Talk:Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience/ge

Absolute Rubbish

This article is absolute rubbish. I don't know why schlock like this even deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. Are we to dedicate an article to every "New Age" doomsday prophecy out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.91.214 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, if this article goes, then all these planets end up in the real hypothetical planet article. Serendi^podous 07:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

real hypothetical planets may have some real basis. This article seems to have been written to legitimise the various doomsday prophets and new-age types. More and more scientists and teachers have to explain that these things are not truths. Let's dum this rubish 82.172.99.137 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Martin

If this article goes, then all of Sitchin's followers, all the Planet X doomsdayers, all the Mormons, astrologers and downright loonies who believe these planets exist will continuously add these planets to the hypothetical planet article, and there will be little means to prevent them, since "hypothetical" has a meaning outside of science. I tried it the other way, and this is the only way that works. Serendi^podous 15:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job too. I agree, this is the best way to handle the problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) Serendi^podous 15:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought this so-called "encyclopedia" was supposed to have a neutral point of view. The first paragraph of this article blows away that idea; as does the doggerel posted above. And what is with the constant use of "conspiracy theorists"? Are you also using the term "conincidence theorists" to put down people who think everything that happens is just a coincidence? No wonder Wikipedia is a laughingstock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.21.81 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that the people who believe in Serpo are not conspiracy theorists? Serendi^podous 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this article have ANY citations whatsoever? Especially since the LDS church as a rule doesn't believe any of that "thousand heavens" crap that gets passed around as rumors. That's lumped right in there with sacrificing chickens in the Temples. 68.186.76.36 (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention any thousand heavens. Serendi^podous 09:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article is an absolute rubbish, there's a clear difference between what is "hypothetical" and "astrological/scifi" celestial bodies. One of the best example is Lilith (designated since the 1910s), which I thought is supposed to be placed in hypothetical, but knowing the fact that Lilith has ended very much in the astrological side (despite its astronomical beginning), this article is actually the best place for Lilith. I think this article is the best solution for keeping the hypothetical planet article clear of this "Nibiru" stuffs these days.

I do think that the rest of the planets are rubbish though (as "rubbish" as the Discordian and Scientology holidays), but aside of these, well done on creating an article that could facilitate all these rubbish.;D--Rochelimit (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

Raffaele Bendandi

This source mentions that Raffaele Bendandi "claimed to have discovered a new planet in the solar system between Mercury and the Sun which he named Faenza, after his home town." Do we know any more about this claim, and should it be mentioned here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good find! Just needs another citation regarding how he came up with it or whether it was ever disproven. Serendi^podous 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the Telegraph article, I have not found a source for the suggestion that he "claimed to have discovered a new planet". The source given at the Italian article seems not to mention it either. If it should be mentioned at all, should it be at Vulcan (hypothetical planet) rather than in this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that without any context, there's not much reason to include it. If the only thing mentioned is that he thought he'd found one, that's not very notable on its own. Serendi^podous 10:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Structure of article

Would it not be better if the article was structured in chronological order of when these proposals emerged? So: Central Fire (BC), Smith (1830s), Lilith (1918), Hubbard (1950s), Ummo (1960s), Sitchin (1970s), Serpo (1980s?), Rizq (1990s?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronological or alphabetical, both are fine to me. Serendi^podous 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nibiru

Someone needs to add a section about Nibiru to this article as it is one of the more talked about crackpot pseudoplanets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is discussed, under "Planets proposed by Zecharia Sitchin". Serendi^podous 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

re-directed again

... to the newly created Pythagorean astronomical system --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rizq

According to the linked W article, York claims not to be a contactee, but to be from the planet Rizq.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Kolob

Don't know how to add a section to the main page: would Kolob not count?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Kolob was removed, if I remember correctly, because it's a star, not a planet. Serendi^podous 06:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

good point. Can unnamed planets be mentioned? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose so, if they can be sourced. Serendi^podous 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the Wikipedia entry for Kolob says it is a "star or planet". Does reference to another Wiki article count as referenced? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Autosourcing Wikipeida is not accepted, if only because Wikipedia changes all the time. Serendi^podous 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummo

this star is 3.68502 light-years of the Sun. This was consistent with the distance estimated in 1938, but after some additional measurements, the estimate was revised to 14.3 light-years. Fernando Sesma asked then the Ummites about this apparent mistake. The Ummites replied in another letter the same year that the first measurement is the real distance measured in the "three-dimensional framework" while the second is "the apparent distance traveled by light". One of the letters states that 3.68502 light-years "is the real distance in the decadimensional framework".--157.92.75.132 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)