in Nancy Lieder's "Nibiru". So connecting his work to this particular idea is not appropriate.

Serendi ^pod ous 09:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bode's Law is not a law. It is just some numerical pattern that probably has not real effect underneath. And Sitchin's method is invalid. New planets are not discovered by reading ancient texts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job removing that Harrington conspiracy stuff. You are not the only one but I thought you are already doing it here I do not need to. I have a few hundred other articles about crackpot subjects on my watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

telling the truth isnt POV pushing. POV pushing is what sitchin did Clone commando sev (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

communications device

Actually Nancy Lieder claims that it is Zetan genetic material[9]. Should the article be edited accordingly? Suggestion, to update it to "Zetan genetic material as a communications device"? I'm a debunker of her ideas, to debunk it though, you need to be accurate in your presentation of what she says. Robert Walker (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary? It's still a communications device, regardless of what it's made of. Serendi ^pod ous 13:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Meade is a pen name

It might be worth mentioning that "David Meade" is a pen-name. He says so himself[10]. Nobody knows really who he is or anything about him except what he claims himself, with no way of verifying any of it. The Washington Post tried to find out more but couldn't turn up anything definite[11]. I don't think they realized that "David Meade" was a pen name though, as they don't say so in the story, and it seems that they tried to find information about him under that name. Even though he says so clearly himself, not many seem to have picked up on that. Robert Walker (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that he would post a photo of himself then. Unless that isn't him. Not sure if we can cite that particular page. Serendi ^pod ous 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what we can do with this information in the article. I suspect that we probably cannot really do anything with it, since he goes by David Meade in all his public statements and writings. Thanks for sharing, though! --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

This edit request to Nibiru cataclysm has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

5.102.84.62 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big News - Planet X/Nibiru And Theory Are Banished

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Ammarpad (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, the quote with reference #117 has incorrect punctuation: The quotation marks surrounding the word “Nibiru” should be single quotes since it is within another quote. 165.91.13.236 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank-you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nibiru cataclysm. 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/20110807113832/http://planet-x.150m.com/washpost.html to http://planet-x.150m.com/washpost.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

This edit request to Nibiru cataclysm has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Category:Fictional rogue planets, Category:Rogue planets in fiction, Category:Internet hoaxes, Category:Mythological objects

I think it's safe to put these categories in this article. There has been non-Nibiru believers and NASA like me saying that it's a fictional planet, it's a hoax, and it's a myth. This theory has been debunked several times that the planet doesn't exist and several dates passed without any collision (like September 23rd, 2017 for example). Even NASA said Nibiru is a hoax. Btw, I believe this planet doesn't exist. Lovely Girl7 18:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiction" and "hoax" both imply that the person writing the story knew it wasn't real. Now I have little or no doubt that for many (not all) of those peddling this idea, that is a fitting description. But such accusations need to be tested in a court of law before they can be safely placed here. Serendi ^podous 19:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As most of people profiting off of Nibiru know it is BS, I believe Category:Internet hoaxes is appropriate. -- Kheider (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: @Kheider: Not only do people say Nibiru a hoax, people also say it’s a myth. This source for example says that Nibiru is a myth as well: [12]. This was associated with the so-called 2012 apocalypse. It can also be fictional as well. I also found sources saying that Nibiru is also fictional ([13], [14]). I think it’s safe to put these other 3 categories in the article. If sources like say that Nibiru is also fictional and a myth, I think these other categories seem appropriate as well. — Lovely Girl7 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever called this insanity a myth has no idea what a myth is. Calling it a myth is giving it too much credit, and indeed could play into the hands of the believers. Serendi ^podous 23:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: A myth is a traditional story and it can be a fairy tale, folk tale, etc. I agree with that part. Mythological stuff however doesn’t exist in real life. A myth can even mean a popular belief or tradition (Nibiru is popular for date setters and false prophets and YouTube fear porn users). A myth can mean imaginary too. It can even mean a false belief. I mean, a lot of idiot false prophets and YouTube fear porn users are obsessed with Nibiru, despite the fact it doesn’t exist. Are you sure these people have no idea what their talking about or wrong when they call Nibiru a myth? — LovelyGirl7 talk 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are describing is folklore. A myth is a story about how the world came to be. It involves a god, gods, or, at minimum, someone associated with said god or gods. That they may or may not be true doesn't stop a few billion people in the world from believing in them. Serendi ^podous 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: so then it doesn’t fit under Category:Fictional rogue planets and Category:Rogue planets in fiction? Nibiru is a fictional planet and hoax that only exists on YouTube university. I think these 2 categories are good fit for this article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not by my definition of fiction. Fiction is a contract between the author and the reader signifying that both understand the story being told isn't true. If there is disingenuousness on either end then the contract is broken and it ceases to be fiction. Harry Potter is fiction; JK Rowling has never argued that the wizarding world is real. On the other hand, the guy who faked Hitler's diaries wasn't writing fiction; he was lying. To say otherwise lets him off the hook. And while I perfectly understand the desire to label everyone involved in this story with the same brush, this... kerfuffle has the added wrinkle of a sizeable portion of promoters who either sincerely believe it to be true or are engaged in monumental cognitive dissonance. To them, this isn't fiction either. Serendi ^podous 01:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Serendipodous that it is not "fiction" because there are people who actually believe in it and fiction always refers to a story that no one believes. Whether it is a "myth" depends entirely on which definition of the word "myth" you are using. By common parlance, it is indeed a "myth" because the word is commonly used to refer to something that people believe that is not true. By an academic definition, however, Nibiru is not a myth at all, since the academic definition of a "myth" is a story that holds religious or defining cultural significance, which may or may not necessarily be false. For instance, by an academic definition, the Pilgrims landing in Massachusetts could be classified as a "myth" for most Americans, even though it really happened, because it is a story that has been imbued with defining cultural significance. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Meade

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do you guys think my David Meade article I created looks so far? I know it needs a lot of work but I just would like to know what you think about the article. LovelyGirl7 talk 21:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LovelyGirl7. It looks like you've put in quite a bit of work there. You may want to consider posting at a place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism if you're looking for general input from interested editors. You pay also want to review our Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and if you think you've gotten the article to the point where it meets those standards, you can consider nominating it for a comprehensive review. GMG ^talk 15:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: thank you. However, I don't think it meets GA. I've read the criteria and it hasn't met their criteria just yet. I think it meets C-class more than GA. Not to mention now that it's on C-class, B-class is next then GA. I still got more to do on the article. --LovelyGirl7 talk 16:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just as a note, they don't necessarily have to go exactly in order. I believe my last GA went from stub class straight to GA, just because no one bothered to update the assessment in the mean time. GMG ^talk 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Do you think C-Class seems accurate for my article? I think it does. It is IMO not ready for B-Class or GA —LovelyGirl7 talk 19:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly LovelyGirl7, the classes between stub and GA are comparatively meaningless, and vary wildly depending on who is doing the assessment. There's even been some talk about getting rid of them all together for exactly that reason, although nothing definitive has come of it yet. It's only at GA and FA that you really start to get a strictly systematized public review process. I wouldn't stress about it that much. But I do recommend you at some point try for a GA and an FA. It really improves your writing, or at least it did mine. GMG ^talk 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GreenMeansGo: I actually am the one who will rate the article, based on how the article looks and how people think about it. --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Meade peer review

I created a peer review for David Meade here if anyone wants to give some feedback there. --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Meade

I appreciate all the recent work, but this article currently gives more page space to David Meade than it does to Nancy Lieder. I think we need to refocus it. Serendi ^podous 16:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

This edit request to Nibiru cataclysm has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Although the name "Nibiru" is derived from the works of the ancient astronaut writer Zecharia Sitchin and his interpretations of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology, he denied any connection between his work and various claims of a coming apocalypse.

Take out Babylonian as it is only a Country not a culture instead have this for the line.

EDIT: Although the name "Nibiru" is derived from the works of the ancient astronaut writer Zecharia Sitchin and his interpretations of Akkadian and Sumerian mythology, he denied any connection between his work and various claims of a coming apocalypse. Mr HuberSci (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr HuberSci: we have an article on Babylonian religion which has a section on Babylonian mythology. "Babylonian mythology" is discussed in a wide variety of academic sources, including the Oxford Companion to World Mythology. [15] So thank you very much for your interest, and I hope you will stay and become a regular editor, but in this case we can't do that. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nibiru cataclysm. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X section

Hi, I'm a science blogger who frequently debunks Nibiru on the basis of the astronomy, and helps people who are scared of Nibiru by PM. They are sometimes even suicidal in their fear of this mythical planet.

So anyway - I've expanded the Planet X section by including more details - the Nibiru conspiracy folk have a whole false narrative involving IRAS finding Nibiru, then Robert Harrington hypothesizing it and then murdered for his discovery as a cover up (he actually died of throat cancer) and they claim that the planets are not following their expected orbits but that this is being ignored by the astronomers or covered up.

So I thought it was important to go into a bit more detail in this section and explain exactly how the whole thing happened. I also find that many think that Planet Nine is deviating the orbits of objects in our solar system in a noticeable way. If it exists, it is not, it is only a hypothesis to explain how the TNOs got into their orbits in the first place, not their current orbits.

Also I've added an astronomical paragraph to the intro too. The lede is meant to be a stand alone mini article on its own so that if the reader reads only the lede they get a good idea of the subject already. The previous version just said that astronomers call it pseudo science and said no more on that and expanded on the details of the conspiracy theory which I thought was unbalanced. I've added a paragraph summarizing the main points so the reader understands why the astronomers reject this hypothesis, and yet continue to search for planets beyond Neptune, a source of much confusion in this topic area for 'Nibiru' believers. Robert Walker (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is now half the conspiracy and half debunking astronomy so seems a reasonable balance to me. Robert Walker (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've left a massive mess, with a lot of uncited sentences. If you want that material to stay, you're going to have to cite it. Serendi ^podous 10:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is the paragraph which you removed. Why? What in this needs citations? It is summarizing things said later in the same article. I can provide citations for anything you need citations for in it. If it is just the last two sentences - why didn't you just add citations needed tags? I was going to add citations to them.

"Astronomers also would not hypothesize an orbit like that of Niburu because it is not consistent with our solar system. A planet would remain in that orbit for at most a million years and the effects on the other planets of just one previous flyby of the inner solar system would be very noticeable and has not happened. Earth itself would no longer be in its current orbit and would be likely to lose its Moon after just one flyby that came close to Earth. A brown dwarf is even worse, such a heavy planet candidate would have destabilized the entire solar system billions of years ago. And any planet sized object would be an easy target for an amateur astronomer, well beyond Pluto, which nowadays is routinely observed with telescopes small enough to put in a car and take to a star party. The hypothetical Planets beyond Neptune are based instead on statistical anomalies in the orbits of various bodies in our solar system and are used to explain how the objects got into those orbits in the first place. The orbits of all these objects are normal and are as expected from the gravitational effects of the known planets."

Robert Walker (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a short intro to the main points in that paragraph watch this video which is one of the cites in the paragraph, by David Morrison, very distinguished astronomer and astrobiologist, who hosted NASA's "Ask an astrobiologist" for many years, who did a lot of work on finding asteroids that threaten Earth, and expert on asteroids and planets.

Nibiru Does Not Exist

Amongst other things, he covers the point about that the effect would be very noticeable after just one flyby, that Earth would probably lose its Moon, that a brown dwarf would make the whole thing far worse (that's his final point).

Also listen to him on this show hosted by SETI - he was director of the Carl Sagan institute at SETI through to 2014 Skeptic Check Nibiru Again

And read Phil Plait's article of "Bad Astronomy" fame. [16]

And ask me any questions you have. This is just the standard debunk of Nibiru by astronomers. Cutting it out of the lede without discussion is like censoring Nibiru debunking from the Nibiru cataclysm article. These are the reasons why astronomers know for sure it simply can't exist. It's not opinion. It's science and astronomy. And what I wrote in that paragraph is what the citations say. Robert Walker (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't yet added citations to the last two sentences when you deleted it. If it was restored I'd do that. Robert Walker (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a subject where there is any dispute or discussion amongst astronomers. Most have probably never heard of 'Nibiru' but those who do just find the whole idea LOL silly because of those reasons I explained. It is just not astronomy at all, it's like a bad script for a science fiction movie to the eyes of someone with a background in astronomy and I think the reader of the article deserves to know this. Robert Walker (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it; I trimmed it. A lot of the material is covered elsewhere in the article, particularly the "Scientific rejection" section, which is where I moved the trimmed paragraph. I am well aware of David Morrison; in fact he is something of a personal acquaintance- I have been working on this page for the better part of ten years, and he has been my main source of reliable information. But a reupload of a Youtube video on someone else's channel is not a reliable source. Besides, much of what he says is covered in other sources. And it's "Nibiru", not "Niburu". Serendi ^podous 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay but first I think it is important to have a proper scientific rejection in the lede. And I think it is better titled "Scientific rejection" than "scientific criticism".

I think it is important for the reader to know that the orbit is impossible and the reason why it is impossible. And the lede is meant to be a mini article in its own right and not a teaser for the rest of the article. So if the article itself has a rejection of Nibiru as impossible the lede needs a to have a rejection too, though it would be shorter of course. The reason I am not happy with the current lede as it is after you removed the last para as it does not explain clearly why it is impossible. Suggests astronomers don't think it exists because there are no gravitational anomalies. That's part of it true, we'd easily notice the effects of a big planet coming into our solar system becuase of the anomalies alone. But there's a lot more. We'd see it, very easily. And the other thing is that if it had had just just one previous flyby the solar system would not look like it does today.

I find that this is a telling point when explaining it to people who don't understand astronomy. They are far more persuaded by knowing that just one flyby which the Nibiru believers say actually happened after all at the time of the Sumerians - would mess up our solar system beyond recognition than by knowing that it couldn't survive as logn as a million years.

When you trimmed and moved the paragraph you removed that point. Which David Morrison makes clearly in the video. On the matter of the video not being a reliable source because of the channel it was uploaded to - it is David Morrison. You say you know him. So you can confirm from your own experience by his visual appearance and voice that it is indeed David Morrison. This makes it a reliable source. It doesn't matter where it is uploaded and as NASA material it would be a legal upload. So there is no problem linking to it. We could try searching through YouTube to see if there is a NASA upload of it if necessary but I don't see how it is. There's the SETI podcast too which I linked to which is on the SETI site, seti.org, which says the same things in more detail. But the YouTube video is a good one to use because he explains it all so clearly in few words so that nobody can doubt it. The SETI podcast is good too, but they need a bit more time to listen to it. Robert Walker (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With a video search, I've found a better source for the same Morrison Nibiru Debunking video - on the Washington Post website here: NASA scientist debunks Nibiru Robert Walker (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the line "The idea that a planet-sized object will collide with or closely pass by Earth in the near future is not supported by any scientific evidence and has been rejected by astronomers and planetary scientists as pseudoscience and an Internet hoax" ? Serendi ^podous 21:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is ok as a source so long as we use the original on the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute site[17]. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Okay great!

@Serendipodous: It's fine. It just doesn't go far enough. It's not just that it is not supported by any scientific evidence. It's also that such an orbit is impossible because after even one previous flyby the effects would be noticeable. The reader of the current sentence can say "Ah but just because they haven't found it yet doesn't mean it isn't there". But with the right astronomical background you totally know that it's impossible that any planet came through the inner solar system 3600 years ago. It does not make this clear.

The article correctly says that it is rejected by astronomers and that there is no evidence. It omits at least in the lede the addition that it is flatly impossible and that no astronomer would hypothesize an orbit or even contemplate it for a second because the effects would be obvious from the previous flyby. And it also doesn't present it in a way that the reader will understand. A lot of the ones who are scared of Nibiru think that all professional astronomers are in a conspiracy and lying to them, not understanding how many there are worldwide. So again they would look at that and say "Well they would say that wouldn't they".

I propose this as a simpler final paragraph. It takes the paragraph I wrote but trims it down to just the things that David Morrison says in that video and uses as sources his video + the SETI podcast and it also attributes it to him so it is in his name, not written in the name of wikipedia. I've left out the bit about Planet 9 etc being hypothesized based on statistical anomalies and the bit about it not lasting a million years which are covered later in the article but don't need to go into the lead.

"An orbit like that of Niburu is inconsistent with modern astronomy. David Morrison, NASA space scientist explains that after just one previous flyby of Earth, such as they claim happened in Sumerian times, Earth itself would no longer be in its current near circular orbit and would be likely to have lost its Moon. A brown dwarf has even worse effects, being much heavier. He also points out that it would be one of the brightest naked eye objects in the night sky months before a flyby. Everyone would see it

Robert Walker (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Any comments on my proposed final paragraph. I think at the least it should go into the scientific criticism section because that section also doens't make it clear that it is impossible to have had even one previous flyby by a planet. If there's no comment here I'll add it in - after giving time for a response of a few days :).

I think it should be in the lede too myself because it is an accurate summary of what David Morrison says, top expert on this topic - and it is the number one video I'd say of those that help people see through the Nibiru myth and realise for themselves that it is atronomically impossible. Not just rejected becasue they haven't found any anomalies, rejected because it is flat out impossible. This is not clear from the current lede. Robert Walker (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the lede is not to introduce information not included elsewhere in the article. Only the briefest summary is necessary. If you want to include specific facts, like the one I just deleted, include them in the "scientific rejection" section. Serendi ^podous 16:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course it would be in the scientific rejection section as well as the lede, and it could be expanded on there if there was interest in doing that. Anyway I can put it there yes. But - many people will only read the lede and not get to the scientific criticism section and they won't know that astronomers know it is impossible or why they say it is impossible. There is just so much nonsense said about Nibiru and the lede does not call it out clearly enough as total astronomical nonsense. You have Brian cox's tweet already,"If anyone else asks me about 'Nibiru' the imaginary bullshit planet I will slap them around their irrational heads with Newton's Principia." something like that might also do, or a quote from David Morrison from the video.

And add mention of the science criticism section to find out more, make it easier to find the criticism.

Or something. Something a bit more substantive so that they realize quite how absurd and impossible it is for astronomers. The general public do understand that astronomers think i tis impossible but the ones who have watched the YouTube vides claiming it exists do not realize quite how absurd it is for an astronomer and that's what I think needs to be conveyed somehow. The David Morrison short video is the one that best explains it of all the material on this topic that I know of, for the general public.

This comes from several years, most recently almost full time every day, answering PMs and comments on our Doomsday Debunked facebook group many of them about Nibiru, understanding how difficult it is for general publici without a geometrical or astronomical background to understand quite how absurd Nibiru is for astronomers - especially young children (who are often amongst the most scared) - you get them down to age 14 on Facebook. And when they first find us they are often terrified and verging on suicidal. Robert Walker (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I've merged it in and glad to see you changed the name to "Scientific Rejection" :). One minor point. Brown dwarfs are much heavier than planets. But not much larger. The heaviest brown dwarfs are not much larger than Jupiter as they get denser as they get heavier, just so happens - that starts from the size of Jupiter through to the size of the largest brown dwarfs that extra mass doesn't make that much difference to the size. A bit larger but not hugely so. Also they may be darker so they can end up being lower in brightness (when illuminated by a nearby star) than a large planet at the same location. It's on its way to being a small star but not quite dense enough for one. So in the merge I used the new text about a brown dwarf being much heavier rather than the existing text about it being much larger. Robert Walker (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Just to say I've had a read of the final paragraph of the lede coming abck after a break and it looks great. It gives a decent short summary. Hope it helps a few people who come here when the page comes up in searches for Nibiru. Robert Walker (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nibiru cataclysm is not a conspiracy theory

The idea that a giant planet is coming to crash into us is not a conspiracy theory. It's just crazy. The idea that NASA or any other government agency is trying to keep this a secret from us is, but that's not the same thing as the event itself. There is already a section in this article about the conspiracy theories tied to this idea. And it's not a hoax either, or at least, we can't prove it is. Many people involved in its propagation may be out for money, but many also genuinely believe what they are saying. Certainly Nancy Lieder does. Serendi ^podous 06:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

planet x hits earth in june

is this true? apparently it was posted somewhere today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:BF01:5201:515F:A11C:BF8C:D26E (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? June? These people have no shame. I admit it takes balls to make such an audacious claim about 40 days out from the deadline, and they must believe it because it doesn't leave them much time to profit from it, but still... Serendi ^podous 10:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Express a reliable source? I have no idea anymore. Serendi ^podous 10:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been fond of conspiracy theories for several years, such that it is often referred to as the 'Diana Express' , no... 86.138.55.177 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hoax

A user reverted my edit regarding the term "hoax" and suggested I discuss the change here first. "Hoax" implies a deliberate fabrication, rather than a genuine belief, and the word "pseudoscience" is sufficient to describe the views of astronomers and planetary scientists. Also, the first source (The Hunt For Planet X book) for this claim is unverified because it does not mention any widespread denial of the concept on the page cited. Theobvioushero (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kheider added that in 2015, pinging him to the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the pages about Nibiru are simply hoaxes to make a quick buck off the back of the venerable. Many astronomers do call it a hoax. -- Kheider (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which pages are you referring to? Theobvioushero (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the websites and youtube videos play whack-a-mole and come and go frequently. This was especially true around 2012. Luckily we have a NASA reference calling it the Hoax that it is. -- Kheider (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can say that it has been called a hoax by astronomers, so long as we remove the unverified source I mentioned, but it should not be called a "hoax" in the short description of the page if the article does not present any examples of intentional deceit. The term "Apocalyptic scenario," which reflects the description provided in the "about" section, would be a better short description of the page. Theobvioushero (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a multiple sources calling it a hoax. Many of the people promoted comet Elenin, comet ISON, and other notable objects as Nibiru/Planet X "fearporn" did so strictly for profit. That makes it a hoax. And just because you have not verified a source does not mean it can not be verified. I see no need for your changes. -- Kheider (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to verify it, but as of now, it is not a source for the information provided and should not be cited as such. You are also free to add information about people being intentionally deceitful, but as of now, there is no explanation of this in the article. The description doesn't match what is in the article. Theobvioushero (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Edit

I removed the phrase "which contradicts conclusions reached by all credited scholars of Mesopotamian history," for not being supported by the sources, but the edit was reverted by a user who claimed it was. The sources do not say that "all credited scholars" dispute the concept; the first source only shows the argument of one scholar who disagrees with the concept, and the second source does not mention any scholars who deny this concept. Theobvioushero (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll reply tomorrow. ~~This should be at the bottom.~~ Doug Weller talk 19:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, misread the time stamps. I've fixed this so it says that Sitchin mistranslated Sumerian. He was self-taught by the way. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Although, I think there might be a word missing in the sentence now, as the adjective "Sumerian" isn't connected to anything. Is it supposed to say "faulty understanding of Sumerian 'texts/scholarship'"? Theobvioushero (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theobvioushero: yes, if you would edit it that way? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it to say "Sumerian beliefs" Theobvioushero (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theobvioushero: I’m sorry, but I think it needs to also be clear that experts in the language who have commented on him agree that his translations were wrong, so I think we need to specify the language as well. Ok! Doug Weller talk 20:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, would "faulty understanding of Sumerian texts" work? Theobvioushero (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Or “poor”. Doug Weller talk 21:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resurgence in 2022

There's plenty of people talking about Nibiru on Facebook, Twitter but I don't see anything regarding this

This is connected to the belief of a pole shift being pushed in 2022 BTW so there definitely should be additional coverage on this. 2603:7000:B700:3283:308D:7A0C:A41F:FC44 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pole shift? Again?

No matter how many times you save the world, it always manages to get back in jeopardy again. Sometimes I just want it to stay saved!

We cannot do anything unless reliable sources mention it. I could not find anything useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Google Trends is suggesting interest is lower than ever. Serendi ^podous 19:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Govert Schilling

I have removed (from the lede) a citation which failed verification of what is claimed in the sentence. In fact, here you can see it appears he is saying quite the opposite.Wjhonson (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.springer-3591af55-c6e0-313d-8033-636127b1c6ae